BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Logic Analysis pt.II- These arguments disprove the existence of God

My opponent brings up a contention to which he seems absolutely convinced is irrefutable. This is, however, a question clerics and scientists have asked for thousands of years. Science has a simple answer: The Law of Conservation of Energy. This law, an empirical law of physics, teaches that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. My opponent claims that my definition of God: "the beginning and source of everything", is a logical contradiction. Both science and religion disagree, as it is universally accepted that mass, time, and space had an origin. The origins can be debated, but the general consensus in science is "the Big Bang", and the general consensus in religion is "God created everything". Both claims are similar in nature in that there was an origin based in a singular energy source- science has not reached a consensus on the object or nature of that source, but the Law of Conservation of Energy leads the majority to believe that pure energy caused the dense mass which resulted in the Big Bang. Now, I am not arguing that the Big Bang theory is correct (which itself has many logical fallacies and becomes more and more un-scientific the more it is delved into), rather that it is not a logical contradiction to assume a non-physical origin of mass, rather it is what science points to. Any discussion as to what God consists of- light, pure energy, spiritual energy- is theory as we cannot possibly grasp, nor has science explained the origins of physical mass. Because of this all I can prove is that my definition- "God is the beginning and source of everything", is not a logical contradiction. My opponent's contention, however, IS a logical contradiction. There are only two logical options regarding the origins of the universe: 1- God made the universe 2- The universe made itself The third option, the universe has always been here, contradicts empirical science. Unless my opponent can present a plausible theory that is outside of these two options, then his argument contradicts logic. There are other, more widely accepted theories that, according to my opponent, are logical contradictions. Take for example, the Big Bang theory: "The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. "- . http://www.exploratorium.edu... Where did the energy come from? Did the energy create itself? How long was the energy concentrated before it exploded, and in what state was the energy before it concentrated? If my opponent cannot answer these questions, then he cannot claim that my definition of God is a logical contradiction. My opponent claims every major scientist, including the most renowned scientist, mathematician, and physicist Stephen Hawking, who himself says that asking "what came before the Big Bang" is akin to asking what lies north of the North Pole, contradicts logic. My opponent has then become the sole arbiter of logic.
Logic Analysis pt.II- These arguments disprove the existence of God

Thank you Mangani for opening up this debate to everybody. Your win/loss record is considerably better than mine, but hopefully I'm up for the challenge. As I understand this debate, it is up to me to present a logical argument or arguments proving God, as defined by Con, does not exist. I accept that the proposition puts me in a difficult position. It is my opinion that in the general case, questions of existence (either for or against,) must be empirical in nature, i.e., "verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." [1] However, in this particular case the definition of God presented is so outrageous that He cannot exist without a logical contradiction and therefore does not exist. So let's review what that definition is; Con has asserted that God is "The beginning and source of everything," in essence we are talking about a God that created absolutely everything in existence. create: v. 1) bring (something) into existence. 2) cause (something) to happen as a result of one's actions. [1] I will present only a single logical argument against the existence of his God... In order to create something, to be the "beginning and source" for it, in order to bring something into existence, the creator must exist before the created. This necessarily entails that something cannot create itself, and therein lies the problem with Con's definition of God. Nothing can be the beginning and source of everything that exists, because it would have to be the beginning and source of itself, which is logically impossible. To get out of this obvious problem, I expect my opponent will attempt to use the fallacy of special pleading. He will say something like "Everything doesn't include God" without any justifiable reasons to exclude God from the class. I expect you, the voter, will not let him weasel out with this fallacy so easily. Alternatively, my opponent might claim that his use of the word "everything" was actually limited to something like "everything material" or "everything that had a beginning." Again, I'm sure the voters will easily see that this is nothing more than a variation of the special pleading argument above. If my opponent tries for either of the above arguments, the burden of proof moves onto his shoulders. What demonstrable property does God have that allows him existence without being part of the set of everything that exists? Lastly, he submits, but does not regard as essential, that God is eternal and infinite. I reject that definition and require that he prove that God has these seemingly impossible properties, and even if I accepted such a definition it would still mean that there is at least one thing that God did not, can not, have created; thus again God, as he defined it, cannot exist. [1] Oxford American Dictionary
Logic Analysis pt.II- These arguments disprove the existence of God

