BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You will discover the same laws of nature in anything and everything

The uniform nature of physical laws is the hallmark of science. What works for me, will work for you. Gravity on Earth works the same way as gravity on the moon or on Venus or in the Andromeda Galaxy. Further, we find the same physical laws throughout time. And, in fact, we can test many of these things by looking through the lens of astronomy looking not only away in space but time. We find the same natural laws at present throughout. My opponents argument is a logical argument from ignorance. "I don't see how this could happen, so it must not be true." "It is complete madness to say that you will discover the same laws of nature in anything and everything. If all are governed by the same laws of nature, what is the origin of difference?" The argument, in effect, boils down to a question. What is the origin of difference? http://youtu.be... Chaos, as it turns out, arises out of simple rules. From Conway's Game of Life following couple simple rules and being able to produce a Turing Complete computers (while everything obeys the same rules). to fractals, where the same rules can give rise to complex structures like ferns and trees. We get a rather stunning truth, that when everything is the same at one level, you can have infinite complexity at another level. So even being made of a mostly the same few simple building blocks, you can build cows or elm trees, skate parks or skyscrapers, dead barren wastes of planets or rich vibrant life-filled worlds like Earth. -- It isn't madness to think this, it's a reasonable thing to believe. But, moreover, it's exactly what we *DO* find. The same forces that keep us affixed to the Earth also keep us in orbit around the sun. The rules are the same, the differences are emergent consequences of those rules.
You will discover the same laws of nature in anything and everything

"If the same laws of nature can be discovered in anything and everything, then everyone will have same knowledge about each and everything." If anybody cannot see through this tissue paper thin assertion right off the bat, I beg you, just vote for con straight down the line. What next, if the traffic laws are all the same across the United States (they differ slightly in places but for the sake of analogy) are we to believe that everybody is equally skilled at driving? That if gravity is the same on Earth as on Mars that I should remember your father's last birthday? I'm sorry but one of the rules which is the same everywhere is that we exist as distinctly different people and in different locations and have different perspectives and different knowledge. But, this has nothing to do with the sameness of the underlying rules. Your arguments have gotten stranger and less coherent. And you've never given a reasonable reason for the any broken symmetry. Nothing about the asymmetric nature of weak nuclear force, nothing supposing the slight muon bias towards matter, no arguments about variations of the speed of light near the big bang. Just generally a bunch of really silly questions. I had hoped for more out of this debate.
You will discover the same laws of nature in anything and everything

If the same laws of nature can be discovered in anything and everything, then everyone will have same knowledge about each and everything. The Knowledge Expansion Manual [http://www.archive.org... ] also claims the same - the laws of nature are same for everything. If the laws of nature are same and if there exists a correlation between the laws of nature and human knowledge, then everyone should have the same knowledge. But, people differ in terms of their knowledge. Since people differ in terms their knowledge, the proposition "you will discover the same laws of nature in anything and everything" must be wrong. It May be true only for the authors of 'Knowledge Expansion Manual' and my opponent.
Abortions should be free, safe and available all through the US

Just to be clear. A person, such as myself, can have conflicted opinions. The reason I see LATE TERM abortion as wrong, is that the fetus is so close to being born, close to actually be a life that I therefore see it as wrong. I do not see a problem with having an abortion at even 14 weeks, but an abortion a few days before a fetus is viable? No, then at least from my point of view, the fetus is too close to being a life. Therefore, it can seem inconsistent. (Hardly any abortions are so late, linked statistics in my previous argument.) Now whether a life begins at conception or birth. I believe that it begins at birth, but the question is not an exact science. I can and will link to articles, papers and such to support my theory and belief that life begins at birth. However, so can the Con. I do not believe that this is something you can medically justify, since there is so much proof on both sides, I believe that it is the matter of personal opinion, not factual. Whether you believe conception or birth, you can medically and theoretically defend both. Here are some evidence to defend that life begins at birth and one for the (1, 2, 3, 4) This should definitely justify my opinion on the subject, which morally defends abortions. Con goes to comparing it with getting a car, which is not comparable. Getting a car and having an abortion? Definitely not on the same level in discussion, since abortion is a matter of health and morals, while cars are more a luxury and not a life changing fact. He also does not link to anything to support his theories, but we will have to take his word for everything. If you are trying to justify, anything really, one should show proof to their statements. Now I believe I have justified most of my previous arguments by adding to the fact that a life begins a birth. Therefore, it is not an innocent life an abortion is taken. My previous arguments are not to justify “killing an innocent life”, because it is not an innocent life, as I previous stated, I believe that life begins at birth. The Con goes to talk about the paying method and taxes. The fact of the matter is that taxes will probably be paying it. However, taxes also pays for other things I do not want to pay for. If I had to choose there would be things I do not want to pay for, the same goes for abortions. I believe we should help those in the community who cannot afford an abortion themselves, because I see it as a right and an important part a good health system for the women. Now I do not believe there is much more to say. 1 http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... 2 http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com... 3 http://www.slate.com... 4 http://www.wired.com...
Abortions should be free, safe and available all through the US

