BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does God Exist? Theism and Biblical Faith vs. Atheism and Agnosticism

I've got loads of debates on right now but I will challenge my opponent to a debate in the near future. In this debate, we've seen three principle defences of thiesm. Two of them - the origin of the universe and the existance of objective morality - have been throughly rebutted and ignored by my opponent in his summary round. I haven't spent much time on the third - the "wouldn't it be nice" factor. Wouldn't it be nice if God existed? All the problems of humanity could easily be solved just by reading one book? All the problems of science instantly solved? Our lives filled with contentment forever, even into an afterlife? I have to admit, of course it would! Unlike athiesm, theism literally promises everything, while athiesm promises nothing. On the surface, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows theism to be more attractive than athiesm. Sure, theism has a small number of costs (the cost of theism is decreasing, actually, now that tithing is becoming less popular with churches) but it has a lot more benefits! However, all the promises of theism are premised on the existance of God. They do not inform whether God exists or not, and all the promises, followers and testimony in the world does not make God true. The agnostic position is that we don't know whether God is true with a certainty. Unlike his assertion this round, my opponent said precisely this last round. By contrast, I have adopted a gnostic position. I showed, in several rounds, that the omnipotence paradox disproves God. My opponent has not, in any way, been able to refute that analysis, except by abandoning God in round four. Without God, theism is a blind faith. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with only one side that has made unrefuted arguments. Only one side that has immediately engaged with all of their opponent's case. Only one side that has properly cited their sources. Only one side that hasn't just appealed to the same, repetitive arguments and has actually been constructive throughout. Only one side has won this debate. I urge a negative vote.
Does God Exist? Theism and Biblical Faith vs. Atheism and Agnosticism

**OFF TOPIC: If copy and paste is a problem I certainly apologize for doing so I mean no disrespect to my OPP but I still have to do research to put together my argument. I do not have all the info memorized I am learning as I go that being said even if you re-phrase a sentence its still the same argument is it not ?** Christian-agnostic is only used for the properties of God As Duns Scotus put it, there is an infinite distance between being and non-being, and theism posits the origin of being by being, whereas atheism posits the origin of being from non-being. In our everyday experience everything has a beginning. Fact of the matter the laws of science show that everything has a beginning easy was to prove this is things come to an end. Look at our sun running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second. It cant last forever. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe. The Christian faith is not a blind faith it is a logically defensible faith(over Atheism). To say life is the result of dead matter and random chance alone leaves on in a confused state. With no central over arching theme that ties together all the problems of humanity. Theism solves them all does Christianity solve them all in one swoop. With atheism or materialism most of these problems are disconnected and require separate solutions. With God they are all resolved in the one simple answer of God's existence. This makes belief in God the simplest and most elegant solution because it resolves all of our most important questions at once. That offers a strong indication in a that God is the cause of all life. Thx to my OPP and our audience.... I look forward to another debate with my OPP on his terms this time.
Does God Exist? Theism and Biblical Faith vs. Atheism and Agnosticism

Alright, so I don't feel like I've been doing enough religious debates lately. Therefore I'm happy to accept this challenge. I'm going to need a definition for reality - "something that exists independently of any ideas concerning it. " In other words, to be a part of reality, God must not simply be real by virtue of any ideas about his nature (excuse me if I use the male pronoun for God, I know it's incorrect but it's a habit). For example, if I was to run the Descartes ontological argument ("God is omnipotent, one cannot be omnipotent and not exist, thus God must exist") then I would have to prove that God is omnipotent independant of any ideas or definitions we might have concerning God. With reference to my opponent's case, it will not be enough to say that God is the origin of the universe, or the source of morality, and thus must exist. They need to show why that is true independant of any ideas they might have about God, because otherwise God is no closer to matching the definition of being real. My case will be that the notion of "the greatest conceivable being" is internally self-contradictory, with reference to the omnipotence paradox. I will also rebut my opponent's two arguments, particulary #2, as that is a bit of a pet peeve of mine with religious thinkers.
Does God Exist? Theism and Biblical Faith vs. Atheism and Agnosticism

Does God Exist? Theism and Biblical Faith vs. Atheism and Agnosticism I will argue that God exist. .. .. I will have burden of proof. .. .. Definition of "god": The greatest conceivable being I am not claiming that I can prove that God exists with absolute certainty. Im just saying that on balance of evidence theism is more plausible than not. The argument I will be defending: 1. Origin of the universe 2. .. .. .. .. ..
It is morally permissible...

