BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Life does not have a satisfactory "meaning" under an atheist perspective.

------ My opponent claims that reproduction, or the production of life, can be the purpose of life. However, such a purpose is based in circular reasoning. The production of life cannot be a satisfactory purpose of life. My opponent claims that behavior that leads to reproduction can also be a purpose of life. The same logical deficiency is found here, as the only thing added to this terrible circular logic is another tier. The circle is still entirely round, as we live to talk to reproduce so that there can be more life. My opponent's third claim is that experiencing emotions could be a purpose of life. The logic of this claim is a little more complicated, but ultimately still flawed. However, this time, the flaw is not circular. To start the rebuttal of this point, I will quote the teachings of King Solomon of Israel. "The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. They have no further reward, nor are they remembered. Whatever they did in their lifetime - loving, hating, envying - is all gone. They no longer have a part in anything here on earth. " What I can conclude from this is that emotions are ultimately meaningless, as after long enough, they do not matter. I await my opponent to elaborate on this third point. -----------------------------------------------***********************-------------------------------------- What we do ultimately has no meaning in the universe. Our planet is but a small part of the universe. The definition of "purpose" is: -the reason for which something exists or is done . http://dictionary.reference.com... In order for life to have a "satisfactory meaning", it must have something that satisfyingly fulfills the reason for existence. Emotions, reproduction, and communication cannot be reasons for existing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reason that their can be no desirable purpose of life in the minds of atheists is the belief that life is an accident. Accidents have no purpose.
Life does not have a satisfactory "meaning" under an atheist perspective.

I accept the definitions for the words "meaning" and "satisfactory", and I shall base my arguments around that. I will only make a short list of reasons why life does indeed have meaning from an atheist perspective, and then go into detail later on. My list is as follows: 1. Reproduction As with any living entity, from amoebas to mosquitoes to elephants, we meant to reproduce. Our survival as a species depends on reproduction, hence why we have such complex organs designed very specifically for that purpose. Once humans stop mating, humans stop existing. 2. Societal Humans are by nature very social creatures. This is due to furthering our own reproduction again, but as well it is for co-operation so other humans can, you guessed it, reproduce. Our society is meant to be comprehensive and close, either so we can ourselves reproduce (by showing how good we can provide for our mates and children), and so we can help others reproduce (altruism is based off of this; to help someone live is to help them reproduce and continue our species). 3. Emotion and Experience. We all have emotions. Our emotions are designed to structure our responses to other members of our species, and in the end of course, to reproduce. But I won't argue on this point about reproduction. Since we all have these emotions, is that not enough to live our lives? We all feel love, anger, passion, hate, happiness and sadness. Just being able to feel these emotions is something worth living for. Experiencing the world at large, with its open expanses and many peoples, is enough to live for. The human experience is literally just that, experience. I will explain later on why just experiences and the emotions they cause are satisfactory reasons to live our lives.
Life does not have a satisfactory "meaning" under an atheist perspective.

Meaning here means "purpose", as in the phrase, "The meaning of life". Satisfactory- giving or affording satisfaction; fulfilling all demands or requirements http://dictionary.reference.com... I contend that life has no purpose and that their is no motivation to live from an atheist perspective. I will allow my opponent to go first so that he/she may present a few potential purposes of life to be debated.
Adobe Photoshop Battle

Ok so here is my first person dying picture:http://www.debate.org...and here is my food label. "Pepsi DOUBLE CAFFEINE" read the nutrition facts for lulzhttp://www.debate.org...my challenge to you!get the picture of a famous person, and put a quote next to them that makes no sense and is funny.Ex: A picture of Alexander the Great with "Yo dude, order me a big mac" in quotation marks.
Adobe Photoshop Battle

Due to a large amount of tests I have this week I was not able to give this picture my full effort, but I think it came out pretty well.Its a picture of paris. Varoius buildings are smoking, as well as a bridge on the river Seine. You can clearly see the building in the foreground has been hit by an explosion and is partially collapsed (sorry its a tad blurry) the planes are taking anti aircraft fire, and the iconic eiffel tower has been nearly decapitated and is on fire.http://www.debate.org...My challenge to you for round 3, (after this round is complete and you show your modern day ruined city) is a first person view of being killed in any fashion you'd like.
Adobe Photoshop Battle

Ok so this is what I have done. Made a response image to Rockylightning's image as requested it is in my album called "Photo shop" here is the link to it http://www.debate.org... I have done this buy using photos from Google image search. I am using CS3 My challenge for my opponent is to make a ruined modern day city. images used ( I have run out of characters I cant send the other links) http://www.google.com.au...
Adobe Photoshop Battle

