BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: God Exists

Common sense dictated that any event having 2 likely prerequisites, the one most probable is on BOP correct. The odds of a life sustaining body to develope in the universe by random chance are 1 in 10 to the power 282 (or a million followed by 23 trillions) www. reasons. org/articles/Probability-for-life-on-earth And this is just for the earth to exist. Considering that odds of life evolving to what we see today being random are also astranomical. To all intents and purposes its impossible for life to exist due to just random occurances which leaves only 1 other possibilty. Design. The design shows signs of intelligence, therefore intelligent design. Lets call this designer God. Now what are the odds God exist? Considering the fact that we have no proof for or against the existance of God, the odds are 1 in 2. Now I'm no betting man, but that is about as close to a sure thing as one can get. What many struggle with are the seeming contradictions attributed to such a being. Well what proof is there that we are the subject of creation? For all we know, God loves flowers. We are but a byproduct of evolution. Manure to feed the plants. And do you really believe we are capable of understanding the concept of a supreme being outside our limited perceptions? Can a dog know the moral implications of slavery as it lies contentedly at its masters feet? To believe we can is arrogance. I have a theory. I'm in no way saying its true but it gives me peace. What could an eternal, allpowerful, sentient being want? The only thing my limited intellect could come up with is companionship. Obviously God could create copies. But that would just be talking to himself. This/these companion/s would have to develope independantly of God to have his/their own views and opinions. Therefore apart from creating the universe God needs to remove himself completely from the situation and hope we dnt destroy ourselves. We have a long way to go and it saddens me that I won't be around when God reveals himself, but I take solace in the fact that I am part of the team building humanity to its ultimate conclusion. Godhood. Here I rest my case. Good luck Con.
Resolved: God Exists

Forwarded to Furyan5. There is a minimum Elo requirement of 2,500 to vote on this debate. This debate shall follow a 7 point voting system. There shall be 4 rounds of debate, each with a character limit of 10,000 (which is the DDO maximum). 72 hours are given to each debater to post an argument. Full ResolutionGod ExistsBoP lies with Pro. DefinitionsGod - "... the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, sentient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." [1]Exists - "has physical, objective reality or being." [2] Rules1. The debate structure is given below. 2. No forfeiture. 3. No trolling, lawyering or critiques/kritiks of the topic. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: Pro's caseRound 2: Con presents case and rebuts Pro's case, Pro refutes and defendsRound 3: Con refutes and defends, Pro refutes, defends and concludesRound 4: Con refutes, defends and concludes, Pro waivesSources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
Astral Projection can be Defended by the Bible

Astral Projection: "the act of separating the astral body (spirit or consciousness) from the physical body and its journey into the universe. "[1] Bible: "The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by about 40 authors, in three different languages, on three different continents, and over approximately 1600 years. " [2][1] - . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] - . http://carm.org...
We should introduce a 'fat tax'

"We need to look beyond blaming individuals and towards the structural things in our society. Are we okay with junk food being cheaper and easier to buy than good quality food?' says Dr Comans, from the Centre for Applied Health Economics.- http://www.news.com.au... Some fats can be healthy and benefit your body such as the fats in nuts. They are a good source of protien and can include the omega-6 fat linoleic acid (LA), the short chain omega-3 fat alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), and the long chain omega-3 fats eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA) according to http://www.nutsforlife.com.au....I can conclude that our economy will survive whilst thrive if we introduce the 'fat tax' worldwide. Obesity is a major issue in the world and will only increase if we don't take action. We need to get progress on decreasing this issue imediately! Yes 2/3 of Australians are overwieght, however that is still very bad. 'Fat tax' is a brilliant idea, lets adress this now so we won't have to later!
We should introduce a 'fat tax'