All throughout the US women struggle to find a clinic for a safe and free abortion. I believe that those women who wish to have an abortion, within reasonable time, should be able to have an abortion. Reasonable time meaning within the legal limit, since I believe that late term abortion is indeed wrong. However, an abortion within the first, let us say 12 weeks, is not unreasonable. I do understand some people have religious views that are against abortion, but their views should not affect an entire population of women. Women should have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, under any circumstances. Therefor I believe abortions should be more available than they currently are and that women should not be shamed into not having an abortion.
God exists.

I thank con for posting his argument in this debate and will take into account that he is new to this website and English is not his first language.Con's claim: "To assume God created it [the universe] because we have not found any scientific evidence that it could have happened without any supernatural force would be anologous to, for example, say 1000 years ago that God kills you when your time on Earth is over"I agree that there are problems with the God of the Gaps fallacy, however, if you have positive evidence of God's existence, then it is reasonable to say that God exists.Con's claim: "Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally. This, of course, raises the question of what came before the big bang, and how long it lasted. Unfortunately at this point basic ideas begin to fail us; the concept "before" becomes meaningless. In the words of Stephen Hawking, it's like asking what is north of the north pole." Nobody, to my knowledge, claims that God came before the universe, as God exists outside of time and so time cannot be applied to him - his existence cannot ever start or end, it just always is. However, con offers no arguments that actually conclude that God does not exist.Con's rebuttals of my arguments#1: The Cosmological argumentCon does not even mention this argument.#2: The argument from the mentality of the physical world we experienceCon does not even mention this argument.#3: The Teleological argument Con's claim: "my opponent failed to explain why it would be considered due to chance without a God creating it" The fine-tuning of the universe would have to be caused by chance if God does not exist because the three possible explanations of anything are physical necessity, chance, or design, and the universe does not have to be the way it is for any reason (con would have to provide a reason for physical necessity to refute this argument), so it follows that the only option left is chance.Con's claim: "the universe is due to trial and error not chance"As I've proven earlier, the chances of evolution happening by pure chance is 1 followed by 3,000,000 zeros to 1, and con has not even tried to refute that. Therefore, the odds are astronomically stacked in favour of God's existence.Conclusion- Con has offered no arguments supporting his case- The Cosmological argument stands- The argument from the mentality of the physical world we experience stands- The Teleological argument stands Thank you.
God exists.

People have been arguing for centuries whether God exists or not so my answers will be repetitive and trite, concise too. Probably nothing new you've heard or anyone on this website for that matter. I apologize if my text is not lined up perfectly I am new to this website and English is not my first language. Science has not yet found an answer to explain how the universe began but they are actively trying to find out how it was actually put to place. To assume that God created it because we have not found any scientific evidence that it could have happened without any supernatural force would be analogous to, for example, say 1000 years ago that God kills you when your time on Earth is over. That has obviously been shown to be blatantly false through modern biology. To quote some scientists on this topic: "There is no barrier between nothing and a rich universe full of matter," [Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] says. Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally. This, of course, raises the question of what came before the big bang, and how long it lasted. Unfortunately at this point basic ideas begin to fail us; the concept "before" becomes meaningless. In the words of Stephen Hawking, it's like asking what is north of the north pole. Rebuttal of the Teleological argument: Many people would argue that the universe is due to chance and that it is designed perfectly. However, that is untrue because my opponent failed to explain why it would be considered due to chance without a God creating it. The universe is extremely unorganized. Stars scattered here and there. Galaxies crumbled every now and then. The only things that are organized in this universe are due to the laws of physics. Saying that the universe is due to chance is analogous to saying that evolution is due to chance. If you calculate the chances of animals evolving this way from the beginning of life until now the chances would be extremely low, but it's not due to chance. Animals evolved this way because the environment favored them. So in conclusion arguing that the universe is organized or designed is ridiculous; the universe is due to trial and error not chance. Source from the quotation: http://atheism.about.com...
God exists.

