BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You cannot provide a philosophic argument for the existence of god that I cannot rebuff

Justice is justice, I don't know what you mean by this. Don"t over complicate it. The 1st argument is valid, and in my opinion you did not "rebuff" it. I don"t have enough characters to explain why infinite regress is impossible, but virtually every serious philosopher says it is impossible. Good question. Because, God does not exist. He is above existence. Check Plato's 3 levels of reality. First level, is where God is, where nothing changes. Second, is where things constantly change, where everything exists. Third level, is the nothingness. This is a summary, obviously. Other explanation, is that the creator of what exists has to be superior, this is universe has time, God is timeless, universe has space, God is spaceless. Basically, God is in another dimension. Here is another way to put it. 1)Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being." 2)The universe began to exist. 3)Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
You cannot provide a philosophic argument for the existence of god that I cannot rebuff

Crimes go unpunished all the time, that"s why ultimate justice must exist. Otherwise, Morality would not be rational. However, morality is rational, by definition, thus obligating ultimate justice to exist. But also, for Ultimate justice to exist, there must be a God. The argument from contingency. 1.If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. 2.The universe"the collection of beings in space and time"exists. 3.Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. 4.What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. 5.Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time. This is would be God.
You cannot provide a philosophic argument for the existence of god that I cannot rebuff

the simple flaw with this argument is that I don't believe in perfect justice. Crimes go unpunished all the time, why should the world be just? To do so would unbalance nature, the poor fawn doesn't deserve to die but it dose, for it not to would cause the wolf never to eat and thus die you see were your argument is faulted. The world is unjust thus your statement that morality is only rational if justice is achieved is tied to Kantiusm witch is a very justice based morality code, so this argument has an estranging premise.
You cannot provide a philosophic argument for the existence of god that I cannot rebuff

Moral argument. Kant"s moral argument. [1] (1) Moral behaviour is rational. (2) Morality behaviour is only rational if justice will be done. (3) Justice will only be done if God exists. Therefore: (4) God exists. 1 - Morality, is by definition, something rational. If we ought to do something, then we have a good reason to do it. 2 - Most of the time it profits more to sin than to do good. So why should we do good? It only makes sense to do good if there are drawbacks to sin. That can only be achieved if Justice is ultimately done. 3 " Ultimate justice is not served in this life. There are always things that happen, that don"t get justice. Like cheating in a test" So, there must be some kind of justice system after death. I don"t have sufficient characters to write to write C.S. Lewis" moral argument. But I"ll make this statement and you can respond to this as well. Morality is absolute. [1] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
Women who sleep around are 'sluts'

First, sleeping around is so easy for women. It’s challenging for men to rack up partners, even for men with low standards. For women to rack up a lot of partners, however, it pretty much only requires a vagina and a pulse. So a woman whoring it up is bad(slutty) because for a woman to get a lot of partners is absolutely no challenge, hence no one respects it. It’s just viewed as a lack of self-discipline when women indulge in lots of sex partners because they can get new ones whenever they want. When men get lots of sex partners, it’s respected more because getting lots of sex partners, for men, is a challenge. This is just human nature: people gain respect for those who accomplish challenging feats while they consider those who overindulge in easily obtained vices as weak or flawedSecond, women have no evolutionary need to be sleeping around. This means that women who sleep around are doing it for their own selfish overindulgance. Not to say that men don't sleep around for their own selfish reasons, but for men it is a challenge that requires a lot of skill, therefore they are respected.
SPinko Tournament: God probably exists. (Rd. 1)