" There are at least three solutions to this scenario. One, is to inject him with 440000 cc's of morphine, which will kill him. Another is to not kill him. The third is to relieve his pain by injecting him with 440000 cc's of morphine. Under the principle of double effect, the first is wrong, because I intended to kill him, which is immoral. The second is right, because I had no bad intentions. The third is also right, because my intention to relieve him of his pain was good. The context of the first and third scenarios are the same, and they both kill innocents. The action is also acceptable and unacceptable. I win." A proof that your internal ethics contains contradictions is not a proof that reality contains a contradiction. It's just a proof you need to think harder. For one thing, if he doesn't value his life, who are you to do so? It's his life. The principle of double effect has never been proven, it was created by random assertion and declared dogma by people who believe women can have babies without the intervention of sperm. It is the kind of thing they would believe, that the only relevant factor is your intentions, all touchy-feely. Guess what. If I shoot you in the head, intending to relieve you of the fly on it, you are still dead, and unlike the patient, without your consent. Being robbed of life is a problem- a wrong. A huge wrong, compared to which the fly is insignificant. It is therefore an unmitigated wrong. Since morality is the pursuit of value (the ultimate value of course being one's own life), and destroying something one values (my status as a nonkiller of innocents, i.e., someone who innocents would be wise to respect the rights of in order to convince me to continue that status) in favor of something one values less (a bit of quick-vanishing gratitutude over ridding you of a fly), such a situation is immoral- not in accordance with the pursuit of life. Since such a situation results from double effect, double effect is immoral. Reality, against the ravings of the Church- take your pick. " Law of non-contradiction is not violated." This is a lie. You stated above that a thing was true, when it was also untrue. You therefore violate the law of non-contradiction, by definition. That's what the law of non-contradiction means- that a thing cannot be true and untrue.
It is morally permissible...

I affirm. The moral principle of double-effect is what justifies this. Imagine this: I am a doctor. My patient with terminal cancer comes up to me and says "I am in a ton of pain, could you euthanize me?" There are at least three solutions to this scenario. One, is to inject him with 440000 cc's of morphine, which will kill him. Another is to not kill him. The third is to relieve his pain by injecting him with 440000 cc's of morphine. Under the principle of double effect, the first is wrong, because I intended to kill him, which is immoral. The second is right, because I had no bad intentions. The third is also right, because my intention to relieve him of his pain was good. The context of the first and third scenarios are the same, and they both kill innocents. The action is also acceptable and unacceptable. I win. "It is immoral to violate one's word, given by accepting the terms of service, that one will not do this. I submit that if you perform as the resolution suggests as permissible, you are stating that there is no law of non-contradiction." False. See Principle of Double-Effect. "If the law of non-contradiction loses it's power in someone's mind because of your actions, the terrorists win, and you have violated your given word to debate.org, making you a filthy liar :)" Law of non-contradiction is not violated. I win.
It is morally permissible...

The resolution is: "It is morally permissible to use this site to non-satirically advocate that the killing of innocents is both acceptable and unacceptable in the same context." The following is agreed to by every debater on this site: " Will not use the Service in any way to provide material support or resources (or to conceal or disguise the source, location, nature, or ownership of material support or resources) to any organization designated by the U.S. government as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. P 1189." It is immoral to violate one's word, given by accepting the terms of service, that one will not do this. I submit that if you perform as the resolution suggests as permissible, you are stating that there is no law of non-contradiction. If you convince someone there is no law of non-contradiction, it is much harder for them to tell anything about the source, location, nature, or ownership of material support or resources to terrorist organizations so designated by the government, since they will be unable to use logical deduction, which depends on the law of non-contradiction (thus, you are acting to "conceal" such). If the law of non-contradiction loses it's power in someone's mind because of your actions, the terrorists win, and you have violated your given word to debate.org, making you a filthy liar :)
The Branch Theory

Theory : a coherent group of ( tested ) general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, That can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. Mathematics , a body of principles, theorems, or the like belonging to one subject. Number theory. Hypothesis : a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena. Conjecture to guide investigation. The branch hypothesis is not a theory. So I ain't for it. I like it but. I have no time so this is my argument. I will it explain why pros hypothesis can't be correct next round
The Branch Theory

