BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian god exists

I disagree with my opponent. Having a blind faith in God has granted me the privilege of witnessing many miracles and amazing acts of God. My purpose is not to break down the omnipotence of God. Or the fact that He is omniscient and omnibenevolent, and immutable. Though through many encounters with Him these facets of His presence have been made a reality to me. Through studious examination of His word these truths have been made known to me. My opponent is very knowledgeable, obviously, in the nature of the Christian Triune God. Yet with all knowledge he still lacks a personal experience with God. My purpose in this "debate" is not to succeed over my opponent. But to affirm my first statement in R1. The world requires that you see before you believe. The Kingdom of God requires that you believe, and than you will see. It is really that simple. Common sense says to make an accurate choice, or decision, you need to explore all the options. If you do not, you are confining yourself to ignorant assumption.
The Christian god exists

I completely agree with my opponent that one must base one's beliefs on all available evidence. It is refreshing to see a theist who does not stick to faith alone. I look forward to an interesting debate. Good luck. For this round I will outline a few basic atheological arguments and then provide more detail in the next round. I can assume that we agree that the Christian god may be described as omnipotent(all powerful), omniscient(all knowing),omnibenevolent(morally perfect), and immutable(unchangeable). _________________________________________________________________________________________________ A.)Benevolence-Freedom Argument (1)God is omnibenevolent-Premise (2)God is essentially free-Premise (3)God cannot do what is morally wrong-From premise 1 (4)God is not essentially free-From premise 3 (5)God is both free and not free-From premise 2 and 4 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ B.)Creation-immutablity Argument (1)The world had a beginning(i.e.-The world came into existence at some point. We will call this point T^0)-Premise (2)The world exists at any time only if God wills it to.-Premise (3)God is immutable-Premise (4)God willed the universe into existence at T^0.-From premise 1 and 2 (5)There are time earlier than T^0 where the world did not exist. We'll call it T^-1.-From premise 1 (6)At T^-1 God has not willed the world to exist.-From premise 2 and 5 (7)God has a property at one point which he lacks in another.-From premise 4 and 6 (8)God is not immutable.-From premise 7 (9)God is immutable and is not immutable.-From premise 3 and 8 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ C.)Omniscience-Immutability Argument(Argument against a timelessly eternal god) (1)God is omniscient,i.e., knows all annd believes only true-Premise (2)There are true teporal tesed propositions to the effect that certain events and/or times are now past/present/future.-Premise (3)It would be conceptually impossible for a timelessly eternal being to know a tensed proposition.-Premise (4)God does not know every true proposition-From premise 2 and 3 (5)God is not omniscient-From premise 4 (6)God is omniscient and not omniscient-From premise 1 and 5 I will stick to these three arguments for now. I now toss the debate back to my opponent.
The Christian god exists

I see that my opponent is new to this site and wanted to welcome him by challenging him to a debate. This debate is on whether or not the Christian god exists. God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe [1] Exists: To have actual being; be real.[2] For this debate, if my opponent accepts, the burden of proof will be shared and it will be up to my opponent to show that the Christian god does exist while it will be up to me to show that the Christian god does not exist. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Problem of evil is a flawed argument

Omnibenevolence will always cause the greatest good possible because that is the definition of omnibenevolence. Infinitely good, i.e, always taking the action that causes the most good. Firstly, let me say that omnipotence means that God can do anything. So, no matter what objection you have to a perfect world, an omnipotent being can overcome that hurdle. For example: "To eliminate absolutely all evil would also eliminate the greatest good." God can eliminate all evil without eliminating the greatest good because he can do anything. He's omnipotent. "God can stop evil, but that doesn't mean that it's the morally best thing to do at the given moment." By definition, stopping evil is good. God can do this with no negative side effects because he is omnipotent. God also being omniscient and omnibenevolent just means that he has no excuse to not eliminate evil. "God did not create them evil, their desires rose from knowing that which is good." If there truly was an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, He would not have made that possible. He could have made them with knowledge good and without the capability of evil. He can do anything. He is omnipotent. "It goes back to the argument of free-will, if God created man wholly good then that would be selfish." One: Free will does not exist. Two: How is it selfish? "Not always, we are to obey the commandments to live in holiness from wickedness." You gave two examples in which the better thing to do was to violate the commandments. Thus, we are not to obey them. "Like i said, that's an assumption of what a perfect being would do. A perfect God can create any world that he wishes according to his attributes." He can, but if he were truly omnibenevolent he would create a world with no evil and only the greatest good. He can do that. He can do anything. He is omnipotent. "No where in the Bible is there such a concept of "removing evil."" Something does not need to be in the Bible to exist. Internet piracy is not in the Bible, but it certainly exists. "If you eliminate the experience to suffer, you also eliminate the experience to be saved from physical and spiritual troubles which is contradicting omniscience and omnibenevolence." God can simply create people with the experience to be saved and not the experience of suffering. He can do that. He is omnipotent. "I'm arguing that we do not possess the capacity to judge a God's actions as evil when we do not know all the facts of how the world works." That doesn't make sense. Not knowing all the facts doesn't mean we don't know any of them. We may not know everything, but we do know how omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience work. "Free-will exists because you have already inclined yourself to obey certain principles, morals, ideas, etc." If you are already inclined that means you don't have free will. "To remove their choice to do so would be violating love." How? In summation, God can create a perfect world with the greatest good and no evil because he is omnipotent. Over to you Pro.
God's love is for everyone.