So my opponent doesnt do a direct refutation of my case, but instead only presents his own case. As will be evident in my rebuttal his case is mostly irrelveant. This rebuttal will be short.Null HypothosisThis argument isnt an arument but rather a type of argumentation/evidence observation. The only way that this matters in this debate is if my opponent can refute my arguments presented, which he has not done so at this point in the debate. Thus, this argument can only be accessed as a reason to vote Con unless there is zero reasons to have Pro. Extraordinary Claim and EvidenceThis is simply the impact of the null hyppthesis - in order to prove an extraordinary claim one must produce extraordinary evidence. Though theres a problem with this prima facie analysis:First, why is God's existence an extraordinary claim? What is the brightline for this? Essentially he argues that it is claims which violate physical laws or common sense. The link he provides doesnt open correctly so Ill let him re-present that source. I would argue this isnt a justification for an extraordinary claim since people go through life believing God exists. Now my opponenmight try and say, but thats an ad populum fallacy. However the issue with that in this case is that to determine or link into the definition my opponent provided deals inherently with peoples perceptions, i.e. their common sense - for the vast majority of the world their common sense tells them otherwise. For them it is not an extraordinary claim. I could easily say his argument is a fallacy as well - appeal to an authority. Moreover, saying God exists violates no physical laws since positing God exists is something aphysical, not anti-physical. Miracles on the otherhand would be in violation of physical laws, but the debate has nothing to do with miracles. [1]Second, at what point does evidence become extraordinary? Clearly this is an unfair burden without clear and expressed guidelines to follow in order to meet this extraordinary burden. But I would say further that evidence is evidence regardless, if it holds for the round its a game-winner, if not its a game-loser. Case for Strong AtheismThis argument is precluded by the definition I provided of God, which my opponen accepted. The premises rely on the omnibenevolent characteristic, which is not mentioned in the defintion of God. My opponent made the assumption, since Im a Catholic, I would be using this characteristic (but I am not). Thus you can ignore this whole part of the case for strong atheism. Moreover, he uses Christianity specifically for a part but no where in the guidelines is it the Judeo-Christian God.I look forward to the actual refutation by my opponent. [1] http://www.adherents.com...
SPinko Tournament: God probably exists. (Rd. 1)

Resolved: God probably exists Ob. 1: We are bound by our epistemic limitations, i.e. we only know in the status quo what we know. In having this debate it is necessary to understand that when analyzing the arguments we are bound by our knowledge now. That is what science is – a process of reduction supplemented with a process of invalidation. For example, Newtonian physics was believed to be correct, next than supplemented by relativity and now supplemented by quantum mechanics. This is important because when analyzing the resolutional term "probably exists" then we are using our status quo knowledge – both logical and scientific. Thus, my opponent and I are bound by logical and scientific laws at this moment; we are not bound by arguments which do not exist at this point in the development of man's knowledge. ==C1: Thomistic Argument of Motion== This argument posits that God's existence can be demonstrated through one's observation of motion. The term motion refers to states of change, i.e. from the potential to the actual. 1. Motion is clearly observed in the natural world (things change) 2. Nothing can put itself in motion unless acted upon by another force. Namely things cannot go from its potential to its actual without another actual force changing it. Aquinas demonstrates this with an example of wood, heat and fire. Fire, which is an actually hot substance, moves (changes) a piece of wood, which is potentially hot to being actually hot. 3. Nothing can itself be both the mover (the changer) and the moved (the changed). For example, the wood cannot itself change from wood to fire without first the fire being the mover. 4. Since there is movement (change) in the universe than each thing must be moved from something prior to it. However, this cannot go on forever because then no beginning movement could have occurred to cause the movement. 5. This first mover is functionally necessary to explain this line of movement. This must be God. ==C2: Thomistic Argument of Efficient Causes== 1. Contingent beings exist. This means that there exists stuff which could not have existed, namely its existence isn't explainable through itself (i.e. we don't have to exist) but we do. 2. These contingent beings cannot be spanned infinitely backwards, because removing the initial cause would necessitate the removal of the subsequent effects. 3. There must exist an entity whose nature causes its own existence – this must be God. I look forward to an exciting round! :D
SPinko Tournament: God probably exists. (Rd. 1)

This will be a Rd. 1 debate for the SPinko Summer tournament**Cirrk v. Micro**Resolved: God probably existsDefinitions1. God: an intelligent entity which is atemporal, aphysical, omnipotent, omniscient 2. Probably: have a higher probability than the alternativeRules1. No semantics2. Forfeit will be an auto-loss3. No new arguments in the last round*Rd. 1 is for acceptance - Rd. 2 will begin the debate
Western feminism has failed

My opponent claims men also suffer discrimination I fail to see how this is relevant as we are talking about feminism not masculism they are two separate issues. Feminism is about equality for women to their counterpart sex; lowering one group does not raise another. It Is obvious as we can see with my arguments that Western feminism has certainly not failed in any sense but rather to a large extent succeeded in creating equality for women. If It wasn't for feminism and the waves of feminism throughout history who knows where women would be at today.
Western feminism has failed

Although there are problems with gender equality with women, the same thing happens with men. For example, men will get longer prison sentences than women for the same crime. [1] Men are also more likely to commit suicide than women. [2] Feminism is not for men. It is purely for women. As Google defines, feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." One point my opponent makes is the so-called "wage gap." However, that is a myth. The thing that people who make those statistics fail to take into account is how much time each gender normally works, which gender generally puts more time into their career which gender is more likely to put their children over their job, and other things as well. If we include all of these factors, the wage gap disappears. [3] The "first seven weeks" statistic my oponent claims is true cannot be valid because it only makes an estimate based on only the first seven weeks of an entire year. It also only considers what has been reported. Men could have also been killed due to domestic violence, but it hasn't been reported. One should not judge society based on the actions of 13 men. 1: http://papers.ssrn.com... 2: http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 3: http://www.consad.com...
Western feminism has failed

