BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Existence of God

God in no way requires a purpose. God is a being. Beings require purpose. Simple. If God has no purpose it has no reason doing what it does. If God is not a being then it must be a morally good robot programmed to be so. Guessing you would say self programmed. We can in no way assume that that being requires a purpose to create. Every single being has a purpose yet God does not. I find your position less based on reality than mine. That such a being exists. For such a being to exist. It requires evidence. You have used causation of existence. The problem with this is that Did God not exist? If not how is God a being? This is the last Round so I don't think you can answer my questions. If God does exist it requires a cause for its existence. If God is not a being then I don't know what it can be. Since you have already stated God to be a being I doubt you state that. That electron would have come from somewhere; it's impossible for something to just exist. Yes but that does not mean it was God. A more reasonable theory would be that there was another universe before us that inflated and caused the Big Bang. Therefore, Some being exists of its own necessity, And does not receive its existence from another being. This is the being which we speak of as God. I would instead use time. Everything eventually decays or dies a part of the cycle of life. If Time was the non-contingent thing it does not require purpose whereas God does. Time would also help us understand we cannot find meaning in a supernatural power instead find it in ourselves. Religious violence would stop if everyone believed it to be so. Not an argument for why time is the cause of everything but practically it would bring people together rather than create conflict. I will address your claims in the next round. I appreciate your conduct during this debate; thank you for taking it seriously. I guess you didn't realise this was the last Round. I appreciate your conduct as well. I hardly saw you straw man instead specifically talked about your argument at hand. That is appreciated because more time was spent on the argument instead of straw manning which would have taken away from your argument. I mostly take every debate seriously. Don't worry about.
Existence of God

Let me begin my counterclaim by stating this. God in no way requires a purpose. You are thinking of this being we call God in the sense of a human - because everything that humans do, They do for a purpose. This being, While similar to humans, Is different, Because a human could not create a universe. Because it is different in that sense, We can in no way assume that that being requires a purpose to create. That is the main part of your claim that is questionable. You stated that "if we cannot state how a being like this exists people will make infalsifiable claims that are illogical or that they or the opposer cannot even prove or disprove. " I don't quite know what you mean by this - as I stated in round 2, I am only defining that the being exists and that everything else is a mystery. Does it need a purpose to create? We don't know. I am simply stating, And attempting to prove, That such a being exists. The Big Bang model is a theory upheld by most scientists as well as atheists. I am using this as the basis for my claim. My information, From www. Livescience. Com, Is as follows, "According to the standard Big Bang model, The universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13. 7 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, It swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second. " Based on this theory, That electron would have come from somewhere; it's impossible for something to just exist. Let me explain why causation of existence ends with God with a new claim. This is a claim in the sector of possibility and necessity. Each thought has its own dash. -We find in nature things that are possibly to be and not to be; that come into being and go out of being. These are known as contingent beings. -We will assume every being is a contingent being, Because assuming otherwise is what some may call, A "leap of faith. " -For every contingent being, There is a time that it did not exist. This follows from dash one. -Therefore, It is impossible for these beings to always exist. -Therefore, It follows that there could have been a time when no things existed. -Therefore, At that time, If no contingent beings existed, There would have been nothing to bring the current contingent beings into existence. -If that were the case, There would have been no contingent beings in existence now. -We have reached an absurd result from assuming every being is a contingent being. -Therefore, It follows that not every contingent being is a contingent being. -Therefore, Some being exists of its own necessity, And does not receive its existence from another being. This is the being which we speak of as God. I will address your claims in the next round.
Existence of God