In a study published in 2015 by the US journal of Economics and Human Biology, obesity is found to have the largest impact on Austrailian adult men aged over 75, and women aged between 60-74. When you say that 63% of Austrailians are "obese", what you mean is 63% are "overweight". In 2007, the World Health Organization (WHO) found that 67.4% of Australian adults are overweight. To be overweight a person must have a BMI of more than 25. Only 18% actually fall into the "obese" category where people have a BMI of at least 30. [1]. Most people at least in the major countries are overweight, see below However, being overweight can extend your life expectancy rather than shorten it. Having a body mass index (BMI) of between 30 and 35 (medically termed ‘obese’) causes more deaths, but having a BMI of 25 - 29 (grade 1 obesity) can slightly rise life expectancy as opposed to normal weight individuals, though it doesn't mean they will be happier. The point I'm making is, weight problems affect the minority and not the majority, so introducing a fat tax will be unfair, and will have a greater impact on poorer people than richer people.[3] The Danish were the first to introduce a fat tax and the first to abolish it! Black market activity and cross-border shopping were encouraged as a result of fat taxes. When people travel further for cheaper items, they will be likely to travel by car than walk there, and so will lose excercise. The fat tax also cost Danes around 1,300 Danish jobs! Job losses and the cost of living are important. There is no chance the Danes will want a fat tax again!The only way to prevent obesity is to allow consumer choice, rather than confine it by increasing prices. Rising food prices will cause people to buy cheaper lower quality items which are less beneficial for their health, it won't encourage people to prepare their own healthier and cheaper food when they have no time.Some people have tried to sue Mac-Donalds. I think a lot of obsese people want to blame someone else, when it is they who choose where and what they eat. If people ate at a table, made their own food, and looked at what they were eating rather than ate out or bought takeaways in front of the T.V. they would not over eat. Walking 2 mile a day should be sufficient for most people.Not all fats are bad. Fat in the diet is not specifically related to greater fat in our bodies. Full fat milk is not any unhealthier than skilled milk, and so should not be mislabbed as being unhealthy, both types of milk will lower the likilihood of heart attacks and strokes. Some people prefer whole milk though, raising the price of this will not be beneficial, and may be harmful.You assume that fat tax works, when it doesn't. It hasn't worked for the Danish, and it would inevitably lead to obese people being stigmatised which could raise suicide rates. The bottom line is it is another stealth tax.sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.nhs.uk...[3] http://www.iea.org.uk...
We should introduce a 'fat tax'

Argument 1: Impact on the Majority There is a list of ways to tackle obesity, which you have kindly provided, but none are as drastic as adding a tax to fatty foods and on overweight people. 25% of British adults are obese, and a staggering 1/3 of American adults are obese. I understand that the financial cost of obesity is higher than both smoking and alcoholism, but drastic solutions are not always the answer to drastic problems. The MAJORITY ARE NOT OBESE. Although introducing a fat tax could further increase health education for the MINORITY it would be largely useless, and unfair for the MAJORITY. Most people including myself eat chocolate, cake, and biscuits yet have a healthy lifestyle. It is not harmful to treat yourself now and then. Why should the majority be unfairly penalized? Here is the answer used to justify everything including the atom bomb = to save lives! I'm for saving lives, but I'm not sure how exactly raising food expenditure saves lives when a lot of people have credit cards, pay monthly and will often buy things they can't afford. FoodDrinkEurope; the EU trade group representing the European agri-food industry says "there is no conclusive evidence that taxing food and drink products for public health purposes is an effective way of changing consumer behaviour" [1] This leads me to believe everyone will just pay more taxes. Most people don't likes paying taxes, especially when they do nothing for them. Argument 2: Impact on the Minority Taxing food high in saturates may reduce consumption but will simply encourage customers to purchase cheaper brands with poorer quality ingredients. Many foods like cheese, butter, and milk will fall into the unhealthy label, when actually they can be good for you, and better than alternatives like margarine, so people trying to eat more healthily may find it harder financially to achieve their goal. Also we shouldn't live in a nanny state where we are told what to eat, people should decide for their-selves, and not feel their budget is limited due to fat tax otherwise there will be a stigma towards people who are overweight. sources: [1] http://www.euractiv.com...
We should introduce a 'fat tax'

A fat tax is a tax or surcharge that is placed upon fattening food, beverages or on overweight individuals. (1) As an example of Pigovian taxation, a fat tax aims to discourage unhealthy diets and offset the economic costs of obesity. (2) In the fight against obesity, suggestions to increase nutrition education, remove soft drinks from schools, change how companies can advertise, ban trans fats and subsidize healthy foods are all common. But there's one potential tool you may not have heard of, though it's been discussed for more than a decade. A June 2007 study suggests that a "fat tax" - placing a tax on fatty or unhealthy foods - might save thousands of lives and reduce health care costs.Fat tax is working on ourociety, (3) having proof that people are choosing to eat healthier and are having wiser diet choices.Sources:(1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://money.howstuffworks.com... (3) http://www.euractiv.com...
"Babies are born Atheist" is a Fallacious Premise

