BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
As it Stands, Atheism is the Logical Conclusion

you have absolutely no proof for the non existence of God. yet you don't believe in God. i question whether you understand what atheism means. most atheists when cornered say they are really agnostics. soft atheism is a phrase that means you only have a tendency to not believe in God. hard atheism means you full believe as a matter of faith andor fact etc that God does not exist. even richard dawkins would admit taht he doesnt think God's existance is false. are you claiming to have the proof to disprove God's existance? the spaghetti monster thing and teapot thing. i don't know how to make it clearer. to say a spaghetti monster made us is a very specific thing... it's completely arbitrary. to say some intelligence made us... not relegating God to some sort of man in the sky... is not specific and so is different than God. you have a point... it's somewhat analogos.. that it's not necessarily the case that that intelligence made us and in a sense is random... but it's not fully analogous because intelligence is at least plausible. a spaghetti monster is completely ludicris and random, albeit admittedly there's a degree you even have to accept hat this might be true. the main point of my essay... is mostly geared towards theists to tame their random beliefs. God's existance can't be proven as fact. it's not demonstrateable. i understand your arguments.... yet, there's circumstantial evidence which is permissible even in a court of law. that a reasonable jury could say indicates God. to look at hte world's complexity... and see how intricate it is. yes i concede you could ultimately argue, it got here after much evolution and time, and the whole idea of a possiblity no matter how remote (ie existance and our complexity) is that it occur: which did here. so it's not definitive proof. but it's good enough to stake a belief on. to many, including myself, it's just short of miraculous. almost there. proven is a mushy word. it can mean inductive proof which we don't have here. it can mean deductive proof.. which we arguanly have. in a court of law the burden is sually... "preponderance of the evidence" ie more likely than not. given the complexity miracles visions etc, i'd say it's more likley than not. of course, as a jury disagrees,,,, you're more than welcome to disagree. bt the case has still been "proven" the last thing you could be, to be rational, is an full fledged atheist.
As it Stands, Atheism is the Logical Conclusion

"ost atheists don't even know what that means. atheism is actually faith in no God." Charming stereotypes aside, I question your understanding of atheism. It is not "faith in no god", as it is not a belief taken from faith. Faith is accepting a truth without logical proof. Logic is the cornerstone of atheism, or at least the atheism I am defending. Regarding your causation argument: If I am reading your statement, "if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too?" correctly, you are in essence disproving part of your own viewpoint. You have stated that "Everything has a cause" cannot used as part of a logical proof defending God's existence. I agree. I also quesiton why this was brought up. "if God can just be, the universe can just be." is not proof of anything. It is a hypothesis at best. "Atheists often talk about how the spaghetti monster disproves God, cause we could have been formed by it. This is not analogous completely, but it makes an important point. That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random. But, it's still the point that it's arbitrary, like the spaghetti monster, to say intelligence is necessary." The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" religion is related to Russell's teapot, but I am not sure that is what you were saying. In fact, I have no idea what you were trying to get at with this paragraph. As to your referencing Ronald Knox: You already discounted causality in the first paragraph of your essay.(You yourself stated that, if everything has a cause, then God must have a cause, and since we don't know what that would be, we are back at square one.) Therefore, the idea of a "chain" metaphor is already discarded. (Even if we were to take the universe as a chain, you did not prove that the peg it hangs on would be God, only that a peg *might* exist.) I would also like to respond to your Big Bang argument, but again I have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, I am having a great deal of trouble understanding any of what you are saying. I cannot for the life of me point to any proof of God's existence within your post. If you have some proof, please post it in an ordered, sensical manner. So far, all I have read here is a collection of "what-if" statements and supposition. Some of it even REFUTES the idea of proving God's existence, from what I could gather. ("So if particles and random chance are possible, then God's existence isn't proven.") You said at the beginning of your post that you did NOT think God's existence could be proven. That is the crux of my argument! Without proof to back up one's reasoning, one cannot reach a logical conclusion. Please proofread your next post. I had trouble seeing what some of your arguments were driving at, and I would not want to misinterpret you because of a grammatical error.
As it Stands, Atheism is the Logical Conclusion