Resolution: God exists.I will argue that God exists. My opponent will argue that God does not exist. The Burden of Proof is shared. DefinitionsGod - The timeless, immaterial, and personal cause of the universe.Structure of the debateRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 + 4 - Arguments/Rebuttals Rules of the debate1. No abuse of semantics.2. No resorts to insults or personal attacks.3. The Burden of Proof is shared.4. Plus, all ToS (Terms of Service) apply.5. Breaking any of the rules constitutes a forfeit and the voters are then not justified in giving that person any points.Thank you.
God exists

I accept the definition of a supernatural christian god as the definition provided by pro. ~POE~1. If god exists he is morally perfect and omnipotent 2. If he is omnipotent he has the power to stop evil3. If god is omniscient he knows when evil exists4. If god exists and is morally perfect he has the power to end all evil 5. Evil exists6. God cannot exist. [1]Premise 1:God is morally perfect, omnipotent, and like in P3 omniscient. [2] Now, as this is the case one can assume many things. God then knows what is evil and what is not, and is all powerful in all cases. The scripture holds him omnipotent many a time. [3]Premise 2:Given the fact god is morally perfect and omnipotent this causes some problems in the god argument. If he is morally perfect, he knows what is right and wrong always. This is accepted by both sides of the aisle. Now, if he exists he is also omnipotent and can do anything according to the scriptures. [3] So god can stop evil as he is omnipotent. Premise 3:In psalm the bible states god is all knowing of everything. [4] If god is truly omniscient he knows when everything is occurring, when it is occurring, and how it is occurring. He is the most aware thing ever if he is to exist. This too is accepted by atheists and theologists alike, if he exists he knows all. Premise 4:This is the fun part. As god is all powerful, morally perfect, and all knowing it is very safe to assume he would stop all evil. God, as stated, knows all of the right and wrongs and is all powerful, right here it would be easy to argue if he truly had these powers and existed there would be little evil. But as he has these powers and is omniscient then there is no reason he would not have stopped many of these evils. He knows what is right and wrong, is all powerful, and is aware of everything. If this was correct then he would stop all evil from occurring. As he does not do this then either he does not exist or he is not powerful, and his non existence is more likely as a non powerful god en begs the question how a weakling made the universe. Premise 5:Indisputable, evil exists. I will provide the example of darfur where thousands of people are being killed in wars and famines. [5]C: As god has all of these attributes according to his very definition and evil does exist one must beg the question if evil exists how is his existence possible? He has all the powers needed to stop evil and determine what evil is, if he existed it is logical to conclude he would stop the evil from occurring. These evils and theism is incompatible. [6]Conclusion:God has these powers:All powerful + All knowing + knows what is right and wrong. If this is true then the same equation should = no evil occurs. But in the world today the equation = evil occurs. But this now doesn't add up. Gods existence and evils existence CANNOT go together, therefore god doesn't exist. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] The Existence Of God Oxford University by Richard Swinburne[3] http://www.parentcompany.com...[4] http://christianstandard.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.infidels.org...
God exists

My opponent operates on the false premise that if God has the power to infringe upon my free will and enact his plan, he will do so. I argue that this simply is not the case. It is immoral to infringe upon free will, and God is moral, therefore God does not infringe upon free will. I will address my opponents points in order. 1)Because God is omniscient that means you do not have the power to say no!!! This is incorrect. You are operating on the assumption that because God has to power to infrine upon my free will, he will. I have the ability to throw my computer out the window, but I have not. Therefore using our logic we can conclude I do not exist. This is simply not true, as it is quite obvious that I in fact do exist. Therefore your logic is flawed. My opponent also assumes that because God knows the outcome of my free free means God influence it. The fact that God knows what I am going to have for dinner tonight in no way affects my decision of what to have for dinner. I still exercise my free will, he simply knows the outcome of my free will. This does not mean he influenced it. I know the outcome of the 2012 super bowl, therefore using your logic I must have influenced the outcome. We know this is not the case, so therefore your logic is flawed. 2)My opponents states that because God is energy, and the origin of energy is impossible, then God does not exist. Once again he is attempting to apply natural laws to the supernatural. My opponent also states that by moving his arm, he creates energy. This is false, energy cannot be created. It is a basic principle of physics. My opponent is simply converting the potential energy from sugars ingested into kinetic energy, moving his arm. This displays a lack of understanding of the very basic principles of the natural world. If my opponent cannot even understand the basic principles of science, how then can he "prove" that the origin of the universe was natural? 3)Going faster than light creates infinite energy. This has been disproven. http://www.reuters.com... I would like the point out that Con is arguing AGAINST the basic principles of science. Because the basic principles of science have been found to always hold true in the natural world, one can logically deduce that Con's arguments are incorrect. Therefore Pro is the obvious choice.
God exists