Remember, this is just a theory, I am not saying any of this is true. My own theory is that there was a mega universe at one time and the sun in that universe became a super nova. Once it exploded it caused a big band that created several smaller universes. Then I think it goes on from there. Then eventually a universe exploded creating our universe. I do think there could be multiverses, like pages of a book one on top of the other; basically parallel universes. Of course there is no way to prove this theory, because it is a theory. I wonder if there is a name for this theory that I am describing.
Abortion is a legal right that EVERYONE deserves

I am proposing that abortion is a right that should be open to ALL. OK, rules of the debate: First round is a laying down of the rules and definitions, and 2nd is proposing arguments, and the last two are rebuttals. No appealing to emotions, you can argue ethically, but do not personalize it. EX. "How would you feel if your mom KILLED you!" Like previously stated, arguments can be ethical OR constitutional, you can argue about if abortion is right, OR about if it should be a right according to the constitution. Right now abortion is legal in all states until the start of the 2nd trimester, and after that it is up to the states' jurisdiction, (you can argue about state vs. federal decisions if you would like to) Like said, I am pro-choice, and I do agree with the way the laws are now, and hopefully someone pro-life will accept. I am really up for any argument about any aspect of abortions wrongness. Thanks! and hopefully we can have a good debate.
Abortion is a legal right that EVERYONE deserves

A common reasoning from some people as to why it's ok to abort fetuses is because it doesn't have feelings, doesn't think, isn't fully developed etc. My illustration for Tom Brady, is that we cant judge a child if he can't measure up to Tom Brady's expectations. We can't expect the 10 year old to be the same as TB because he isn't fully grown or fulfilled his potential. Likewise, you can't judge a fetuses worth on the things it can't do (think, emotions etc). You haven't given that baby the chance to do what it can do, likewise that child can't play at a NFL skill level, they both still are human and have worth. To address your comparison of criminals: No, we don't give criminals a second chance, because they committed a crime that they were aware they were committing. That fetus did nothing against the law, and like you even said, isn't aware of anything. I judge that fetus on its potential, and on what we all know will happen: it grows and develops into a conscious human being. We judge criminals and don't give them second chances because they knowingly broke a law. This is a very unfair comparison to our justice system and society where there are no second chances. I'm conservative, but that shouldn't impact this debate greatly. To address your numbers on crime, 16/24 is definitely the peak age of committing crimes. On a chart the crime rate does drop in correlation to the 1970 legalization of abortion. These may point towards Abortion, but there may be other factors. In the 80's is when the crack epidemic began. [1]. By 1990 the crack epidemic has been in full swing for many years, and lasted a few years into the 90's. This epidemic caused a rise in crime in the 80's [2]. By the time the 90's rolled around, when the peak age of crime would be happening of the abortions in the 70's, we see a decline in crime like you suggest. Since the epidemic had been going on, and we saw rise in crime in previous 5 years, the drop in '92 can be attributed to the extra arrests and crimes In late '80s. When the supposed Roe vs. Wade babies would be committing crimes, there was an extra amount of crime going on, which left the early 90's to its equilibrium. Rise of crime with crack in 80's=drop of crime plus drop of crack in early 90s. "The studies have also found a striking drop in crack use, particularly among young people, beginning about 1989, which may help account for the decline in violent crime since 1992." [2]. This accounts for much of the crime drop, but the abortions of the 70's did have to play at least some role as you say. Just because the crime may have been slightly reduced doesn't justify it. Judging those fetuses, then and now, on what there was a lack of in 90's isn't a rigid argument. 1. http://www.drugfreeworld.org... 2. http://www.nytimes.com... Rape and incest babies shouldn't be aborted. I'll expand later, I've run out of characters
Abortion is a legal right that EVERYONE deserves

