BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Existence of a God or Gods is [Currently] Unknowable to Man

Howdy!!! I would like to first say I look forward to this debate; the issue of God has always been of keen interest to me despite my antagonistic stance toward institutionalized-hypocritical religion. I accept Pro's outline for the rounds in this debate. I will now ask certain questions of clarification to Pro:(1) Are you defining knowledge as "justified true belief"? If not, what is your definition of knowledge in this debate?(2) Is all knowledge strictly empirical? That is, only in experience (e.g. observation) are we able to come to know anything? Is this a strict denial of anything a priori? (3) Please clarify on what you mean by "observation"? Must observation be a self-conscious realization and/or a habitual-cognitive process that is not necessarily reflective?(4) I accept Pro's definition of God for the sake of this debate. But as "creator of this universe" is He/She/It either immanent, transcendent, or both?a. For the sake of simplicity, from this point on, I will refer to God in the feminine pronoun of "She." I love hot women, so therefore I shall refer to God as feminine. (5) What is your view of "Truth?"--------------------------MY ARGUMENT:I will first refute Pro's Humean stance that "all knowledge is derived from observations." I will instead argue that knowledge derives from a coherent set of justified beliefs. That is, I will adopt a Coherentist view of Epistemology (Quine, Lehrer, etc.).By doing this, knowledge is not merely empirical (as Pro argues). Rather, I argue, the Coherentest view of knowledge is multifaceted - to have knowledge is a cognitive-rational, empirical, and phenomenological process. Simply put: beliefs can derive from consciousness, experience, rational-cognitive faculties, etc. But in order for one to know, these beliefs must be justified by cohering with one another in a belief system. In a Coherentist view of Knowledge, Truth is relative (for human beings). This is not to deny that there is not an objective truth in noumena sense. I simply argue that it is unaccessible to human beings (Kant) I will not elaborate too much on Truth. But I will provide a brief example on how Knowledge implodes if one assumes absolute truth. Once I have successfully shown that Knowledge is not merely observational, knowledge of God for an individual is possible by means of a coherent justified-belief system. Arguments for the Existence of God (e.g. Teleological, Ontological, Cosmological, etc.) or even Kierkegaard's infamous "Leap of Faith" may be considered as knowledge.In short, similar to what William Jame's says in Varieties of Religious Experience - St. Paul's mystical experience on the road to Damascus can be considered a form of Knowledge. Therefore, one can know that God exists. --------------------------I look forward to my Opponent's response and the opportunity to delve into my case!
The Existence of a God or Gods is [Currently] Unknowable to Man

Basically: Flip a coin. My argument: All knowledge is derived from observations. There are no observations that prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, one cannot know whether God(s) exists/exist. Note: The argument is made on the assumption that the future may prove me wrong, but it nevertheless holds true to all that has been observed thus far. A definition of God is required and it is unfortunate that hardly anyone agrees on any set criteria. My own definition of God is that it an undefinable entity, much for the same reasons that we cannot if God(s) exist. For the purpose of this argument, however, we shall use the idea of God(s) as creator(s) of our universe. Round 1: Acceptance plus revisions/additions/clarification of definitions. Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Concluding remarks. (No new information)
Homosexuality is a Sin

In the last round, I proved that: (1) Homosexuality can't be a sin, because to sin is to choose to go against God. The church acknowledges that one does not choose their sexuality. While they may choose their sexual endeavors (i.e. to have gay sex), they do not choose to be inherently homosexual. So, because it's not a choice even by the church's standards, homosexuality can't be a sin. (2) The church's stance on many issues regarding sexuality in general have changed over the years. The idea that homosexuality is sinful is considered outdated in many denominations. (3) "What many presume to be homosexuality in the Bible is not homosexuality at all. Instead, what the Bible describes in the "clobber passages" is actually cultic pagan worship of the fertility goddess. Because the Bible in context does not support their presuppositions, those who oppose gays and lesbians habitually take verses out of context to "prove" their argument." (4) Oh, again what I said before - homosexual BEHAVIOR is sinful and not homosexuality itself. (5) A slew of theologians have offered alternative interpretations of what is usually considered slander of gays. Of course I went into more explicit detail in the last round, but those are the main themes of what my opponent has one more opportunity to try and refute. Good luck.
Homosexuality is a Sin

Homosexuality is a sin whether one believes in the Bible or not. Romans 1: 24-28 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. I think this makes it very clear, that homosexuality is a sin.
euthanasia