I would like to continue this debate with the original opponent. The first Round may seem familiar, and I have made only slight changes from the previous R1 format. RESOLUTION: These arguments disprove the existence of God. DEFINITIONS: By accepting this debate, you agree to accept these definitions for this debate. The only definitions of God that both debaters MUST accept are the following: God: The beginning and source of everything God: 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Other definitions can be discussed for the sake of debate and argument, but are not essential to the premise. I submit the following: God: in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty (. http://www.yourdictionary.com...) Other essential definitions: Disprove: to prove (an assertion, claim, etc. ) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate . http://dictionary.reference.com... Exist: to have actual being; be; to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions . http://dictionary.reference.com... FORMAT OF DEBATE: By accepting this debate, you are agreeing use this format for this debate. My opponent will post: -Any relevant definitions they choose, other than the terms I have already listed; -Two or three arguments against the existence of God, with at least a couple sentences of explanation; not simply statements. He will be arguing that God does not exist; not that he probably does not exist, or might not exist. -It is the burden of Pro to prove that God does not exist. It is not the burden of Con to prove God "does" exist, rather to prove that he arguments presented by Pro are not irrefutable. Please label each section clearly, to keep the arguments separate. In my R2, I'll post my opening refutations of each of my opponent's arguments in order, and from there we have a debate. Thank you, and good luck.
That Australia has become a "Nanny State"

Well, given that you have failed to provide your own definition of what a "nanny state" is, I will provide my own. A nanny state is a government perceived as authoritarian or interfering , OR the government regarded as overprotective or as interfering unduly with personal choice. Based on the first definition, how can you possibly say that Australia is a nanny state? We are DEFINITELY not authoritarian, no doubt you agree with me on this. As for interfering, I would agree that Australia interferes more than many countries, but not to the extent that would make us a nanny state. I ask you this, how much of your life is regulated? Don't tell me you aren't free to do as you choose day to day. We also have freedom of speech in Australia, something I personally wouldn't expect a nanny state to have. As for your mention of bicycle helmet regulations, all I have to say is, so? We are a nanny state because we care about safety? It's been proven that wearing bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury (http://auto.howstuffworks.com...). To some extent I agree with you here, it shouldn't have to be a law, because it should just be common sense. But that's the thing, laws and regulations are imposed for the betterment of the population. Concluding this, I fail to see how having to wear a helmet is an "outrageous law" as you suggested it was, and I fail to see how it makes contributes to us being a nanny state. As for the lock out laws in Sydney, there was a major problem with conflicts. The level of violence is also down by 40% since the laws were introduced, and the cities are much safer than they were before. LA and NY also have a cut off time by the way. (2am and 4am respectively) http://safecities.net.au... To conclude my argument, I guess all I'd say is that, you're free. You have personal choice. Many of the regulations that you would encounter in your day to day life do not tell you that you can't do things, but rather HOW to do them to avoid risk, injury etc. (Also, as a little side note, how curious that this topic would come up on debate.org just a week before the Cairns high school debating tournament starts in just over a week.)
That Australia has become a "Nanny State"

Lock-out laws, bicycle helmet regulations and picnic permits are just some of the outrageous laws which suggest that Australia"s criminal legislation has gone a step too far. While many of these laws have been implemented in the expectation that is will reduce violence or improve health and safety, in many cases the excessive laws are being accused of restricted freedom, ruining livelihood of small businesses and turning the nation into a nanny state. (Source: https://au.finance.yahoo.com...)
Resolved: Scientology is a proper religion based on conventional definition of what a religion is.

I think that Scientology is in no way a proper religion. This round is just introduction, and as such I will provide a counter-interpretation with definitions so that the debate is more focused. My definition of a Religion- a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. (Merriam-Webster) Proper - marked by suitability, rightness, or appropriateness This sets up the question of whether or not Scientology (and not independent Scientology, that is a different institution) is appropriately a personal set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices. If I prove that it is not one of these I win. If the Pro successfully defends all aspects of the resolution then he wins.
Resolved: Scientology is a proper religion based on conventional definition of what a religion is.

