BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Ontological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

I think my opponent and I are on the same page when it comes to that which constitutes what is modally possible. I was in error to conflate logical possibility with metaphysical possibility. It was not my intention to confuse matters but exactly the opposite. I was hoping to keep the language from getting overly confusing and burdensome to the readers. I meant the term to be generally inclusive rather than exclusive, so there was no attempt on my part to avoid metaphysical possibility.It is Possible That God ExistsThe proof that this first premise constitutes a metaphysical possibility is found in the notion of a maximally great being. If such a being exists, it exists necessarily in a metaphysical sense. This is what it means to be maximally great. If I say God is an epistemic possibility, i.e., it is possible God exists or possible he doesn't exist, then I have just described a contingent being that would clearly be less than maximally great. To say it another way, metaphysical possibility is a greater quality than epistemic possibility.We are left with the concept of a being that is either possible or impossible. The only way to determine possibility at this point is to rule out impossibility, but falsifying this premise is not the job of Pro. I did not come to argue against myself. That's why I initially opened the door for refutation in my opening round. I know of many objections against the coherence of a maximally great being, but I do not see why I must anticipate all of them.As it stands, the coherence of a maximally great being is not disputed and therefore a maximally great being is not impossible. Thus, it is metaphysically possible and the first premise stands.ConclusionMy opponent's only objection thus far was that I did not substantiate the first premise. I had assumed the concept of a maximally great being made it self-evident that I was working within the purview of metaphysical possibility. I think I have now satisfied this burden and look forward to a refutation from my opponent.With the first premise defended and the validity of the ontological argument no longer in dispute, it seems reasonable thus far to view the resolution as affirmed.
The Ontological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

RulesMy opponent will present any one version of the Ontological Argument and try to prove the existence of God. If he/she succeeds then he/she wins the debate. If I sufficiently undermine the argument to the point where my opponent has not established God's existence with the version of the argument chosen, then I win the debate. The first round is for Pro's opening argument. Additionally, in order to ensure that we get the same amount of rounds, in the last round, Pro must simply only put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."
Gays should have the same rights as everyone else

Thank you for your arguments, it seems you have made 2 points on Gay rights, and how they differ from heterosexuals.1. blood donations2. partner authority over death wishesRebuttals:1. Giving blood is not a right given to citizens. It is a choice. Blood donation centers are not govermnet officiated, meaning the rights of citizen unforunately do not apply. This point does not affect the rights of straight vs. gay.2. This is essentially a point advocating gay marriage equality. This is giving extra rights to homosexuals. EVERYONE has a right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Heterosexual marriage has a number of rights including advocating the death wishes of your heterosexual marriage partner. If a homosexual declines to marry someone of the opposite sex, they are in turn forfeiting the same right everyone has. In asking for homosexual marriage, The gay community is actually asking for a different right. So Gay people have the EXACT same rights as straight people.
Gays should have the same rights as everyone else

I'm glad you have joined this debate Domr. There are many rights that many homosexuals do not have. And many of them are medical and government related things. one of them include blood donation. Lets say a homosexual is going to a blood drive and they wish to help give blood donations. When they take the survey for the blood donation there is a question which then asks if the donor is a homosexual or has been active in any homosexual behavior. After the questions are answered and the survey is reviewed the nurse will tell the donor he/she cannot participate in the blood donation because of the following question that was answered. Another right that homosexuals do not have is partners have virtually no right to impact how death wishes are carried out which means they can even be over turned by the family despite a clear will. These can include custody decisions, funeral arrangements and real estate ownership decisions. There are many other rights that includes gay marriage that I could speak of but for the sake of making this shirt and sweet I won't go into all of the rights that heterosexual people have verse the rights homosexuals have. I would like to conclude my statement by saying this isn't all about who cares about who more this is about fairness and equality between sexual orientation. I'd like to thank you again for debating this topic with me. This his my first time on debate.org and I'm enjoying it already.
Gays should have the same rights as everyone else

Pro must affirm that "Gays should have the same rights as everyone else". (I am assuming heterosexual's is what Pro is referring to. )I also strongly assume we are speaking of the rights of straight or gay citizens in the US. (Religion is not a matter of rights per the separation of church and state, so I ask to keep your arguments regarding the lawful rights of citizens. )I will leave most the the majority of the opening arguments up to Pro, but I must ask you to answer one question in your opening round. What rights do Heterosexual US citizens have contrary to those rights of a Homosexual US citizen? Thank you, and good luck.
Gays should have the same rights as everyone else