Well, for one thing this could easily be abused in order to kill people without their consent, as it was in Germany and Holland. Although euthanasia is supposed to grant individuals more power over their lives, in reality, it can easily be abused in order to give the doctor more control over the lives of the people. A report published in the Netherlands notes the following: 1,040 people (an average of 3 per day) died from involuntary euthanasia, meaning that doctors actively killed these patients without the patients’ knowledge or consent.(9) 14% of these patients were fully competent. (10) 72% had never given any indication that they would want their lives terminated. (11) In 8% of the cases, doctors performed involuntary euthanasia despite the fact that they believed alternative options were still possible. (12) In addition, 8,100 patients died as a result of doctors deliberately giving them overdoses of pain medication, not for the primary purpose of controlling pain, but to hasten the patient’s death. (13) In 61% of these cases (4,941 patients), the intentional overdose was given without the patient’s consent.(14) The Remmelink Report figures cited here do not include thousands of other cases, also reported in the study, in which life-sustaining treatment was withheld or withdrawn without the patient’s consent and with the intention of causing the patient’s death. (15) Nor do the figures include cases of involuntary euthanasia performed on disabled newborns, children with life-threatening conditions, or psychiatric patients. (16) The most frequently cited reasons given for ending the lives of patients without their knowledge or consent were: “low quality of life,” “no prospect for improvement,” and “the family couldn’t take it anymore.”(17) In 45% of cases involving hospitalized patients who were involuntarily euthanized, the patients’ families had no knowledge that their loved ones’ lives were deliberately terminated by doctors. (18) According to the 1990 census, the population of Holland is approximately 15 million. That is only half the population of California. To get some idea of how the Remmelink Report statistics would apply to the U.S., those figures would have to be multiplied 16.6 times (based on the 1990 U.S. census population of approximately 250 million) SOURCE: http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org... So, we can see that euthanasia is a dangerous public policy. Now, my opponent discusses a right to suicide. I contend that no such right exists based on Kantian ethics; as Kant notes, I have a right to do as I please with myself and my body as long as I do not take any action that violates human dignity and treats people as means to an end. When I commit suicide, I am treating myself as a means to an end of pain prevention, so suicide violates human dignity and is therefore unjust.
Swimming in the Ocean is Better than Swimming in a Public Pool 2.0

First of all, there are significant amounts of "fecal waste" in oceans, too. You're swimming in fish (and shark, and whale, and jellyfish, you get my point) poop! Literally! In pools you have chlorine to kill bacteria, not so much in oceans. You aren't only swimming in fecal matters, either. Do you remember the BP oil spills? All of them? And the numerous other oil spills, from different companies? The seas are constantly being bombarded by ships leaking fuel and chemicals into the marine wildlife's environment. And that's where you let your friends, family, and co-workers swim? You might argue that water evaporates, and there is constant water change. Guess what? Oil doesn't evaporate! Even though the sea is vast, 2/3 of Earth, it is still filled with poisonous materials. Secondly, swimming makes you feel good. Period. We both agree on that. But I think that swimming in a pool gives the same effects of swimming in the ocean: Feeling of weightlessness? Check. Exercise? Check. Crystal clear water? I'm sorry, ocean, but the pool's got you there. I've seen some gross looking oceans, like I stated previously. And as for the salt water clearing out your sinuses? Well, there's something for that. A Neti Pot! For readers who haven't come in contact with it, it's a little pot where you can put salt water in, and if you use it to clean your sinuses, it's quite effective. I think it's better to expect the salt water going down your nose than to be swimming and suddenly have the (fish-poopy) Pacific Ocean cascading down your nose. Even though this does happen in pools, the effects are not quite as shocking. Third, anyone can get athlete's foot, pool or not! I will describe athlete's foot, for my opponent "Shall not waste time describing, for one is daft if unaware of this ever-so-common fungal infection." I don't think it will earn you any votes to insult anybody, Pro. "Athlete's foot, or tinea pedis (tin-ee-uh peh-dus), is a common skin infection that is caused by a fungus, a plant-like microorganism too small to be seen by the naked eye. This fungus eats old skin cells. Although athlete's foot occurs mostly among teen and young adult guys, kids and women can get it, too. People with sweaty or damp feet are at risk. But just having the fungus on your feet isn't enough to cause the infection. The infection happens if conditions are right for the fungus to grow." -http://kidshealth.org... Having wet or sweaty feet are perfect conditions for the fungus to grow. Sweaty like when you're playing volleyball by the ocean all day, or the hot sand that a bunch of other people walked on, or that pontoon you went boating and swimming on. Pools aren't the only victims here. I rest my case. Let the best swimmer win.
Swimming in the Ocean is Better than Swimming in a Public Pool 2.0