I am sticking by time started and put everything in motion. Time does not require a purpose a God does. I can simply say how universe started and that would be the end of it. With God I require why. God poses more questions than time starting it. Just a few questions:Why does God intervene when it likes? Why did God create us? And created life for a reason and in a way that we will never fully understand. I do appreciate your honest here but I highly doubt countless theists would see it from your perspective. They think they know what God is right and what is the right Religion. This has allowed for many Religious battles and immoral acts made moral when God came into the picture. (Slavery, Rape etc. )We are not required to know the purpose for its creation of life nor how it was able to do so; just that such a being exists. Yes we do if we cannot state how a being like this exists people will make infalsifiable claims that are illogical or that they or the opposer cannot even prove or disprove. This does not help in finding truth instead leaves people believing infalsifiable ideas which does lead to believing more infalsifiable ideas. I would address your claim by stating that scientists know that the universe had to have a beginning. I am basing my arguments off of an acknowledgment that the universe had a beginning. I do not know where you got that from and would like you to quote and tell me how you got to that conclusion. Those who are against the existence of God refuse to address the causation of existence, Including how creatures and the universe were created. I can't really speak for others but I can speak for myself. I am not going to take a leap of faith and believe in a Religion because then a leap of faith can make any Religion true so why am I picking Christianity? I don't refuse causation instead wait until we have evidence or something tangible instead infalsifiable claims. If you think causation of existence does end with God why is that the case? We know that nothing can be moved without first being moved by another thing. So God is the first mover? How is that the case? The "Big Bang" is the term used by scientists for the moment the world was created. Even if the big bang was an explosion, That explosion would have been caused by something else. You are on right track but missing a few details. The Big Bang is just a big bang. It makes no claims that there was a universe before this one or this was the start of the universe. With that in mind God can still be in the equation but if that is true where was this in any of the Religious books? I will leave it at that and await a reply.
Existence of God

I would address your claim by stating that scientists know that the universe had to have a beginning. I am basing my arguments off of an acknowledgment that the universe had a beginning. As for a being outside time requiring a purpose for creating life and how it was able to do so, That is a mystery. A large aspect of belief in God is that God is the name for a being which is outside time, And created life for a reason and in a way that we will never fully understand. We are not required to know the purpose for its creation of life nor how it was able to do so; just that such a being exists. The point I was trying to make that there would have to be something that wasn't created itself that set everything in motion. Feel free to challenge me on other aspects of God's existence, However, If that would suit you better. I will address your counterclaim or new claim in the next round.
Funny made-up words

Four funny made up words a round. Votes will be for whoever is funnier. 1. Gnupshmangabargl 2. Kabungatunk 3. WauuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggHhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 4. Qabut'mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Torture Can Be Acceptable

I'm sorry but listing several times that torture has worked in some way doesn't mean anything, if I gave examples of where guess work has turned out correct would you conclude that guess work is effective? You must provide actual evidence not just as hoc examples. As for your justification for torture saying that is to protect people as opposed to torture to terrorize people. This doesn't work as it simply sets a precedent which validates a horrific act. So as I hope I have shown torture is simply not an effective way of gathering information and should not be used, even as a last resort.
Torture Can Be Acceptable

The argument my opponent has put forth is that torture is no better than taking a guess, and that it would be better to not torture ever. However, torture has worked before[1][2][3][4], and so it should not be viewed as 'a stab in the dark', but rather a long-shot, one which should only be taken if no other options can be used. I am not here to pretend that torture is a good and reliable way to get pertinent information, but in my scenario, it is the best option available. As for the idea of us becoming what we're fighting, there is one thing to note. In this scenario, whoever is torturing this terrorist is doing it to protect people who are not a part of the war, they're just ordinary citizens. If a terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda tortures, it's for the aim of victimizing innocents. Basically what I'm saying is the ends make us different. We're torturing to save lives, and they're torturing to gain information to take lives. Sources: [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [2] http://www.outsidethebeltway.com... [3] http://www.economist.com... [4] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Torture Can Be Acceptable

First I accept you are correct that the chance of this event occurring is meaningless, that was simply musing on my part. I will argue that torture is akin to guesswork, that being the chances of gaining accurate information from torture is the same as gaining accurate information of torture and that the chance of prolonged psychological damage to the victims of torture [1] makes guess work a better final option. Now I will have to back up my assertion that torture is no more effective than guess work. First (as far as I can tell from half a day of solid googling) there are no studies which have passed peer review in psychology journals that actively show torture as an effective way of gathering information. This means that you must assume torture is more effective, I have nothing to prove, you must prove that torture is effective. This makes torture no better than a guess, comparable to dowsing in a last ditch attempt to find water in the desert. Furthermore what does it say about us as a society if we resort to the same tactics as the terrorists in our fight against them, torture blurs the line between us and the terrorists. [1] http://www.irct.org...
Torture Can Be Acceptable