I believe that all people gay, straight,lesbian,blue,purple it doesn't matter everyone should have the same rights and opportunities others have. This is because gay people are treated differently in many communities like the straight and religious communities. They always argue that homosexual people are not normal because they simply can not procreate. While this is true there are many straight people who can't procreate either, so because those people can't reproduce they should be treated less than of a heterosexual person. This should not be true.
Should fairy tales be encouraged for today"s children

I think fairy tales should be encouraged for today's children. Fairy tales exists because they are used as a moral compass for children worldwide as they grow up, and that alone is enough argument to show that fairy tales do more good than harm, but I won't stop there. According to the Scottish Book Trust that fairy tales are beneficial for one's childhood due to the following reasons: 1. They enhance imagination 2. They teach us right from wrong 3. They develop critical thinking skills 4. They learn how to deal with emotions I agree with all the statements the Scottish Book Trust has put out since using our imagination is becoming more scarce (especially for our children) in these day and age due to the influx of technology being released. Right and wrong maybe taught by parents alone but when parents uses role models for children, they are taught faster-this can be seen with celebrities who are cited as role models. Children also needs their critical thinking skills taught because schools are now rejecting the idea of teaching a certain curriculum and grading their students based on their reaction to the curriculum, and now are heading towards grading and teaching students in using their critical thinking skills. Last, they learn how to deal with emotions. Children can be inept during these years and fairy tales is a wonderful medium in dealing with their emotions better.
Should fairy tales be encouraged for today"s children

I would like to point out that my adversary in this debate, disregarded my arguments and my credible citations and despite this being the last round failed to make his/her conclusions. Also, he/she used huffingtonpost as his/her credibility despite it having low credibility and is a blog. My arguments were all research and studies made by experts in the study while his/her is a blog post. I would like to make the conclusion at this round and say that I stand by what I said that fairy tales are good for you children due to the arguments I presented above. I do admit that what con is saying could be true seeing that most fairy tales do have a questionable realities but the studies still show that fairy tales despite all the negatives in fairy tales are still a good medium for teaching children worldwide. That is all.
Should fairy tales be encouraged for today"s children

https://m.huffpost.com... This article states that today we censor our children"s stories so they do not see the suffering that happens in life. That just makes fairytales more unrealistic since the princess always lives happily ever after and ends there we never know if she stays happy. My source also states that fairytales get rid of the suffering that happens to all people. And they give the idea to young people that they will live happily after finding a prince or princess instead of telling them that things like hardwork or ressilance could make them happy. These points made in my source only further emphasize the negativity of fairytales towards children today in books and this can be seen in many Disney movies to.
Should fairy tales be encouraged for today"s children

I am not stating that fairy tales have to be responsible in all of these things. I have said that fairy tales is a wonderful medium in dealing with their emotions better, meaning that I don't solely put the responsibility in fairy tales, I am stating that they are wonderful tools in teaching your children the statements I said above. I would like to point out that my adversary in this debate stated that "most fairy tales were written years ago in times different from today", which is wrong considering those fairy tales you said that are written years ago are mostly fairy tales created by the Grimm Brothers. The fairy tales that are being taught to children today are those created by Disney and the likes. These fairy tales have been modified thoroughly to fit today's day and age right and wrong, therefore fairy tales are useful in telling right from wrong. You also stated that "imagination can be enhanced through art and games of make believe" which is wrong. Littlethings.com and Factscompany.com stated that 75% of children under the age of 8 years uses mobile devices in playing games and making art. This is alarming considering the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health says that this is bad and has potential permanent damage in children's development. Back to Con.
Should fairy tales be encouraged for today"s children

Children can learn critical thinking skills through problem solving which can be done in there everyday lives. Right from wrong can be learned best from modern times since most fairytales were written years ago in times different from today. Imigainatoion can be enhanced through art and games of make believe. Children can learn overtime how to deal with emotions and parents can help them learn this to. Fairytales don"t have to be responsible for all of these things.
The Umbrella Academy could defeat the Minute Men.