Well the debate is Western feminism has failed not modern feminism has failed. My opponent claims "Women now have equal rights, but feminism is still here. It seems to have been repurposed, and that is what has failed about it" this is not the case there is still huge amounts of discrimination directed towards women, and even today in western culture women are not treated as equal for example women currently only hold 5.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEO roles (1), new figures released 2 days ago by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that, on average, full-time working women"s earnings are 17.1% less per week than full-time working men"s earnings (a difference that equates to $262.50 per week) (2), In Australia, 13 Australian women have reportedly been killed as a result of domestic violence in the first seven weeks of 2015, that"s almost two women per week, as opposed to 0 men (3). As it is obvious there is still a huge need for feminism as already stated feminism is the advocacy of equal rights between the sexes and as we may not be there yet feminism has certainly got society on track to getting equality for all and again has certainly not failed but there is indeed still more work ahead. source: 1. https://www.google.com.au... 2.https://www.wgea.gov.au... 3.http://www.womensagenda.com.au...
Western feminism has failed

Modern-day first-world feminism is no longer about gender equality. Many don't care about actual cases of misogyny in places such as Saudi Arabia. They are instead interested in convincing others of a "patriarchy" and a "rape culture" in countries such as the United States. Some have resorted to attacking gamers (GamerGate) and a scientist who wore a shirt they didn't like (ShirtStorm). Feminists seem to have become disliked, and why would feminism be disliked if it truly was a momevent for equality?
michael jackson alive

This is all speculation, A person could survive being buried in a coffin for 1-2 hours depending on how they conserve oxygen. http://www.chacha.com... How long did Michael Jackson's funeral last? About 4 hours http://wiki.answers.com... Sorry about the size of the wording. Just copy and pasting. You see if there was an alive body in there, that person would be dead before long. So, if Jackson was still alive, I do not think that he would have been in the coffin. Therefore, he did not attend his own funeral. Please present your facts on why you think Jackson is alive.
michael jackson alive

Hmm very interesting, you asked me if I could prove my side of the story. Well, when I was looking for sources that tried to prove Michael Jackson's death, I also saw stories that tried to prove that Jackson was still alive. LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Prosecutors this week begin offering evidence that Michael Jackson's doctor is responsible for the pop star's death in a case that could hinge on who gave the singer a fatal dose of a powerful drug he used for sleep. Dr. Conrad Murray , Jackson's physician in 2009, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death, and a Los Angeles judge on Tuesday starts the preliminary hearing -- largely seen by legal experts as a formality -- to determine if enough evidence exists to bring the physician to a full trial. http://news.yahoo.com... However, I do think that this is proof enough that Jackson is dead. If there was a cover-up, and Jackson was still alive, there would be people involved in Michael Jackson's cover-up. Seeing that Dr. Conrad Murray gave Jackson the pills in the first place, he would be the first person involved. Then it would've been the doctor who gave Jackson the shot, then it would be the people who knowingly carried Jackson's "alive body", then it would've been the judge. There are too many people that would have been involved. Now, why would the physician stand trial for possibly killing Jackson do you think if he was involved that he would take a hit for Jackson. Now, if Jackson was dead, which is the more plausible option, the physician would not be standing trial. For again there would be too many people involved in the cover-up.
michael jackson alive

to my belief micheal jackson is still alive but his familly does not know this. you may ask how did he get away with it well god and jackson only know but he may have not relized what he done when he done it cause there was so much going on he had a lot of bad pupblistaty and that mite be one of the main reasons jackson facked his death yes i agree he was a great pop singer but he did have bad just like every one else exepct he could not take it and if jackson is reading any of this then maybe he will are already reliezed what a mistake he made but he can not fix it with out more bad pupblistaty but all well we all will never be exactly sure were jackson is till we see him but i think i got engouh evadents to prove this any one willing to tell me their views great
Mathematics should be optional in post-secondary education.