R1: Acceptance R2: Argument R3: Rebuttal R4: Closing statement(limited new argument allowed) I will be taking the position that Scientology under modern definitions fits the criteria of a religion. This is NOT about whether or not you believe that Scientology is good or bad, or that the Church of Scientology has or has not done bad things. Only whether or not it meets the standard and governmental definitions of a religion.
Resolved: Scientology is a proper religion based on conventional definition of what a religion is.

Thank you to Con for their reply. In this debate, I have shown based on common definitions that Scientology qualifies as a religion. Con argues that the Church of Scientology is a "criminal cult" but provides no definition for that term. Con at no point provided evidence of criminal activity within the Church of Scientology. Although allegations of crimes committed by individuals in the organization may exist in the public domain Con did not bring those evidences into this debate and thus should not be considered. Con argues that a suitable religion obeys the law and is given tax exempt status, yet Con doesn't provide evidence for this claim. Also in the definitions of religion or church provided in this debate none specifically say anything about obedience to law. Con claims that The Church of Scientology lost its tax exempt status this year. That claim is false. There were erroneous articles circling the internet last year from satire and entertainment websites claiming this and they are false. Con sources abcnews. com. co which is a known fake news site. www. adweek. com/fishbowlny/abc-news-dot-co/369991 The church is still tax exempt www. esquire. com/news-politics/news/. .. /fake-supreme-court-scientology-ruling/ . http://www.snopes.com... . http://www.dontmesswithtaxes.com... To conclude, I had the burden of proof to show that Scientology meets the proper conventional definitions of a religion and have done so. I have refuted Con's claim successfully. Con provided no evidence of their claims of a "criminal cult" which is not related to the topic and sourced satire news to claim that the church is no longer tax exempt. I have also shown in my proofs that independent Scientology is organized and does meet the minimal definition for a religion under the common dictionary definition. My meeting of my burden of proof means points should be awarded to me.
Resolved: Scientology is a proper religion based on conventional definition of what a religion is.

Overview arguments. 1. I argue that the resolution is just calling for me to disprove the official church of Scientology. 2. The resolution is calling for the pro to prove that Scientology is a suitable (proper) religion. We both agree on this per our definitions. Now to refute my opponents case. His C1 is true, they believe in a deity, but it doesn't prove that Scientology is a proper religion. His C2 is only true for the official church, the unorganized side of the religion cannot fulfill the requirements he out lines with this contention. This contentions solidifies my 1st overview argument. It also show, by his own criterion that Independent Scientology is not a proper religion. His C3 has the same refutation as his C1. His C4 is just wrong, Scientology hast lost it's tax exempt status this year. Even the United States Supreme Court found that Scientology is a "criminal operation with a sole purpose of making money"(The IRS Criminal Investigation Division)[1]. Now to defend my case, C1- The Official Church is not a Church In this point I am arguing that because the Official Church is a particular type of cult, that is a criminal cult. As you stated many proper religions have been considered a cult, but no criminal cults have been considered a proper religion. A suitable religion obeys they law and is given take exempt status. The official church is not suitable because it violated these principles. C2 - When a religion is split, it is no longer one entity. Just like how Protestants and Catholics split. You cannot be referring to them as the same, because they are different. We don't say "is the Church of Christianity a proper religion? " That would be preposterous because Christianity is split. When this debate is no longer about the official church of Scientology it ceases to be a debate. You would have had to define the specific entities in your resolution if you wanted the debate to be about that. In conclusion, Scientology is not a proper religion because the official church is a criminal cult and the Independent forms are too young to receive tax exempt status. This directly violates the proper, part of the resolution. On this alone the negative case rests, Scientology violates the proposed resolution. It is not a suitable Religion. [1] The mother of all evidence- . http://abcnews.com.co... (If you read any article as part of the con side, read this one).
Resolved: Scientology is a proper religion based on conventional definition of what a religion is.