Ok. first, Ill say my Minute Men. 1: Nite Owl II: FIrst, here's a site for him. http://watchmen.wikia.com... Nite Owl II may not be the strongest of the Minute men, but he is overflowing with weapons and magic to make up for it. He looks like Batman (who's a bada$$). He has everything themed to his animal of choice, The OWL. He has owl shaped weapons, owl shaped costume, an owl shaped flying ship called the "Owlship", what's not cool about him? He is also very smart. He and Silk Spectre II were able to successfuly break out Rorschach from prison, and the plans and everything were his idea. He's got owl swag, he is smart, and looks like Batman. What's not to like?2: Silk Spectre II: http://watchmen.wikia.com...Ok, so first of all, i must point out the most obvious point on how she's awesome: She's hot. Just look..... ok, not too much, you perverts. But looks aside, she is a powerful aset to the Minute Men. She is strong (though not as strong as the others), knows karate, takes gymnastics, and has a natural high speed. Now, ONTO MY OPPONENT:Ill assume that this battle is in New York.First of all, KRAKEN. He IS very strong, very tallented with knives, and is able to hold his breath for a long amount of time. Unfortunately, water isn't going to help him much, considering that very few areas of NY contain water. And, he alone would probably do more damage to his own team rather than than the Minute Men. After the break-up of the team, he still continued to fight crime, but looked down at everyone else, expecially Rumor, just because he settled down to have a family. He pulled of his mother's cloak during a funeral, which causes lots of anger towards him by his fellow members. He would cause everyone on his own team to hate him and want to kill him more than the minute men.Now, onto SPACEBOY. He is incredibally strong and has a gorilla body, has a jetpack, and is handy with a laser pistol. Sure he's strong, and has a jetpack, but against the Owlship? He doesn't stand a chance! The Owlship will mow him over with the numerous chain guns attached to it. Easy prey.Silk Spectre and Nite Owl are a very good combo. I chose these two because they work very well together. They bust Norsharch out of prison, and in the Watchmen movie, they save a lot of innocent people from a burning building. Pretty bada$$. Now Kraken and Spaceboy, the two my opponent picked, have an ongoing feud amongst eachother. My opponent chose poorly. Silk and Owl would beat them easily merely because of the lack of teamwork and communication that Space and Kraken would show. Spaceboy has tried to kill Kraken several times and only the fellow Umbrella members could hold him back from finishing him off. Spaceboy is also best in the air, while Kraken is best in the water. Not a good combo.Info for the Umbrella Academy found on here: http://www.comicvine.com...
The Umbrella Academy could defeat the Minute Men.

"LOOK MA, I'M STARTIN' A DEBATE. Yup, it's a comic-book hero showdown between Alan Moore's Minute Men of "Watchmen" and the Umbrella Academy from the comic book of the same name by Gerard Way. The respective line-ups are as follows: Minute Men: 1. Edward Blake, AKA- The Comedian. 2: Dr. John Osterman, AKA-Dr. Manhattan 3: Daniel Dreiberg, AKA- Nite Owl II 4: Adrian Veidt, AKA Ozymandias. 5: Walter Joseph Kovacs, AKA- Rorschach. 6: Laurie Juspeczyk, AKA- Silk Spectre II. Spectators who are unfamiler with this team can follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org... Umbrella Academy: 1: Luther Hargreeves, AKA- Spaceboy. 2: Diego Hargreeves, AKA- Kraken. 3: Allison Hargreeves, AKA- The Rumour. 4: Klaus Hargreeves, AKA- Seance. 5: 00.05 (Name Unknown) AKA- The Boy. 6: Vanya Hargreeves, AKA- White Violin. Again, spectators who are unfamiliar with this team can follow the link bellow: http://en.wikipedia.org... Since he is deceased in continuity and little is known about him, Ben Hargreeves (AKA- The Horror) is being discounted. Basically it's an all out brawl. Due to tachyon interference and the loss of Number 5's long range time traveling capabilities, neither teams have any prior knowlege or experience of the other, they pretty much just meet in a deserted replica of earth, in a neutral, pocket dimension and told to go at it. Note that this debate centres on the powers and abilities of the characters rather than the quality of the series themselves. Some knowlege of both teams preferred, particuarly the Minute Men, or at least be able to accsess information about both teams. My opponant should have read at least ONE of either series. They may state their case first and can decide whether to make it team against team, or a series of duels. Good luck, and may the best team win!
Evolutionism vs Creationism