My opponent suggests that information taken through torture is completely unreliable, and should never be considered true. However, we can see in his first source that the expert talking doesn't believe that information gained from torture is never reliable. Notice the use of the word 'rarely'. While it is not guaranteed that the terrorist will talk, it is 100% guaranteed the terrorist will not talk if no action is taken, and as I've elaborated in my scenario, torture is the only applicable option in this scenario. My opponent says chances are the information won't stop the attack. The use of the word 'chances' indicates that it is not certain that there will be no useful information. Given that it is not certain, and loss of life hangs in the balance, the proposed likelihood of a fruitless interrogation is an acceptable risk to take. When I proposed this scenario I knew torture wasn't a wholly reliable means of acquiring information, but I also know that there is a chance of it being useful, which I have argued is a chance worth taking, and that, in this scenario, it is the only option left. My opponent also says that false information is often gained from torture. I do not believe this should deter the last ditch option of torture in this scenario. It's not as if the terrorist says the attack will be in Philedelphia and suddenly every intelligence agency member, police officer, and soldier is going to head over to Philadelphia, leaving the rest of America unguarded. What's more realistic is that teams will act upon the information, while the rest of the intelligence community continues looking for other possibilities. Next my opponent talks about the unlikely nature of my scenario. Even if a war reporter thinks my scenario is impossible, it doesn't matter. The debate is centered around the justification of an action taken in a hypothetical event. The only time Christopher Hitchens' words would matter is if this was a debate over "This Scenario is Likely to Occur". Thanks for reading.
Torture Can Be Acceptable

First I would like to show how ineffective torture is, Darius Rejali a "nationally recognized expert on government torture and interrogation" [1] states that "Torture during interrogations rarely yields better information than traditional human intelligence, partly because no one has figured out a precise, reliable way to break human beings or any adequate method to evaluate whether what prisoners say when they do talk is true,". As you can see, the information acquired from torture should not be considered accurate and therefore the information given by the terrorist in your scenario should not be considered reliable and the chances are it wouldn't stop the actual attack. False information is often gained from torture [2] and so if the information is acted upon there is a good chance it will put even more lives at risk if the intelligence is acted upon especially because terrorists in custody are often still radicalized [3] and still want to inflict harm on civilians regardless. Further more I very much doubt your scenario would ever happen, as the ex-war correspondent and respected commentator Christopher Hitchens says: "favourite experimental scenario"the man knows where the bomb is, put the hooks into him swiftly is actually a contingency almost impossible to visualise. I certainly know of no such real-life case" [4]. [1] http://academic.reed.edu... [2] http://www.ritholtz.com... [3] http://icsr.info... (see chapter 3) [4] http://terrorism.about.com...
Torture Can Be Acceptable

I believe the drawbacks to torture are widely known. Most believe there are better options for information extraction than torture. I agree with these people, however, that doesn't stop me from advocating the use of torture for certain means in specific scenario(s). I shall be providing a scenario, and justifying the use of torture in this scenario.ScenarioThe CIA has captured a member of a terrorist group that is going to be launching an attack on American soil within 2 days. Beyond the knowledge of the immenence of the attack, and the man in custody's association with the terrorist group, and the fact that he is likely to have useful information, they have very little information. The CIA has had this terrorist for weeks now, attempting to extract useful information through repeated questioning and offering of rewards for compliance. The terrorist has resisted, offering them no useful information. Now the CIA has run out of time. They can either give up, or use the last-ditch option: torture. If the CIA refrains from torturing the terrorist, they have no information to stop the attack.If the CIA does torture the terrorist, they have a chance for more information that will help stop the attack.Lives are at stake, and the pain of one man in order to attempt prevention of loss of life is absolutely justifiable. How would the CIA explain themselves to the American people if the attack was successfully executed, and hundreds died?
Should the other reindeer let Rudolph play in their reindeer games.