This house believes that swimming in the ocean is better than swimming in a public pool. Argument 1) When swimming in the ocean, one has experience(s) that are psychologically and physically good. For example, one might feel free and alive when in the salty ocean water; perhaps even a connection with Earth. Salt water clears one's sinuses and has been proven to be an effective healing method. Being subjected to such things is healthy. Argument 2) The health effects of swimming in a public pool are utterly atrocious. I begin this argument by stating that the Centers for Control and Disease made an appalling discovery earlier this year of despicably high levels of fecal matter are present in most public pools. Recreational water illnesses have increased by 200% between the years of 2004 and 2008. The first health effect to be discussed is asthma, caused by chlorine and chloramine byproduct inhalation. Studies have shown that simply lessening exposure has had surprisingly significant effects, to the extent of no longer needing an asthma inhaler. The second health effect under discussion is the Legionnaires' Disease, a bacterium lung disease. This is a variation of pneumonia that can be fatal, under certain circumstances (depending on the varied intricate characteristics of the illness). This disease occurs naturally in human-made environments, explaining why it is so commonly found in indoor public pools. Legionnaire's Disease occurs via inhalation of bacteria in water vapour. Several well-known effects include swimmer's ear (when water remains in one's ear for an extended period of time, causing the bacteria to grow and cause an infection), and athlete's foot, which I shall not waste time describing, for one is daft if unaware of this ever-so-common fungal infection. The last effect under discussion is also very well known, however surprising in this context. A very big generalization is that public pools are proven to be carcinogenic. To break this down, as leaving the above statement so open and general would do nothing but hurt this house's argument, I shall state that studies have shown that swimming for 40 minutes has caused (a significant amount of times) carcinogenic genetic mutations. The main cancers up for discussion are lung cancers, nasal cancers, and skin cancers, however, chlorine can cause genetic mutations anywhere on your body, for it is absorbed into your skin, by your skin. This concludes my opening arguments.
Did video really kill the radio star? I think so!

Aaaaaaand here is where my refutation comes into place. First, video did not kill the radio star, but instead it gave it n ideal platform to expand itself. If you have satellite television or even digital cable, you'll notice that a good chunk of the channels are just radio stations themselves. due to video, we've seen radio expand it's platform. Second, music videos are possible due to the advent of video. When all we had was a speaker to show sound you didn't get a much of an experience. Now you can see the artist performing alongside their music. All but one of the top 10 videos on Youtube are music video, and one of them was the first video to ever make it to 1 billion hits. Finally, podcasts. This is a perfect example of radio existing in spite of video based options. People use podcasts while running, to catchup on news and even when traveling.
Uniforms

Your "bullying" argument is complete nonsense. Kids are bullied because how many friends they have, How rich they are, How intelligent they are, How attractive they look, How fit they are. Nobody is bullied because of what clothes they wear, Unless they wear filthy and old clothes (so don't wear filthy and old clothes! ). And even if you are bullied because of your clothes, You don't get to force everyone to wear uniforms. Other students aren't responsible if you are bullied for what you wear. If you're already bullied, Forcing everyone to wear uniforms won't help you: kids will still bully you. Your "easier to choose what to wear" argument is also wrong. Like I said before, You don't get to force others to wear uniforms just because you have some problems. If you want, Wear one tracksuit for the whole year: then it will be very easy for you to choose. You said that tracksuits can get as dirty as uniforms. Exactly! Another reasons why uniforms are bad. Uniforms may seem good, But the cost far outweighs any benefit. Uniforms would have to be designed and manufactured en masse, Millions of them. If kids are each given two pairs like you said they are it would cost even more. Staff would have to enforce the dress code. Someone who loses or ruins their uniform would have to get a new one, And the school would have to replace it. It's far easier to have a simple dress-code and not force all students to wear uniforms.
Uniforms

