BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religious Faith is a Virtue

Accepted. Thanks to Con for initiating this debate, and good luck. I'll begin my outlining some inaccuracies within your provided definitions: "Faith", it should be noted, can apply to a number of things; not only religious belief. (Faith) n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Oxford Dictionary defines faith with the following terms: 1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one"s faith in politicians. This is "faith" in the broadest terms. As you did not state in your definition(s) whether you meant religious faith or general faith, I will provide a religious definition: 2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. (1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2.) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (Virtue) n 1. The quality or practice of moral excellence or righteousness. 2. Behaviour showing high moral standards: paragons of virtue. 3. A quality considered morally good or desirable in a person: (1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2.) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Opening Argument Religious faith, can be a virtue for many people. An example would be when a (religious) person has experienced difficulty of some kind. To this individual, faith in their religion and their G-d can assist them in overcoming that difficulty, or reaching their goals. Additionally, religious faith has been huge in the distribution of charity and charitable causes. A focal point of many religions is giving and providing help to those on need. Religious figures and people of religious faith, have, on numerous occasions done this. In fact, religion generally requires its believers to uphold a certain moral standing; this can lead to "virtue" and the practice of "virtuous" acts.
This House Supports Epistemological Nihilism!

I thank the honorable Envisage for his round. May I remind him that he was only allowed to accept the deabte in the first round if he did so in the first 24 hour period. To be precise I told him to either publish his round or accept that (first 12 hours) night. I am however very tired so I will post a docs.google link and my round will be up within 12 to 16 hours. I thank Envisage for his patience. :P https://docs.google.com...
This House Supports Epistemological Nihilism!

Greetings! So Shaun messaged me over Facebook requeting a debate, and we have wanted to debate this for a while so I'll leave my hiatus for a short amount of time. I really hope this debate gets good votes-or votes at all since it will be a bit philosophically challenging. Resolution: This House Supports Epistemological Nihilism! For this debate "epistemological nihilism" is defined as: an extreme form of skepticism in which all kmowledge is categorically denied. And knowledge is defined as justified true belief. 1. My opponent will start immediately and must forfeit the last round. 2. The first rounds of debate will be for positive material only. 3. A single ff warrants a full loss. 4. There are 4 rounds with 10, 000 characters each, 72 hours to post a round, and a Select Winner option.
Loracs Dream was the Worst

Lorac's Dream contains all the horrendous nature of your attempted examples of atrocities. But I am clearly not the Troll here, You agreed to a debate where you didn't even know what you were saying. that is by definition, Trolling. You can't research the Dream? well then how can you be so certain I am wrong to stand up as my opponent? I am not going to share information with you. You cannot argue, nor present contrary facts, and remain not ignorant but arrogantly apposed to the idea.
Loracs Dream was the Worst

My bad, I thought this was the science section. Regardless, your topic has no information on it whatsoever, so even if I wanted to read up on it, guess what? I can't. You have commented twice and still have no links or pictures or any information at all. If anyone is a troll here it is you. If you want to post some information, go for it. Otherwise, here are some real atrocities that you can research for your next debate. World War 2, The Cold War, The Genocide of Indigenous Americans, The Slave Trade, Sex Trafficking, The Fukushima Meltdown, The Great Depression, and many more
Loracs Dream was the Worst

My "Opponnet" is Trolling me. HE agreed to a debate he cannot actually participate in. He agreed to argue that I was wrong with no means of even beginngin to defend himself or make a case. Thereby I win by default. He is basically accusing me of "calling wolf" while I myself am here, the wolf. Now. If you couldn't find information you SHOULD not have agreed. However. You didn't even present something that could have been worse that Lorac's Dream. SO you loose again, TROLL. Because you are still required to DO your homework before CONTRIBUTIING further, as you have transgressed already - Ps. this is in the miscellaneous section - I will expect you to put something more horrendous that, and I will ALLUDE tot he Nature of my proposal again, Lorac's Dream.
Loracs Dream was the Worst

Multiple google searches have provided no information about a horrendous, apocalyptic event. The only place this is mentioned is here on Debate.org by you. This leads me to believe that what you are talking about is not something real. If this is not something real, it has no place in the science section for debating. Again, with no information being provided whatsoever, it is difficult to decide whether or not there is a worse proposal out there. If you believe that removing the name of a god from the earth is the worse or second worse proposal to have ever come forth, you should rethink the importance of ritualistic imagination. The fact remains that no information has been provided for the atrocity of Lorac's Dream. Hopefully in round 2 you will provide some links, pictures, or videos to help support your claims.
Loracs Dream was the Worst