The fact that there is not yet proof one way or the other should never render a topic untouchable. I brought up the God issue to prove this point. People argue the existence of God on a daily basis and it will not, and should not stop. While we may not know the answers today, we should continue to look for them and to discuss the issues. It is very clear that religion is a learned system. Babies don't become Christians or Muslims or anything else unless they are exposed to it. The belief in gods is nothing more than an attempt to try to understand the world that we do not yet have answers for. As babies, they do not have the ability to understand what they are capable of doing with their own body and mind for months, let alone assume that everything that exists around them is from a higher power the second they are born. To assume that babies are not born with a belief in gods is to use logical reasoning. They only develop beliefs as they are exposed to them and as they gain the ability to try and understand the world around them. The premise that "Babies are Atheists" is not fallacious. Unless one honestly believe that a baby comes out of the womb with an innate belief in some god, and not that it must learn that belief to any extent following the birth, then one must agree with me that it is not fallacious to assume that babies are born without a belief in gods.
"Babies are born Atheist" is a Fallacious Premise

My opponent likens the claim "Babies are born atheist" to the claim "Babies are born Republican," but there is a major difference between the two. To be a Republican requires a belief in certain values, but to be an atheist requires nothing more than a lack of belief. As I stated in my opening statement, using the term atheist may not be wise because there are too many assumptions tied to that word. Many people may have an issue with believing that a rock can be an atheist, but when you understand that the definition of the word is nothing more than a lack of belief in a god, it would be absurd to claim that a rock is anything but an atheist. Atheism does not require anything. Belief is the requirement; atheism is merely a lack of that, so anything incapable of belief clearly lacks belief. My opponent makes the claim that unverifiable claims are logically fallacious and any reasonable person should cease to use this premise because of that. By that logic, any statement of the existence of any god would fall under that category, as there is no verifiable evidence to prove the existence of any gods. Given that the argument for any god is fallacious by the definition of my opponent, the argument that gods exist must be left out of any argument. I would be willing to concede this debate if my opponent is willing to admit that any argument for the existence of a god is equally fallacious, and thus the presumption that any gods exist should also be left out of any discussion. But if my opponent is not willing to concede that point, then he is also accepting that making statements that are not completely verifiable does not automatically render that statement fallacious and irrelevant.
"Babies are born Atheist" is a Fallacious Premise

A.) Given the definition provided by CON the reasoning follows one can assert that "rocks are atheist", in that atheism is a lack of belief and rocks are incapable of any beliefs. However the analogy does not hold true because babies have the capability to belief. They have a brain. Faith is defined as confidence especially to a deity. My opponent makes the argument that, " I would be interested to see a studying capable of proving that a new born infant who has been completely uninfluenced from the surrounding world is capable of showcasing a belief in god(s). I have my doubts that there is any evidence to support that claim" So you are asserting the statement true because of a lack of evidence. This is a clear fallacy known as argument from ignorance [1] B.) My opponent attempts to shift the burden of proof. CON states "So I will begin my argument simply by stating that we are not capable of proving what babies think and believe until they are capable of communication" Exactly my point, so if every claim is to be considered on it's on evidence then the claim "Babies are born atheist" also lives and dies by the evidence available. If this assertion is held with no evidence then it can be dismissed with no evidence to the contrary. Making the claim "Babies are atheist" a meaningless statement much like rocks are atheist. [2] With the same validity I can claim "all babies are theist". Because the 2 states are mutually exclusive and both with out evidence are equally valid then the claims are My opponent makes the claims "". Using this reasoning Babies are Republican because they have never expressed the desire to vote Democrat. This is a fallacious argument from silence. My opponent ends his round stating: "Therefore, to state that the claim "Babies are born Atheist" is a fallacious premise would be incorrect, because there is no way to prove it to be false." Thank you CON you concede my point because by definition, a claim that can not be proven false is as argument of ignorance. [3] In the reference scroll down to Informal fallacies. It is clear that this is an unverifiable claim. That is is logically fallacious. That any reasonable person should cease to use this premise or premises like it ((such as Babies are born republican)) in any arguments. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Babies are born Atheist" is a Fallacious Premise