"Lots of students would get in trouble for not wearing uniforms" Students could also get in trouble for wearing inappropriate clothing like crop-tops, Clothing that shows their belly, Etc. "Uniforms in school violate freedom of expression. " This is untrue. Most schools with uniforms allow students to style their hair any way they want (except, Of course, When it's dyed unnaturally bright colours that are distracting) and wear accessories like bracelets, Lockets and headbands. It's not a complete violation of freedom of expression. "School would be a very boring place if everybody had the same clothes. " Schools are supposed to be fun on special days, Like Christmas, Hannukah, Halloween, Sports Days, Trips, Etc. On these days, Even uniform schools allow costumes and Christmas/Hannukah themed clothing. Schools aren't supposed to be fun on a classic Monday. I still stand my ground that uniforms are the opposite of distracting; in fact, Nobody minds uniforms. People get used to uniforms after wearing them. Imagine being new at school and are nervous. If it was a non-uniform school, One would be worried no one would like their sense of fashion; moreover, You'd want to make a 'first impression'. First impressions are the most unreliable way of judging a person. For example, One at a school might dress in pink clothes and give an impression of being a popular girl. Maybe this person is trying to fit in. This brings us to the fact that it is hard to fit in with a style different from everyone else. Some people fake being popular or fake being one of the bullies to avoid getting bullied- this might lead to an identity crisis. "You can wear one tracksuit for the whole year (very similar to a uniform, Heh). " By the way, Most people get two sets of uniforms and can survive with them. Another point to mention is that this tracksuit can get just as dirty as a uniform can, So you've given me a useless example. (Heh! )
Uniforms

Uniforms in school are unnecessary. Uniforms are needed in the army where soldiers need to know who is on their side. In school, Uniforms won't help students learn more, But learning more is the purpose of school. Uniforms are too much trouble for very little benefit: schools would have to design special dress codes, Lots of students would get in trouble for not wearing uniforms, The schools would have to spend money on making uniforms, Etc. Uniforms in school violate freedom of expression. Students should be allowed to wear what they want as long as it doesn't distract other students. Coming to school in a bikini distracts other students, But not wearing a uniform doesn't. Students should be able to choose what they wear and be fashionable! School would be a very boring place if everybody had the same clothes. Wearing one uniform would be very problematic. If a student spills something on their uniform, They won't be able to come to school until it's washed. If a student rips their uniform, They won't be able to come to school until they get a new one. This is so much trouble that could have been avoided if there were no uniforms in school. Always wearing a uniform will make it dirty, And it will have to be washed all the time. It's better to wear different clothes. Making a uniform mandatory won't help students choose clothes. Nobody is forcing you to choose what to wear, You can wear one tracksuit for the whole year (very similar to a uniform, Heh). Nobody spends hours on putting together outfits, That's nonsense. Forcing others to wear uniforms because you can't choose what to wear to school isn't right. Other students aren't responsible for your issues.
Uniforms

I believe uniforms are vital in school. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Between the years 2015 and 2016 22% of public schools acquired uniforms. This is because uniforms are believed to help students focus more on education than what they are wearing. If students are wearing expensive clothes at school, They will definitely regret it. The clothes might get stained, Painted on or even ripped. Even with stitching, Expensive clothes look horrible when ripped. Furthermore, Students have fewer chances of getting bullied when wearing uniforms. This is because everyone would be wearing the exact same clothes; therefore, There would be no reason to bully others. No one wants to get bullied for what they like to wear. On trips, Students are supposed to wear school uniforms. When they get lost, It will be easier to find them. It is better than searching for a specific person with clothes anybody can wear. We can't deny that kids adore the thought of not having to decide what to wear each day. Instead of spending hours of time putting together outfits, A student simply puts on their uniform. Chant'e Haskins shared her opinion after going from a school with no uniforms to one with uniforms. She says after wearing the uniform for a whole school year she "was so used to wearing the uniform it did not even bother me anymore. " Chant'e adds she saved time in the morning by not having to pick out an outfit and was able to customize her look with accessories to keep some individuality. Proponents suggest kids who wear school uniforms feel more connected to their school, Encounter less bullying, And have a more professional attitude. All of these factors contribute to more positive behaviour in school. In one school's online survey, About 25% of student respondents said they believe school uniforms would promote positive behaviour. It is generally thought that students who wear school uniforms behave more appropriately in the school environment. They believe that uniforms dictate a stricter atmosphere and that students who wear uniforms are more likely to follow school rules. Again, I must repeat that school uniforms are beneficial in many ways to both the students and the school.