Lorac's Dream was the most horrendous, apocalyptic event ever presented in any literature or discussion throughout recorded and reference-able history. There was and can be No worse proposal, except to completely remove the name of God from the Earth and leave it to a Secular doom. This however is not stipulable. The FACT remains, NO WORSE EVENT has ever been written of or discussed then the atrocity of Lorac's Dream.
Loracs Dream was the Worst

You are seriously useless. Here I am wanting to research and learn and you forfeit all your turns to call me a troll and remind me that I don't know what Lorac's Dream is. Seeing as this will be the final Round and I get the last word, I would like to encourage you to be more open and informative in your future arguments. The Dream cannot be researched as all the search engine's on the internet and the local library have no record on it. This leads me to ask you the question, "How did you research this ever so illusive event?" I may be ignorant on the nonexistent subject, I may be arrogant thinking that you would provide any sort of clue as to what it is at all, I may know how to spell 'lose' (round 2) and 'opposed' (round 3) the correct way, but claiming 'Lorac's Dream was the worst' puts the burden of proof on you. What is Lorac's Dream? Why was it the worst? How does it contain all the horrendous acts that I provided? Since the internet has no record of this, how do you? These are questions that should have been answered in the first two rounds when I asked for you to provide any shred of evidence whatsoever. Cheers mate, I'll be looking forward to your improved grammar, spelling, and rhetoric in our next debate!
The Problem of Evil makes it unlikely that God exsits (debate #2)

Ok then to start I'll talk about your Zeus statement. Right now we are debating the existence of God. If we look at this from a strictly non-denominational view point, God could be anything. It could be Zeus, it could be Buddha, it could be the christian god. So for that matter, Zeus could be the very god we are talking about, and he could very well exist. You are claiming that I made a fallible point by assuming that Zeus does not exist, but this would take a denominational view point. Zeus could very will exist. Now, Im not gunna talk about the test of faith thing anymore, because it is clearly a point that cannot be made to someone who does not believe in god. So im am gunna strike straight at the heart of your argument. You are claiming that evil proves that God does not exist. The problem with that argument is that it assumes that evil and god cannot both exist at the same time. It assumes that God would rid the world of evil. It assumes that it understands God's thinking. It assumes everything and you cant prove anything on an assumption. To solidify your argument, you'd have to know exactly what the nature of god is; what he is thinking and you cant do that. That was my point about higher intelligence. If god exists, then he undoubtedly understands the nature of the universe a billion times more than we do. Therefore, we cannot accurately predict his actions, because there will undoubtedly be things we wont think of that God will because he knows more. Im gunna close with this. You say that if evil exists, God would destroy it and so since evil DOES, in fact, exist, god does not. This cannot be a proven statement, however, because you cant truly know that God's decision would be to destroy evil. He could, for all we know, choose to sit on a cosmic rocking chair and watch Evil swallow the earth whole. If god were to choose NOT to destroy evil, than evil and god COULD both exist, and therefore, the existence of evil COULD NOT disprove the existence of God. You're argument simply has too many assumptions, and too much reasonable doubt to prove anything.
The Problem of Evil makes it unlikely that God exsits (debate #2)

Again, if god just forced us to grow spiritually, then its no test of faith. If he gives us all the knowledge we need, then its not a test of faith. People need to stop thinking of him as the all-seeing being who can do anything he pleases, and see him more as a father-figure. You assume that just because God has the power to do whatever he wills, that he is going to choose those action, but thats not always the case. To force his will upon all would be the very Human thing to do. This whole plan that God has laid out is not about what He wants, its about what we need, and we cant just get that from him. He could just give us the knowledge that he wants us to know, but we could never recieve the wisdom he wants us to have as well, because we could never understand our knowledge through experience. Also, we cant use Einstein as a authority on god. My decision to show you that story was not to say "Eisntein says theirs god". It was to show why accusing evil of proving the non-existence of god, was an empty argument. Whether or not he acutally said that is beyond the point. Its what we take from the story that matters. Lastly, if you want proof of God look at yourself. You can say that you personally came from your mother and the miracle of the human body and reproduction. You can say that all of this is the brilliance of life that is described by science alone and not god. When you keep getting into science, however, you begin to watch science prove god. For example, a law of science says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet all of the cosmos had to come from somewhere. The matter that constructs our universe couldnt not have just appeared. It would have to have been made by something that operates outside the bounds of science. A law of science also says that cells can only come from pre-existing cells. Somewhere along the line, there had to be a first cell, right? Otherwise you wouldn't be here. A very first cell had to come from somewhere other than another cell. Thats a fact. According to the laws of science, that is absolutely impossible though. So where does the first cell come from? Again, something that opertates outside the bounds science. God
The Problem of Evil makes it unlikely that God exsits (debate #2)