I have had this debate many times, both on this site and off. I hope someone will approach this topic seriously. Put simply, my main argument is this: Until some demonstrated, repeatable evidence can be found that definitively proves a deity exists, it should be assumed to not exist. The burden is not on the atheist to prove that there is no God , but the other way around. If someone wants to claim that God does exist, they should carry some proof with their claims. The classic example of this logic is know as Russell's Teapot. It states that, technically, one cannot prove that there is not a giant teapot orbiting Earth. But we don't assume that such a thing exists. Quite the opposite: Since no teapot can be observed in space, we therefore assume that there IS NO teapot in space. This analogy applies perfectly to the God question. Until a god can be observed, it's existence is no more than supposition or even superstition. In logic, a statement must be proven before it is accepted as fact. Until the statement "There is a God," carries some empirical evidence behind it, it should not be taken as true.
As it Stands, Atheism is the Logical Conclusion

proof is known to have double meaning. it can mean evidence or conclusive proof. i'm using it in the former sense. you've avoided the point that theists are known for being signled out for this phenomenon over atheists etc. you're right that there could be explanations other than an intelligence that is causing all this (you could even insist if a wonder worker came and started doing miracles in the name of God that there might be another explantion, analogous to a degree to show the obstenance of your position given that this stuff happens to theists) if people in gneeral had miracles etc then you'd have a point, but you don't have that. the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them. atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption. if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation. the most straightforward explanation is their belief itself distinguishes them.... and so using my standard of proof, i rest my case.
As it Stands, Atheism is the Logical Conclusion

"it's just semantics then as far as "proof" goes. you're right that it can't be ascertianed with absolute certainty. " "Proof" would be any form of concrete proof that God exists. The proof would have to be definitive, not an issue of "there is probably a God." Without such proof, it is not logical to assume something is true. There is no "benefit of the doubt" in logic. "i think you're making too little of things like miracles and nderf.org and the complexity. i know people who have miralces, people know people. i know people who have seen visions." Again, this evidence is not repeatable or even verified. And even if it were, it is not conclusive proof of a God, for several reasons. First and foremost, you do not say what these "miracles" are, when they happened, and why the event could ONLY have been caused by God. As for the near-death experiences....Even if these events WERE true (I'm not saying they are) they would only establish that some form of consciousness remains after death. Again, not proof of God. My opponent has repeatedly stated that there is no definitive proof that God exists. In that, we agree. This debate hinges on whether it is reasonable to take an idea that lacks proof to back it up, and take that idea as a fact. Having "faith" is one thing: faith is taking something as true, proven or not. But this is not a debate of faith, it is a debate of logic. And in logic, nothing is assumed to be true without proof. Therefore, until there is evidence that God exists, the idea that he does exist is not a logical conclusion to reach.
Should Girls Be Allowed To Play Football (American)

.. This could not have been a pretty debate for you. But you did try, so that's what count. So i would go on, but since my opponent, couldn't really show why a female should be in the NFL. And couldn't answer my questions, like where is her evidence, she couldn't answer. AS i have. I showed in the earlier rounds on why a female shouldn't be in the NFL. The point is a female football player would not make it to the NFL. At least not anytime soon. And their are too many risk factors for a female player playing in the NFL. That's why i mention it would be easier to have a female football player to play in her own league. I DID try to give you some another options, to go with in this debate in the early going. Anyways thank you. .. . For this debate, it was fun. ..
Should Girls Be Allowed To Play Football (American)

Yes I'm assuming the worst. Why Because that's what would happen. You thinking male football players would accept a female football player with open arms, when in fact they would not. At least not in the college level and beyond. College players have dream on making it big, and they would see a female as a threat. Meaning a threat they would see it is taking attention away from them, and they would see a female being weaker, so they would test her really hard on and off the field every single day. A female kicker would have to be in the top 5 in college. Why? Because if she not they the NFL scout and coaches would overlook her and pick some other kicker. Even if she is actually better, they would pick the male kicker, because a women have a higher chance of injury, the NFL players would give her even more hell than college player would. Why would they be tough on her. We'll one in the NFL they get paid, so they wouldnt want a female taking that money easy. They would make her really work for that pay check. Plus the fact that players would target her with a Bullseye on her back. They would use dirty plays such as cheap hits on her before or after the play is dead. Why? Because they can, and would want to make an example out of her. Life in the NFL WOULD not be easy fir a female. Another fact is owners would be taking a big gamble by taking a female football. Why? Because they could have a backlash form fans not supporting they're team if they select a female. So it also a business side to this too. Still you haven't state your claim "statistically proven that women play harder and more aggressive". Without providing any evidence? And another claim you haven't provided proof is "scientifically and psychologically proven, that women are more aggressive and controlling both towards and more so then men" The point is a female football player would not make it to the NFL. At least not anytime soon. And their are too many risk factors for a female player playing in the NFL. That's why i mention it would be easier to have a female football player to play in her own league.
Should Girls Be Allowed To Play Football (American)