College is about finding yourself and what you want to do with your life. Some know right away and some take a few semesters to know where they should be going. But one thing is certain... College is higher education. It's the institution of learning new theories, proving or disproving their own hypothesis. How can one do that by simply reviewing what you should have learned in grade school? Why should a nursing student take photography or a history major take trigonometry? They shouldn't. If you already know what you want to do with your life, you should invest your time and studies in that field. I propose we allow mathematics and other subjects we learned in grade school to stay in college but only as core-classes.
Mathematics should be optional in post-secondary education.

The education system of America has gone from engaging and molding young minds to be critical thinkers (where college would only be an option) to a manufacturer of blind conformity (where college is now overlooked as a luxury). Each day children and teenagers must recite the pledge of allegiance, whether they agree, know what they are pledging or not. College is intended to expand the mind and ideas: Philosophy, Social Sciences, Advance theoretical sciences. It is NOT a place to rehash simple mathematics. If it could be taught in college it shouldn't be a requirement for those who aren't heavily focused for mathematics as a career or major. It simply is there for students who didn't fully "graduate" from the grade school mathematics to to stay in an undergraduate status longer.
Mathematics should be optional in post-secondary education.

I am Con, so I will be arguing that Mathematics, and other core subjects, should not be optional in college (i. e. they should continue to be required). Brief Summary: College is place in which people can further their own pursuit of knowledge; however, that should not be limited to their major of choice. The general education courses in college, as well as major-related courses, serve to give a person a new perspective on the world around them, not just to reiterate previously learned knowledge. A person's point of view depends upon the knowledge they have accumulated over their life. For example, a person skilled in mathematics views things differently than a person skilled in physics or psychology. Therefore, getting a more rounded knowledge allows a person to look at things from more than just one point of view. That is, in a general sense, my main stance in this argument; however, I will touch upon other points in the main argument of round 2. That being said, I would like to make it clear that neither Pro nor I are limited to the points made in this brief summary round when presenting our arguments in round 2. I look forward to the rest of the debate.
The Oral Torah:

Bs"dI haven't really formed a belief as to whether or not the Oral Torah is genuine yet, I did however help with some arguments in the Declaration of Quarism:https://docs.google.com... But though I have seen and helped with the case against the Oral Torah, I cannot say for sure whether or not it is genuine until there is a debate, which I intend to do here. My opponent must prove the Oral Torah to be the genuine Law of G--d, as well as refute all my oppositions to it. If my opponent proves the Oral Torah genuine, I will work on an apology for denying the Oral Torah as well s for our accusations against the rabbis, but keep the declaration open so that others can see the case and make their own decision. As well as for people to see what the claims are which I would be correcting.
Choose any topic!

Just: "Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair" [1] Government: : "The governing body of a nation, state, or community' [2] ought to: used to show when it is R03;necessary or would be a good thing to R03;perform the R03;activity referred to by the R03;following R03;verb" {3} Prioritize: "Determine the order for dealing with (a series of items or tasks) according to their relative importance" [4] Universal Human Rights: The rights listed in the International Bill of Human Rights {4} ( the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and the Geneva Conventions {5} [6] [7] National Interest: A nation-state's economic, military, or cultural goal {8} {1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... {2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3]http://dictionary.cambridge.org... [4]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... {5} http://www.un-documents.net... [6} https://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.cfr.org... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Choose any topic!

In R1 you will state 4 topics. I will then in R2 choose one topic and begin to argue my case. I must be Pro and you must be Con. Any definitions necessary must be provided by my opponent in R2. RulesNo violating the round structureNo Kritiks No semantics No trolling No forfeiture Depending on the debate the BOP may vary No topics that challenge truisms unless I'm defending the truism and my opponent wants to challenge theirselves.No new arguments in the final roundIf you break any of the following rules you automatically lose. Structure R1: Rules by me, you will state your 4 topics R2: I will choose a topic, you will define terms that can be debated by meR3: Arguments R4: RebuttalsR5: Counter RebuttalsDefinitionsThese will be provided by my opponent once the debate topic is decided.
The usual arguments #5: God's plan

"GOD WANTS TO TEACH US ALL A LESSON AND EVERYTHING IN HIS PLAN IS TO TEACH US." This confirms that his plan is evil. This means that everything bad that ever happened and will happen only happened so we can learn something from it. What exactly? It clearly didn't make us better people, it didn't bring world peace, it didn't make us care about others. What about all the non-Christians? What can we learn from knowing that billions of people will burn in hell? Christians are already scared of hell and non-Christians don't believe in hell in the first place, so there really is nothing to learn from this. My point was that God's plan is evil. If everything is part of his plan(including starvation, wars, cancer etc.) and everything in his plan is to teach us, then his plan is not for the greater good and causes way more damage than good, making God's plan evil.