You can't try and deny the existence of a being infinitely more intelligent than you – thus Zeus exists. Look, we're trying to decide if God exists or not, discussing his potential intelligence is not relevant in determining his existence. I'm inclined to think that when all is said and down, the Christian God will lie dead in the mass grave of former Gods that we call mythology. But I digress. This idea that "God sent us here to be tested in our faith in him" so that we can grow spiritually is circular. Why doesn't God just make us (through omnipotence) grow spiritually? If the point in life is to get to heaven, why not just make us start there? Whatever the end-goal is in life, God can always just make that happen, yet he doesn't. The most plausible explanation for this is that there is no end-goal and/or no God. The parent analogy is common and commonly flawed. Parents are not omnipotent and since experience is often a better teacher than conceptual knowledge, they let us experience things for ourselves. God can create the knowledge without the experience by virtue of being omnipotent. "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)) "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." (1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press) The man's name who wrote these quotes? Albert Einstein. Point is, your Einstein story smells ever so strongly of an urban myth. Many theists like to argue that Einstein was a theist despite the fact that his beliefs are much closer to deism or Spinoza's theist than Christian theism. I wonder though, if evil is just the absence of God, why doesn't God make himself more apparent through the universe? Is God too lazy to make sure to put himself everywhere? Your story doesn't help with the question at all. It just reforms the question and changes the definition of evil.
The Problem of Evil makes it unlikely that God exsits (debate #2)

I just finished a debate on this topic, but I think it's an interesting topic, so I'm doing it again. The argument is quite simple: if God is morally perfect (or at least good), he must want there to be as little suffering as possible (based on the human definition of goodness). Since he is omnipotent, he has the tools to stop the suffering and since he is omniscient, he knows where the suffering is and the best way to stop it. But, when we look out into the world we see a ton of suffering. This either means that God doesn't exist or that he doesn't have the characteristics mentioned. Formalized, the argument is this: 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 5. Evil exists. 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. 7. Therefore, God doesn't exist. Here's an example of the kind of suffering I'm talking about: We as humans have physical brains which appear to be the cause of out minds. God however is a mind (he thinks for example) yet he does not have a brain to generate this mind. This indicates that non-physical minds are possible. Now, our physical minds are a source of immense suffering. They are extremely prone to injury, small chemical or neurological fluctuations can cause immense difficulties and before the advent of modern medical technology, the large heads of children caused the death of a large percentage of women in childbirth. There is no reason for these physical minds to exist – they are needless suffering. A morally perfect God would not create physical minds. There you go, hack away!
Smoking Ban

Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Constructive casesRound 3 - Refutations and more constructive casesRound 4 - Refutations, closing statements. No new evidence or arguments.The resolution pertains in particular to recreational smoking.I will be arguing in favor of a general ban on recreational smoking.TN05 will be arguing against.BOP shared.Rules:1. No overt semantics 2. No forfeits3. No trolling4. Yatty yatta.Without further ado..
Strict gun control

I believe that strict gun control: 1. goes against the 2nd amendment. 2. totally limits our options for self-defense. 3. increases crime because people are deterred less because the victims can't defend themselves against a gun when they don't have a gun. This is shown in Chicago because crime spiked when Illinois started very strict gun control. Recently in Chicago, Gun violence suddenly went down because you can now conceal and carry in Illinois. This deters criminals because now civilians can actually defend themselves. We know that change in crime is because of this because there have been no other major changes that impact this sort of thing.
Strict gun control