Here are the images. I can show resources images and explain what I have done to anyone who is interested or wants to know how to do something in Photo Shop. From scratch with no material Photo shop challenge http://www.debate.org... The first inspirational series thing http://www.debate.org... The second inspirational series thing http://www.debate.org... I would like to thank my opponent for issuing this challenge I will hope that I see many more like it. Also seeing that my opponent gave me a tribute I guess I should do the same. (I apologize for its flimsiness in the engraving effect but its 3:14AM here and I just can't be bothered with too much effort at this point. It's the thought that counts.) http://www.debate.org...
Adobe Photoshop Battle

Its been fun SirLego.Here's my random picture from my previous challenge.http://www.debate.org...Here's my creative picture from your challenge:http://www.debate.org...Really trippy color smoke.NOW MY CHALLENGE TO YOU: Create an inspiring image (or set).Mine is a set of images chronicaling the journey to mars.Takeoff: http://www.debate.org...Horizon: http://www.debate.org...Landing: http://www.debate.org...Notice the time stamps and camera inputoutput stuff.Here's my salute to Sirlego and this debate: *cue video* http://www.youtube.com...;
Adobe Photoshop Battle

first of all here are the photos forgot to link last time. caption thing (this was a terrible demonstration of Photoshop skill all you need to do is select the text tool) http://www.debate.org... product thing http://www.debate.org... Both of these sadly where rushed. and here is the funny random picture from your last challenge http://www.debate.org... and here is my creative one sadly I could not really think of anything creative and then at that point I was sick off it and had like 6 different things half made.In the end i went with the easiest http://www.debate.org... Now for my challenge we must create anything we want in Photoshop but we must not use ANY photos or other images. We must ONLY use the Photoshop program anything else no internet no word no gimp nothing ONLY Photoshop can be used. In fairness I will allow brushes to be made and fonts to downloade
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1I

We must keep in mind that it has only been in this round where he has added the terms "known religion. " To avoid turning this into a "the instigator wasn't clear, thus has to pay for his/her lack of clarity" debate, I shall agree and accept that he did in fact mean a god of an already known religion. However, this does not help him at all. . http://en.wikipedia.org... As this page clearly dictates, there are in fact known religions (even sects of what can be constituted as mainstream religions; ironically, there are sects of the three religions CON list during this round which embrace pantheism or uphold pantheistic elements) which embrace pantheism. Since that is the case, I have met the instigators terms, hence allowing you ample motivation to dismiss his objections to my case. With that said, let us remember that this debate is about determining whether or not the arguments in favor of this god are valid and not whether or not the entirety of the religions themselves are valid. In terms of Peyton Manning or Barack Obama, I shall agree with my opponent that they do not adhere to his terms when noting the "religious" clarification on "any specific god. " [color=green][b]RE: Argument for Pantheism vs. Definitions [/b] [/color] I boasted that my first premise couldn't be refuted unless my opponent objectively demonstrated that the pantheistic rendering of what constituted as a god was false. My opponent instead opts to argue that I simply haven't met his parameters, but as you can see above, I clearly have. (Though I might tinker with this idea of pantheism being metaphysical in the next round, should I get the chance). [b]Conclusion[/b] As you can see, I have clearly met CON's parameters. Pantheism is indeed supported by many sects of many different religions. His only option as of now is to do as I've requested and demonstrate that my definition of god is objectively false or demonstrate that my argument is false. Either way, I look forward to the next round. As for becoming a simple battle of definitions, I beg to differ. This is a debate is rather an opportunity to explore waters which are not usually explored and argue on whether or not there is even a objective understanding of "god" in the first place. My opponent is an atheist, thus is not a pantheist. Since he isn't a pantheist, this should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate pantheism as being a false position. Seeing as I've abided by his parameters, this is the only thing he can do. With all that said, I'll play one card face down and end my turn.
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1I

Unfortunately, it seems my opponent has resorted to jumping on the supposed opporutnity to "argue in favor of the existence of any 'god' which [he] chooses. " He seems to believe this is so when I offered that my opponent can affirm the existence of a god of an already known religion (Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc. ) or a god he so defines. However, I didn't put it so blank as that - I specifically stated that it should be a METAPHYSICAL SUPREME BEING. Sure, it should read "metaphysically supreme being", but I really doubt that simple error in grammar tense was the cause of the confusion. So how is my opponent's argument in err? By simply looking in depth at the definitions: Metaphysical[1] is something of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses, otherwise known as supernatural. This is a definition with specific limits in which we can judge the existence of god or not. Obviously, Peyton Manning and/or Barack Obama are not metaphysical. On the other hand, the definition of supreme is much more relative, and I concede that it's definition is shaky. However, the definition of being[2] is the quality or state of having existence, something that can definitely be judged. That being said, how does my opponent's argument fare? ==================== Argument for Pantheism vs. Definitions ==================== My opponent boasts that his first premise can't be refuted, but to the contrary it is the most flawed. As stated before, if my opponent want's to argue for a god with specific characteristics, one of it's characteristics has to be the state of being metaphysical - otherwise known as being supernatural. So can whatever caused the development of the universe be considered metaphysical? The answer is NO. Supernatural is of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe[3]. So by definition, the cause can't be supernatural since it has been observed (in the scientific sense), namely the Big Bang. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Sure, perhaps I should change my words around slightly. Supreme is a relative word that probably should be done away with. 'Being' is a broad term, and perhaps 'entity' can suit much better for the purposes of this debate. However, metaphysical has been clearly grounded, and my opponent's argument is logically contradictory to this statement. The universe and whatever caused it to develop BY DEFINITION can't be supernatural. It's sad to see that this debate has become a simple battle of definitions, but alas this is what my opponent has brought upon himself. ---References--- 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1I