Physically, there are a lot of hurdles that a woman has to overcome. Emotional, physical, mental and yes, social. Men probably wouldn't make it very easy for the woman who is trying to play the game (not to be rude, or to generalize or to offend anyone). As you said, yes, the teasing and awful jokes would be hard to deal with but it isn't anything that hasn't happened before. In fact, it kind of sounds like you are assuming the worst: that the girl would be an outcast and that the guys would never accept her when in fact, in most cases, it is the exact opposite. The guys are supportive because they want to see a woman succeed where no one has ever succeeded again because this is 2017 after all. And this is not all about being successful or being paid a lot or even about getting recognition. This is about allowing the woman to play football on whatever level they choose. As for being a kicker, there is no reason that you have to be "awesome" because I've seen a lot of kickers that are less than proficient that even an averagely-talented female kicker could be better than him. Again with the comment about being "in the top 5 of the country" for collegiate football. That is ridiculous. Why set a woman up for failure when she can have just as much fun in a lower division? As for the dirty fighting, don't be so quick to discredit women. Traditionally, women actually happen to be more aggressive, especially with one another. And the fact that men might be jealous or upset that a woman is gaining attention as a member of the team is their problem, not the woman's.
Should Girls Be Allowed To Play Football (American)

Literally, this is sort of me trying to break down the sexist cultured views that women can't play football. Sure, there is a physical aspect of it but there are positions that girls can play that are less physical... kicker? (http://www.espn.com...). This isn't even really about whether or not females CAN play football; because obviously they can. It is a question of SHOULD they be allowed to and of course they should. And in no way, shape or form did I ever say that a woman had a chance of beating a man in football because, of course, in this sport they are superior. I'm just saying that girls should be allowed to play. I'll reiterate this later but I NEVER EVER said that women could ever be better than men at this sport. When I said that we play harder and more aggressive I was saying that in regards to your comment about it being less entertaining to watch women play. And literally, I am confused about how a woman would make the team less able to trust each other? Please explain this to me because I'm going to need a little more than your opinion to convince me of that because I wholeheartedly believe that that is incorrect. And if male sports get more attention and you can "prove it" then please do. I would very much like to see this. This is not about male v. female. This is about girls being able to play all levels of football.
Should Girls Be Allowed To Play Football (American)

I thought i mentioned i didn't want to turn this debate in to man vs females. Anyways i will go ahead with this debate, but remember that warning. Now how can you state your claim "statistically proven that women play harder and more aggressive". Without providing any evidence? Another issue on your claim is you went ahead and say woman can play in the NFL. They are many reasons why that's a bad idea. First women not as strong, not as tall, not as fast, not as athletic, to play with grow men. You know why you don't see a professional boxer going against an women professional boxer, because it would be a no contest. It no difference on playing a team sport. Women would get manhandled, it wouldn't be fun to see. Just like the WNBA, Woman hockey team, woman soccer, softball, they all have they own league, they would not be able to actually beat a professional male athlete. That's why they have their own league. Women have limitations on playing physical sports against mens. "Sex has been identified as a major determinant of athletic performance through the impact of height, weight, body fat, muscle mass, aerobic capacity or anaerobic threshold as a result of genetic and hormonal differences". You went on to say "scientifically and psychologically proven, that women are more aggressive and controlling both towards and more so then men" again you saying this without any proof. If you going to say something like this then we need evidence on those claims. This should not have been male vs female. But you insist on thinking women would have a great chance on beating a man in football. But there are problems with that, a physical one, and a mental one too. Playing on a team sport, a sport that you get paid a lot of money. You need trust in your teammates, that would not be the case if a woman is on the team. Guys would not be able to trust them on the field. Like i said before there are reasons why women have they own leagues and not playing on the same team as a guy. They are other reason too. Like entertainment, it clear a male sport, would win the popular vote, and would get the high ratings than women. For example the NBA VS the WNBA. "WBNA average per-game attendance last season was only 7,138"the lowest mark in league history, and well below the average per-game NBA draw of 17,849". Not saying the WNBA is bad, it actually good. But they need to change some rules, because they are playing with nba rules. Which doesn't make sense. A male sport will always get more attention, and that is a proven fact. Women is fighting a uphill battle just for having there own league. Why because the public would prefer watching a male sports. https://sports.vice.com... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Should Girls Be Allowed To Play Football (American)