Thank you for your argument. I will first rebut: 1. "There was a survey conducted in a prison about how criminals got their guns only 8% obtained them legally " Sources please. That may be true but stricter gun control still limits the available numbers of guns which makes the society safer even a little bit. 2. "one person said "It's actually really easy to get illegal firearms"" This is a very subjective statement. One criminal's opinion shouldn't affect the decision of the society. 3. "Now, I have to get to class so that's why I have a very short argument." You have instigated this debate. If you do not have time nor willing to put in the effort, you shouldn't have. I have school too and yet I am spending time debating you. You had 3 days to put forth your arguments. I stand on my arguments as Con didn't rebut my previous arguments.
Abraham was the first recorded pimp

"ahhh... Again, I'd like to point out how you MUST check the rabbinic commentaries. There IS a famous Midrash that says Abraham originally had Sarah hidden in a box, but she was discovered, and then all of these precautions took way. And what did you mean if not pimp? You seem to be implying that Abraham used Sarah to make some cash. But that's besides the point - which is that Abraham did not come to Egypt just to make money off of Pharaoh. If you ask me, it's kind of a stupid plan - since right afterward, after Pharaoh found out that Abe was Sarah's husband, he'd kill him. Luckily, G-d stopped that from happening, which shows that He approved of Abraham's actions; and thus, we can conclude that he had no malevolent intentions as you would like to claim." 1). There are many better options than a box like I stated before. 2). I meant pimp, I just tried to edit it to make it a little less offensive, but it didn't go through. Abraham could have gotten her to wear something to cover her face and her body, he could have dressed her like a man (Deborah Sampson did it), or he could have snuck her in at midnight so no one noticed her. 3). Abraham DID want to use Sarah to make a couple of bucks, he said that; "so that I may benefit because of you." 4). Abraham did not come to Egypt with the intention of ripping the Pharaoh off, he came because of the famine. He decided to rip the Pharaoh off later. 5). G-d saving Abraham does NOT mean that he approved of his actions, G-d saved Lot, did he approve of HIS actions? Keep in mind, Lot offered to have his daughters be gang-raped-to death by a roaring mob of homosexuals. Then he had sex with his DAUGHTERS! You can say that he was drunk, but you can't, because when you are drunk to an extent that you can't tell that who you are having sex with is your daughters, you are incapable of ejaculation.
Abraham was the first recorded pimp

ahhh... Again, I'd like to point out how you MUST check the rabbinic commentaries. There IS a famous Midrash that says Abraham originally had Sarah hidden in a box, but she was discovered, and then all of these precautions took way. And what did you mean if not pimp? You seem to be implying that Abraham used Sarah to make some cash. But that's besides the point - which is that Abraham did not come to Egypt just to make money off of Pharaoh. If you ask me, it's kind of a stupid plan - since right afterward, after Pharaoh found out that Abe was Sarah's husband, he'd kill him. Luckily, G-d stopped that from happening, which shows that He approved of Abraham's actions; and thus, we can conclude that he had no malevolent intentions as you would like to claim.
Abraham was the first recorded pimp

Abraham had no interest in making profit? That's not what the verse says, Genesis 12:13: "So please tell them you are my sister. Then they will spare my life and treat me well because of their interest in you." Please note, "treat me well", does NOT mean they will spare his life, he mentioned that separately. This means that they will pay him or give him gifts. so this has been resolved, Abraham himself said that it was to get gifts, there is nothing further to debate here. So, I addressed that Abraham had better options than to get her to say she was his sister, I explained that she could cover her face so no one knew she was beautiful, she could dress like a man so no one would be attracted to her (it's easy, Deborah Sampson did it), or he could have smuggled her into Egypt at night without anyone noticing. So why did Abraham do it this way even though there were obviously better options, simple; profit, he explains this. And finally, I did not mean to say pimp, I meant to change the argument, but it didn't save my edit, I'm sorry.
Abraham was the first recorded pimp

I'm sorry but this is an utter waste of my time and I will not continue to feed your immature trolling appetite. Abraham was not a pimp. He did not use Sarah do get money. He was not interested in money, as evidenced by the result of his victory over the 4 kings. After he won the war against the enemies, the allies offered to worship him and give him lots of money, but he said "Not even a thread or a shoelace shall you give me." He told Sarah to say that he was his sister so that he wouldn't be killed by Pharaoh/Abimelech as some sort of competition for Sarah. They happened to have given him gifts, and he did not reject them. Also, remember this last thing: Pharaoh and Abimelech never touched Sarah once, so to say that there was prostitution involved is fruitless, just like this "debate".