"A fine example is the Jews' crucifixion of Christ. It was God's plan that the Jews accept Christ as the Son of God and their king, but the Jews were allowed free will to accept or deny this plan. "God creating free agents to bend his plans are contradictory. If god is indeed all powerful and has a plan the plan would happen. Why would he want us to do anything different? Having freedom itself is a dangerous problem that creates evil the thing he vowed to destroy. [1] Also if god is omniscient that means you don't have the power to say NO!!! If he knew yesterday I was going to write this, but I do not write this, then I have free will and god CANNOT be omniscient like you and I agree he is if he existed. If he knew yesterday I was going to write this sentence then I am technically NOT free to not write this sentence. If he is omniscient as we agree to then we technically can't have free will. These attributes to god contradict, if he ha a plan and is omniscient then we CANNOT have free will, therefore god cannot exist as he doesn't have these godly properties. "We know this cannot be true, because the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created."If this is true then nothing exists as god is energy. When I move my arm I am actually making energy through motion, therefore I just justified making energy. To disprove your argument all I must do is prove everything came from nothing. The universe used to have an energy of 0, with gravity of negative. [2] Then certain gravitational occurrences occurred and added positive gravity, creating quantum vacuum (energy was made just there...). These quantum fluctuations of energy 0 then created the universe with energies inside. [2] I have just proved a way without god that energies were CREATED. Further more the theory you are stating excludes the possibility of things at light speed creating energy. Going faster then light creates infinite energy[3]. I have provided ways energy is created.My argument:1. If god exists he is morally perfect and omnipotent2. If he is omnipotent he has the power to stop evil3. If god is omniscient he knows when evil exists4. If god exists and is morally perfect he has the power to end all evil5. Evil exists6. God cannot exist.This argument stands. Vote Con.[1] http://www.osho.com...[2] http://www.infidels.org...[3] http://math.ucr.edu...
God exists

My opponent states that because God has a plan, there is free will. This is a hasty generalization, as my opponent does not explain how this is the case. I will display that this is not in fact that case. God has a plan, but we are given the option to accept or deny that plan, ie free will. A fine example is the Jews' crucifixion of Christ. It was God's plan that the Jews accept Christ as the Son of God and their king, but the Jews were allowed free will to accept or deny this plan. The Jews exercised this free will by denying Christ as the Son of God and King of Israel. It is quite obvious that God as a plan, and that we are given free will to accept or deny that plan. In point [5] my opponent incorrectly attempts to apply the laws of science (nature) to a supernatural being. Science is the study of the natural world. Therefore the discoveries of science do no apply to the supernatural. You have accepted the definition of God as the supernatural. Therefore the laws of science do not apply to God. You cannot bind the creator with the same limitations of the creation. We know that Ipods are not capable of emotion. Therefore using your logic we can conclude that Steve Jobs is not capable of emotion. We know this conclusion simply is not correct. Steve Jobs loved animals and refused to eat meat. This is a testament to his emotional capabilities. Therefore your logic is flawed. In point [6] my opponent contradicts the laws of science by stating that energy is growing. We know this cannot be true, because the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created. My opponent has excepted the premise that the universe, more specifically the energy present within the universe, had a definite origin. We know that this is impossible because the natural laws of science dictate that energy cannot be created. Therefore the creation of energy must be supernatural. My opponent has accepted the premise that energy has an origin. He has accepted the premise that God is the supernatural. The laws of nature dictate that the creation of energy is supernatural. Because the origin of energy is not natural, the supernatural must exist. Because God is defined as supernatural, God must exist. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://dictionary.reference.com...