I accept your assertion and challenge to a debate on this topic. I will begin by clarifying the definition of atheism. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. There have been multiple debates on this topic and it has been shown that searching an online dictionary for the definition of the word yields inconsistent results, so I am basing my definition on the following: The definition of theism is widely accepted as the "belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe" [1][2][3]. The "A" prefix added to a word means not, without or lack of [4]. I acknowledge that there are other meanings for the prefix "A", but in the context of the term atheism, none of the other definitions fit at all. So the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. If you disagree with this premise then there is very little point in us having this debate at all because you are arguing a different word than I am. So if you disagree with the definition I am using, I would move to change the debate topic to "Babies are born with a lack of belief in God(s)" is a Fallacious Premise because that is the argument I am putting forth. I am not hung up on the term atheism here, and it might be just as well to get rid of the word since even the term atheist tends to get many people"s blood boiling. Now that I have clarified the parameters of my argument, I will address the debate topic at hand. It is my job here to argue that "Babies are born Atheist" is not a fallacious premise. So I will begin my argument simply by stating that we are not capable of proving what babies think and believe until they are capable of communicating. By the time children are capable of communicating, they have already been watching and absorbing information from their surroundings for quite some time. I would be interested to see a studying capable of proving that a new born infant who has been completely uninfluenced from the surrounding world is capable of showcasing a belief in god(s). I have my doubts that there is any evidence to support that claim, because a requirement of survival for a child is the support and nurturing of other humans. By the time the child is old enough to be properly tested for a belief, there is no way the child could be considered unaffected by the beliefs of those around him or her. Therefore, to state that the claim "Babies are born Atheist" is a fallacious premise would be incorrect, because there is no way to prove it to be false. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] http://www.englishclub.com...
It is unlikely that God exists

Addressing Accusations I understand what you have said about my switching the topic of this debate into some sort of debate about evolution. That was not my original intent, but I find that I was a bit carried away. I object to your accusation that I'm just parroting things that Kent Hovind has said. I liked his view of natural selection as quality control. I also learned about Pakicetus and Ambulocetus from him. However, I did not use that many of his arguments in this debate. Also, you have said that I have not obtained enough knowledge to debate on the matter, by not citing any "recognized biology textbooks", or "reputable" educational websites. I take it that all of these "recognized" or "reputable" sources, as you define them, are all under the perspective that evolution is true. I have cited sources from the creationist perspective. What is wrong with that? If you find any flaws, bring them to light.That is what a debate is for. I am under the impression that any source I happen to cite, you will write off as outdated, or false, simply because of the creationist perspective. Ordered Complexity As you have stated previously, "Wouldn't the mind of God be extremely orderly as well as complex? If so, then he is a being of ordered complexity." Why do you say that the mind of a God would be "orderly"? The dictionary definition of orderly would be "arranged or disposed in a neat, tidy manner or in a regular sequence"(1). You seem to be saying that the mind of God would be arranged in a "neat" manner, or in a regular sequence. I would disagree. You have said that my statement, that the mind of God would be infinitely complex, but is not orderly complex, is a contradiction. That is not true. An orderly complex mind would be possible to understand, and possible to comprehend. A television would fall under the category of ordered complexity. We can understand a television, its parts, and its function. However, the mind of God, if he exists, would not fall under that category. I think it is you, who are making the contradictions. The Problem of Evil I presume that you would understand that a "good" God would also be just; perfect. As you have stated, "An all powerful being could remove all evil. An all knowing being would know about all evils." I would agree. However, the point is how he is doing so. It is quite difficult to get into this matter, without getting into specific religions. But, I think that an all powerful being could get rid of all evil by administering perfect justice. A perfect, all knowing God, would be infinitely righteous/holy. Now, anyone who transgresses before such a God, would be subject to a perfect judgment. One can escape a perfect judgment, by being perfectly righteous. Now, that being impossible, is the reason why redemption might be offered. I wish I had more space to argue about some of the articles you have cited. I will try next round. (As for your last statement, you don't have to be sorry)