It is statistically proven that women play harder and more aggressive. This is why I think that you are incorrect in saying that it is less entertaining to watch women's sports. Furthermore, there has hardly ever been a woman playing NFL or collegiate football so how would you know whether or not it is fun to see them play football? If a woman is dressed up in the same protective gear that a man is, why would that make it more of a risk for her? Yes, girls have lower pain tolerances and we are more emotional and physically we are built differently but we shouldn't be "sidelined" so to speak just because of how we are built. There are girls that are heavier and more muscular that want to play football then some of the guys on my high school team and trust me, those guys aren't getting beat up and/or knocked out. As for an accusations of inappropriate touching, a woman kind of assumes the contact when she signs up for the sport. As for the mental part of it, just because it's a girl doesn't mean you should treat her any differently. If you are intimidated or pissed off about having to play with a girl, then that is your own fault. It is also, again scientifically and psychologically proven, that women are more aggressive and controlling both towards and more so then men, so I don't think you'd have to worry about her being boring. In fact, you might find that it is more fun to watch girls because we are so... rough. Take it from me; girls would be a great addition to football teams.
Should Girls Be Allowed To Play Football (American)

Ok, let me first knock this out of the way. I think females can do many, many things. Females can do anything thing a male can do. SO, I will not be arguing male VS female. What I will be Arguing, is a physical contacted sport such as American football, is too demanding on the womans body. Such as (CTE), legs, arms, upper body, and other injuries. The other part of this argument, I will be discussing, is male football is more entertaining, Female WNBA is not as entertaining as the NBA, why because for one reason is the basketball hoop is 10ft tall, and woman can't dunk, their only been two females in the WNBA that could dunk. So there for it not as entertaining, it will not be popular like the men's Basketball. Another sport is woman hockey, they are physical, but not like the males, they are faster, stronger, more out athletics, than the women. So, they for more people will be watching the male's sports more than the woman's. I will go further in detail in the later rounds, on why Woman or girls shouldn't play American football. I'm here to discuss why women shouldn't play American football, not touch football, or if you want to talk about just girls playing pee wee football. I guess i could still argue why they shouldn't play American foot as well. SO i'm looking forward to what my opponents response will be.
Easy win for me

I’ll start by saying that I agree with Hello-Orange that debate and discussion have different ends. A discussion is often an exploration of an issue and that can be valuable. But a debate can be a test of a theory a chance to see if there are weaknesses in an already formed case. A good analogy to this is positivism vs. scholasticism and rationalism. During the high middle ages and the enlightenment frequently one saw complex theories argued based on reason and rationality. It was in those areas were testing was applied though that the greatest innovations take place. Well argued idea are hypothesis until they are tested. Debating plays a role like testing for a case. It forces you to argue your position without someone who is looking for holes in your construction. ___ As far as win/loss, Buddha taught long ago that desire is the root cause of all suffering. Sure the score here doesn’t matter in the same way the score in a debate competition doesn’t matter, in the same way the score in any competition or sport doesn’t matter. Ultimately all loses in sports or games are tears in the rain and are swallowed by time. But that is all there is to life, all accomplishment however how grand is temporary. The only meaning to anything is what we assign it. I'll close with Shelly's well known poem on this theme: I met a traveller from an antique land Who said:—Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things, The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains: round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away.