Ok, let's start off by clearing something up. The Pro stated " Of importance to note is I specifically am referring to Scientology generally as a religion and not the specific organizations that make up the religion.(i.e. Church of Scientology, Ron's Org(and independent group) etc..) I can still defend the Church of Scientology in the context of governmental and common definitions of religion and will do that here." Now for the big question, are we or are we not talking about Independent Scientology or the official church of Scientology. The Pro address the issue by basically saying, I am not talking about the official church but then says he will defend the official churches status as a religion. I apologize if I come off as rude but I would like your side of the debate to be cleared up because your points have different meanings if we are talking about Independent Scientology or the official church of Scientology. Secondly, remember that we are debating whether Scientology is a proper religion (emphasis on proper). A cult is not a proper religion as a proper, or suitable, religion keeps its members by positive motivation in this life, while a cult uses negative motivation in this life to keep members. Now for the debate, C1 The Official Church is a Cult, Not a Church Independent Scientology is more akin to a motivational way of thinking, almost like a way to help out your life through a series of philosophies. It is a grass-roots movement created because many Scientologists believe that the official church has lost its "religion" status because of the actions of David Miscavige, the new de-facto dictator of the organisation have shifted to a religious cult, not a religion[1]. They cite 31 reasons why the official church is corrupt. If you do not want to click on the link, I will quickly explain the most important ones. David Miscavige has instituted Reverse (Black) Dianetics, created the IAS (The IAS is a slush fund that is filled by David extorting the members of the church by saying that a great calamity will occur if they don't pay up) using confidential confessionals to shame dissenting members, and using the "disconnection system" to hold members from leaving the cult on threat of their loved ones never acknowledging them again. A cult keeps it's members by fear or hate and official Scientology does the same. Therefore official Scientology is not a proper religion. C2- The Unofficial church. First off, If a religion is not organised, then it is not suitable and therefore can never be a proper religion. Secondly, unorganized Scientology cannot have many of the characteristic that a proper religion has. For example, a set doctrine and interpretation of said doctrine, organised meetings, proper confessionals, case pay, or the proper teachers to teach the doctrine. Each one of these issues individual would destroy Scientologist's chance to be considered a part of a proper religion. This is why independent Scientology is more like a motivational presentation rather then a proper religion. Looking forward to rebuttals next round!
Macs are all-around better than Windows computers.

~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ Here is a video that illustrates that a computer's start up time is based on the parts and configuration of that computer. Not the operating system, which my opponent claims to never made a point about. Even though it is very clear that his argument is that Macs start up faster than Windows PCs. [6] ~ ///Think about it: You have the choice of a hamburger where the lettuce and tomatoes were grown in your backyard, the cheese was made by you, the meat was made from one of YOUR cows, and you baked the bread from your own oven, using all natural ingredients, or you could have the lettuce imported from Uruguay, the buns from Japan, and and the meat from Mongolia. Which sounds better? The homegrown one. You want to know why? Because it's all from the same place. /// This is a logical fallacy commonly referred to as the genetic fallacy. A thing's country of origin has no inherent bearing on how well it performs, just like a thing's company name has no inherent bearing on how well a computer part performs. The outsourced burger could very well be exponentially better than the homegrown one. ~ ///Therefore, the Windows being the more convenient with a cheaper price doesn't make it quality, which it isn't. So thus I can logically conclude that this is a recession made by my opponent or a miswritten analogy of Windows to Macs. /// I do not believe that this is that hard of a point to understand. My opponent's original contention was that since Macs come with more stuff that they are better. I refuted this by explaining how convenience does not equal quality with the food analogy. Effectively refuting my opponent's point. However my opponent persisted to make the claim that the analogy was directly referencing Macs and Windows PCs. This is incorrect, I say again that the analogy only showed that . He even adds support to my side by stating that Windows PCs are cheaper. ~ I will drop my point about Keynote and PowerPoint. One specific Mac/Windows program being superior to another Mac/Windows program really has no significant bearing on the resolution of whether or not Macs are superior to Windows PCs. The debate is about the computers as a whole not simply one minor aspect. ~ Your friend's problem is not the Windows XP operating system's fault. You see, AntiVirus2008XP is a program installed on your computer because of a Trojan Horse virus infection. Here are instructions as to how your friend can correct this problem [5]. Therefore my opponent's contention that these pop-ups are because of the OS is voided. ~ In conclusion I have refuted all of my opponent's original contentions. My opponent has conceded that the software selection that is usable for Windows OSs is better than Macs and that this is a good thing, and he has not even mentioned the fact that the license agreement for Macintosh prevents you from using the software in the way that you deem fit. I strongly urge a Con vote. [5] . http://www.spyware-techie.com... [6] Video . http://www.youtube.com...