Define different the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality. "you can play this game in different ways" synonyms:dissimilar, unalike, unlike, contrasting, constructive, divergent, differing, varying, disparate; More 2. distinct; separate. "on two different occasions" synonyms:distinct, separate, individual, discrete, independent "two different occasions" They judged him for something he could not help-thus corrupting good character. Of course the movie wouldn't be the same, but I mean if it were in real life. Thank You
Abortion should be made illegal

I am aware of the rules. I never said killing people was right. Yes, certain disabilities when properly managed do not have a lower quality of life. Others do however. They also need more attention and resources from their care givers due to the very nature of disabilities. I highly doubt very many adoptive couples would be looking for a disabled child to raise. Does this mean i want disabled people to be killed? Of course not. There is a spot in the human race for everyone, no exceptions. I did not victim blame anyone. I simply said, how many of the abused children would have been better off not having to deal with such terrible conditions in the first place. I guarantee if you ask some of these people if they could have chosen to live through the experience again or be aborted they would have chosen abortion. As for your last statement. Again, Doctors do this because people know that raising a disabled person takes a far greater deal of fortitude than normal. If a couple decides to keep there child no matter what may be wrong with it, it does not mean anyone values the life of that child less. It just means the parents were up to the challenge of raising that child to the best of there abilities. I am surprised that you did not try to show the negatives of abortion from the fathers side at all. it would have suited you well in this debate. Plus it could have boosted your argument of abortion hurting two people, to three. As a side note, i found it very interesting that the pro life side of this debate was from a female perspective and that the pro choice side of it was from a male perspective. Usually it is the other way around. :)
Abortion should be made illegal

I would first like to remind you of one of the rules, "Killing people is wrong". This applys to disabled people and people in fostercare as much as anyone else.People with disabilities do not have a lower quality of life, happiness levels adjust, and as long as they are allowed to participate in the community, quality of life has been seen to be the same as a non-disabled persn and in some cases better. A small minority of children that end up in abusive homes isn't isolated to adoption, it's just life. Gianna Jessen,described her being alive as a miracle. She wasn't disapointed because the doctor failed to kill her, but glad a nurse called the hospital and saved her life, while saddened that her mother tried to kill her and enraged that she had no rights. In many ways saying that an abused child is better off dead is victom blaming. They were abused because of crappy parents, not because they exist.In abortion, they would have no chance to a good life at all, but alive the possibilities are open. Abortion hurts two people, but adoption is always an option, that is far healthier for both involved. Education is of course necessary and a wonderful goal, but in my heart so is valuing the life of everyone, at every development stage, the same. The law protects an adult, but not the most vulnerable. Not to mention requiring doctors in many areas to recommend abortion in the case of a disabled unborn child, or having separate rules allowing abortion longer in the case of disability, clearly valuing lives like mine less. Thank you for the debate, and sorry for any mistakes or lack of reasoning, my glasses broke.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Abortion should be made illegal

1. A. Being disabled myself, including learning and behavioural diagnosis, it is for sure better than death. Here are the choices you are showing:a. Disabled with hopeb. Dead and hopeless.B. Almost all babies are adopted, with the adoption crisis mainly referring to children 5+.C. In the rare case a child does survive abortion, such as in the case of gianna jessen, they will almost certainly be disabled. a. In the case of gianna, the abortion attempt on her life ended in her having cerebral palsy- and having to come to terms with having, "failed abortion" on her birth certificate. Knowing her birth mother tried to kill her.b. Sometimes, when a women aborts when having twins, she may not know she was having twins. In this case, the living twin will often spend a lifetime feeling something missing.D. Abuse sometimes does happen, not just in adoptive families but anywhere. Life is filled with risk and reward, and more often than not, adoption turns out good for everyone.2.A. Even going by the low-ball estimate of 40 million, surely you can see the damage of 55% 31% and 25%, all of which reach well over a million women around the world. B. Seeing more so, as it wasn't necessary. Women are far too often not shown the available help. Whether adoption is right, or they chose to raise the child on there own.a. Local PRC's (Pregnancy resource centers). Most of these supply parenting classes, prenatal care, support groups, and baby supplies. All for the low cost of free.b. If the birth mother wishes to remain in contact with her child in adoption, open adoptions are becoming far more popular.3. Over population is a myth.Even if it was entirely accurate, killing people is no answer to this.4.A. It is important to remember even you said that it was not definitive. Correlation isn't causation.B. Even if raising abortion rates were the cause, just as theft if renamed and legalized wouldn't of really gone down, as would this be. Simply choosing a legal violence.------------------------------------------------------------------------------I Hope my argument was well done enough, as I was getting tired near the end. Some sorces:https://www.washingtonpost.com...https://consideringadoption.com...https://www.care-net.org...https://www.independent.co.uk...http://www.claireculwell.com...https://www.washingtonpost.com...