Alright, fair enough, good argument, but you kind of lost me with the Tom Brady part, I do not see how anyone is comparing an unborn baby to Tom Brady. But otherwise, I applaud you. But the fault, to me, in your argument, is that you are basing your belief of the wrongness of abortion on the fact that you are metering the value of a baby on their potential. We do not judge criminals on their potential to build a new life, we just punish them, sometimes for life. You are fine with judging the value of something that has no feelings, no thought, and no self-worth on their potential, but we live in a system in which no second chances are given. OK, so that segment of my argument is open for you to argue against, and I based it partly on my belief that you may be a conservative? Am I right in that assumption? But here goes my section of my argument with statistics that you can not refute. OK, lets agree that the age at which most crimes are committed is about 16-24 [1]. I challenge you to look at any chart of U.S crime rate and tell me that there is no correlation between a crime drop, and the effect of the absence of the the criminals. Simplified, look at the crime rate during the period from 1990-1998, that is 16-24 years after abortion was legalized, and you will notice that the people who would be committing the crimes, just aren't there. So we've established that there is a correlation between abortion and crime drop, but there are other benefits to it. But before we talk about this any further, I have realized that we have not agreed on the type of abortion we are talking about, if you could, please in your next post say your standings on rape and incest, two circumstances that the laws are a little bit more relaxed on. Those are two aspects I need to know before I argue anymore. [1] http://www.aic.gov.au...
Abortion is a legal right that EVERYONE deserves

My argument against abortion will be from an ethical standpoint. No one should have the legal right to abort a fetus. My reasoning for this is that it is the unlawful killing of human being. If we look at the dictionary, murder is the "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." The definition of killing is the "act of causing death." Obviously we can all agree that abortion is killing fetuses, but the gray area is whether or not that is lawful or not (murder) and if that fetus should be labeled life. Obviously that fetus can't live out in the world by itself. Despite that, It is still alive. Let's look at the definition of life. "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." The fetus is certainly alive as it has organic matter, and has the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity and change before its eventual death. Are these fetuses human? "A man, woman, or child of the species Homo spins, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." If we took apart a fetuses DNA, we would see it's a homo sapien and it is distinguished by its developement that it is currently undergoing. Ok, so far we've established that a fetus is living, it is human, and that killing is causing death, so thus abortion is killing a human. We haven't quite established that this killing is murder (unlawful) yet. People deduct that since it can't live on its own, it doesn't have any rights to life. That fetus has just as much potential as any other human being that is alive. The brain is not fully developed until it is 30-40 years old. [1]. Take a five year old for example. Although theoretically it can survive on its own, it is still developing to its full potential. Since it is still dependent on its parents, and isn't completely developed, then we should be able to abort its life, correct? No! That fetus has the same potential a 5 year old has, a 10 year old has, or a college graduate has. That fetus has the potential to do the same thing as Bill Gates, or anyone that is alive, it's just not at that point yet. For us to expect a fetus to live up to our expectations of a fully functioning human is unfair. It is a scary fault in logic to be honest. Humans have the capacity for change up to its preceding death. That fetus is changing and developing to the same thing as everyone else. If an NFL team signed a 10 year old to play QB for the super bowl, and lost because of that, it would be unfair to blame it on the kid. We all know that the kid can't live up to NFL expectations. That Kid shouldn't undergo the same criticism Tom Brady should endure, because that kid Isn't as developed as Brady. Likewise that fetus isn't as developed as a born child, so we shouldn't hold it to the standard of life it isn't capable of holding. [1] (phys.org).
Abortion is a legal right that EVERYONE deserves

Alright, first of all I'd like to preface this with the fact that when I said EVERYONE deserves the right to an abortion, I mean men too. By this I mean that men should have the right to decide WITH the mother, on whether or not an abortion should be performed. This of course is implying that the father is willing to be with the mother the whole time. By all means, if the father is convicted or leaves the mother, the woman has complete rights to make the decision on whether to have the procedure. I DID NOT mean that men would have the procedure on themselves, just that they should, if they want to, have a say in whether or not they will take the kid, put them up for adoption, or go through with the abortion. Now that that is out of the way, I would like to say, I would like to keep the ruling of Roe V. Wade the same, although many people, both conservatives and liberals, are interested in shutting down abortion clinics and passing laws to make it illegal. Preferably more rights would be given, but with a Republican controlled Senate and House, I doubt that will happen. Ethically, I think life should be defined as when the fetus can live outside of the womb, or, Viability as it is more appropriately called. Therefore, "killing" to me can only be defined as when a fetus has above a 75% chance to live outside of the womb. That threshold is passed at 26 weeks, or 6-7 months. That's into the 3rd Trimester! So, like I said before, The laws are already very relaxed, and nobody should complain about not having enough strictness on the topic of abortion, as the laws are already benefiting the people who are pro-life.