My opponent appears to have created quite the conundrum. .. STRAW MENThere seems to have been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line. My opponent claims that she isn't trying to assert Creationism as BETTER than Evolution, but that she is asserting Creationism as EQUAL to Evolution. Pro accuses me of setting up straw men, but throughout this entire debate, she has been asserting that Creationism is a better theory than Evolution philosophically speaking:" I just wanted to show how fragile evolution is with a theological approach ""there are philosophical theories as valid or more than the scientific ones""Evolutionism vs Creationism" (title of debate is structured in a way that implies a competition between the two ideologies)"a bunch of kids learning about [Evolution] for the first time weren't satisfied with the lame answer that was provided and knew there was more to it than just that. Were they right? Absolutely. "" if science claimed that organisms evolve only through random mutations, philosophy may try to disprove this too, based, for instances, on the ludicrous chance of that to happen. "All of the above quotes show that it is not me misrepresenting Pro's argument, but Pro that is either consciously or unconsciously changing her debating approach. REBUTTALS"The Evolution theory should be taught as a theory in progress, that is still being studied and developed. "It is. .. that' s how all science is taught. "When you learn atoms in chemistry, you learn almost every theory, since ancient Greece, which were purposed to represent it, despite the fact that they have already been disregarded by the scientific community. "This analogy seems to prove my side more than it does Pro's. .. By comparing Creationism to the false, outdated atomic model of Democritus, Pro implies that Creationism is similarly outdated and false. " I'm completely in favor of science and evolution. He [Con] was so blinded by the title "Evolutionism vs Creationism", that he completely failed to understand that it is his stand that I've been mocking and complaining since the start. "I'm not sure what kind of prank my opponent is trying to pull here. This entire debate she's been praising the virtues of philosophy/theology and criticizing science, and now she's suddenly a scientist? Pro also started to go off on a tangent about on a tangent about how "the scientific field is not absolute" and how "science is very far from being able to answer to all our questions and problems", but. ..1) all qualified scientists already know that2) none of that implies that we should turn to unsubstantiated philosophy in order to fill in the gaps of a field which is clearly in the realm of science. CONCLUSION"My opponent's conclusions are also irrelevant, because they are all about proving evolution over creationism. "That was the entire point of the debate, until Pro changed the resolution last round. .. She went from supporting Creationism, to differentiating them into two totally unrelated fields, to calling them both equally valid theories, to saying that she's is full support of Evolution. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to that.
Evolutionism vs Creationism

OCCAM'S RAZORLet's start by introducing the principle known Occam's Razor, which states that when presented with two valid explanations for an occurrence, we must accept the one with the least assumptions [1].This is a law of logic and cannot be denied.Now, Pro argues through analogies, that just because the evidence we have proves a certain theory, it does not mean that we can assume the theory to be true, since the evidence could be manufactured.However, the idea that all evidence was manufactured is a HUGE assumption!Evolution has MUCH less assumption involved, as it follows exactly what the evidence suggests.Thus, by Occam's Razor, we must accept Evolution as the better explanation for the development of life on Earth."THEOLOGICAL THEORIES"Pro also seems to think that she doesn't need to present scientific evidence for Creationism, simply because Creationism isn't scientific in nature. According to her, it is a "theological theory".However, theological theories are for theology class, not science class, which is where Creationists want their ideology to be taught. Pro claims that the development of life on Earth is better explained by theology/philosophy rather than science, however, Pro provides NO basis for this assertion, and so it is invalid.PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUTION"the gaps of the 'finished' theory of evolution, in macro and microsystems, genetics, epigenetics, etc."Is the continual search for knowledge something bad?It is a hell lot better than ignoring evidence and using logical fallacy to believe in a 4000 year old book!"they waste their time trying to prove evolution over and over again. Which is useless, because of the subjectivity and relativity of our reality."That "subjectivity and relativity" can just as easily apply to Creationism."At least 10 children in my class of ninth graders didn't buy it, a bunch of kids learning about it for the first time weren't satisfied with the lame answer that was provided and knew there was more to it than just that. Were they right? Absolutely."And do the opinions of random kids matter? Absolutely NOT.Just because the explanation doesn't feel "fulfilling" does not matter at all."This ignorant, dogmatic, hypocrite belief is not science, but is basically what we learn in school about evolution and are expected to be satisfied with it."It was proven THOROUGHLY before making its way into schools. Pro hasn't done anything to disprove Evolution other than state her own opinion and use logical fallacy.CONCLUSION-- According to Occam's Razor, Evolution is more logically valid than Creationism.-- Pro's distinction of the two into separate schools of thought ensures that Creationism cannot be taught in science classes-- There are no problems with theory of Evolution aside from Pro's own personal dislike for it.-- Science is and always will be a work in progress, but that only adds to its validity as an accurate means of searching for truth.Again, I STRONGLY urge Pro to abandon her empty arguments from "logic" and and use EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.SOURCE[1] http://math.ucr.edu...