NOTE: I shall be using the tags (hence the html here) found on this thread: http://www.debate.org... Greetings and many thanks for starting this debate. I wish my opponent the best of luck and request that the audience vote on which side presented a more compelling argument. With that said, let us proceed. [b][color=red] 1) Background [/color][/b] Unfortunately for my opponent, he has placed himself at a grave disadvantage through allowing me to argue in favor of the existence of any "god" which I choose. The problem is that there are [b]SO MANY[/b] different renderings of what it means to be a god, that I have many easy ways out of having to put too much thought into what I'm arguing and still come out on top. For instance, I could just as easily take the idea of god that translates to someone who is famous and recognized by many and insist that Peyton Manning is a god and that the proof of his existence can be found on Fox or WB every fall during most sunday or monday nights. The only out of this would be for my opponent to prove that there was one objective rendering of god . . . but in all honesty, there isn't. Some cultures consider the rain to be god, some consider kings or emperors to be gods and some consider humans to be gods, given their dominance of the planet. In essence, every idea of god is no more valid than the other. If PRO brings up the need for "official" definitions, I shall argue that Peyton Manning and/or Barack Obama is considered a god based on one of the definitions provided by oxford dictionary. 2)[b][color=blue] Argumentation [/color][/b] For now though, I'll stick to a more known idea (at least by the average member on this website) of what a god is and argue in favor of pantheism. The argument is simple: 1) Whatever is responsible for the development of the known universe is to be considered god. 2) Evidence points to the creation of the universe having occurred as an effect from itself (in other words, created itself, via big bang) 3) Therefore, evidence suggest that the known universe is god. 4) The known universe exist. 5) Therefore, evidence points to god existing. I'll be more than happy to clarify on any of these premises if necessary. Keep in mind CON's statements from R1 as well as what I said in the background section. Because of this, premise number one cannot be challenged. The only way CON can win this debate is by finding a problem with premises 2-5 or prove that there is an objective definition of god (though it's doubtful that even he thinks this, or else he wouldn't have allowed me to have an unlimited number of options in this debate).
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1I

Note: the "1I" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes. [Definition - Existence] http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. the state or fact of existing; being. *NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY. [Definition - Valid] http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. sound; just; well-founded 2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. *NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). Let's try to avoid semantics, and get a good hearty debate going. Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not necessarily mean it exists. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is how the debate will play out: Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysical supreme being. If my opponent chooses to affirm a metaphysical supreme being, then he/she need to define it's properties (otherwise there will be nothing to debate). Then, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles). Try to not list too many, ranging from 1-3 is preferable. Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such. I hope we have a good debate!
The Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist.

I accept.Since this debate focuses on the Abrahamic God, I think it's prudent to describe him more accurately than FreeDictionary. The Westminster Confession of Faith [1] does a great job of consolidating the multitudinous descriptions found in scripture: There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. I will be specifically arguing that the Abrahamic God as described in Christian theology exists. So I will not be appealing to nor defending Jewish or Muslim doctrine. I hope I can provide the rigorous discussion Pro is hoping for. Sources http://www.reformed.org...
The Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist.

This has been debated a lot, I know, but I've never seen it debated well from either side (or at least as well as I believe I can debate from the one side, or as well as my opponent from the other). god (gd) n. 1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. [1] exï¿½ist (g-zst) intr.v. exï¿½istï¿½ed, exï¿½istï¿½ing, exï¿½ists 1. To have actual being; be real. [2] Abrahamic God being, of course, the God spoken of in the Torah (Old Testament), the Gospel (New Testament), and the Qur'an (Koran(Only thing I could think of to parenthesize)). First round for acceptance. Second for opening arguments. Third for first rebuttals. Fourth for second rebuttals and closing statements. I won't define any rules on etiquette because I'm sure the voters will be able to spot a dropped argument or uncited argument. I say "almost certainly" because it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything. God's existence is what would be called non-falsifiable. I will allow that we both have the burden of proof because, well, I'm a nice guy. Humble, too! [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...