I have let God down too by not following His word as good as I could. But I know God's love is omnipotent because I have been blessed with many things. He even lets evil people prosper for a while as it is written. Since our own existence can't be completely explained by science, it is reasonable to feel the blessing of life that God has given us in every breath that we take. It is also just as easy to forget about this blessing. Either way, God still puts breath into you. This is His love. He gives us a chance to know Him, but if the time comes for our death and we still haven't devoted our selves to Him, then the only thing that can logically result from that is eternal death and separation from eternal life with our Creator. While we have breath in us, we have God's love.
God's love is for everyone.

Markings in caves don't explain our existence. They only prove that people lived long ago. That's a no-brainer. As for the planets and universe, the Bible explains that they are there for us to ponder. Every planet must come to an end, so even if there was life on other planets, God would love those people too equally. If the end of our civilization is near - which it says it is in the Bible - it is more important than ever to accept His love, and it gets increasingly important day by day. Science can't answer the meaning of life. Only faith in God gives meaning to it.
God's love is for everyone.

Our existence HAS been proved by science by evolution we have found markings in caves that proves the existence of species much like us we have also found bones that are similar to ours either that or God randomly put the bones their for no reason other than to confuse the ones he so allegedly love so much and their so many planets Galaxies and universes that it's amazing that people think it's about them and if God does exist why wouldn't he care about a more advanced planet then one that is destroying itself and in 10,000 years wil be struck by a giant metior twice the size of earth so if he had to care for a planet why not care for a longer lasting one
High Speed Rail

Good luck. New definitions: Eminent domain: an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent Contention 1: Costs for acquiring right of way would be expensive, lengthy, controversial and unavoidable. To build a railroad line, whether or not it is publicly or privately financed, there is usually land along the proposed right of way that is currently owned by a private citizen that needs to be claimed by the government via eminent domain[1]. Only 94% of land in the United States is undeveloped, but successful high speed rail corridors would have to be located near metropolitan areas, necessitating the need to acquire land via eminent domain. While 94% of land is undeveloped, many family farms that have existed over generations would be devestated. Eminent domain cases are not easy, as many people would fight their cases in court, with the possibility of several appeals per case. Spread out over the United States, eminent domain cases would become costly. Contention 2: Costs for building infrastructure would be expensive. Building a high speed rail corridor would have to be built from scratch, since current freight lines are unsuitable for the speed which high speed trains need to go as well as the capacity that high speed rail would necessitate. Among the things needed to build a single high speed rail line that cost the most money would include: land clearing and grading, bridge building, ballast and maintenence equipment, steel rails and the millions of concrete rail ties to support them, signaling equipment, fencing around track and control centers and maintenence offices. Contention 3: Transportation times would still be longer than air travel with current technology. As my opponent mentions in the 1st round, high speed rail currently tops around 160 mph. A boeing 747 can travel up to 570 mph [2]. A number almost 4 times that of current HSR technology. High speed rail would also be limited to where the tracks are laid, whereas air travel maintains a distinct advantage at mobility in being able to go anywhere an air port or landing strip exists. Because of this limitation, High speed rail at this time would not atttract a high amount of users who prefer timelyness in transportation. Sources: [1] . http://www.ce.utexas.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
High Speed Rail

I accept and these are my definitions: High-Speed Rail – Express: Frequent, express service between major population centers 200–600 miles (320–965 km) apart, with few intermediate stops. Top speeds of at least 150 mph (240 km/h) on completely grade-separated, dedicated rights-of-way(with the possible exception of some shared track in terminal areas). Intended to relieve air and highway capacity constraints. High-Speed Rail – Regional: Relatively frequent service between major and moderate population centers 100–500 miles (160–800 km) apart, with some intermediate stops. Top speeds of 110–150 mph (177–240 km/h), grade-separated, with some dedicated and some shared track (using positive train control technology). Intended to relieve highway and, to some extent, air capacity constraints. Emerging High-Speed Rail: Developing corridors of 100–500 miles (160–800 km), with strong potential for future HSR Regional and/or Express service. Top speeds of up to90–110 mph (145–177 km/h) on primarily shared track (eventually using positive train control technology), with advanced grade crossing protection or separation. Intended to develop the passenger rail market, and provide some relief to other modes. Conventional Rail: Traditional intercity passenger rail services of more than 100 miles with as little as one to as many as 7–12 daily frequencies; may or may not have strong potential for future high-speed rail service. Top speeds of up to 79 mph to as high as 90 mph generally on shared track. Intended to provide travel options and to develop the passenger rail market for further development in the future. It isn't plagiarism because I do not claim these to be my own definitions; they are wikipedia's.For the source see here:http://en.wikipedia.org...;I also define a short amount of time as 10 years as well (to agree with you).
High Speed Rail

Resolved: A nationwide high speed rail network in the United States should not be built in the near future. Definitions: High Speed rail: a type of passenger rail transport that operates significantly faster than the normal speed of rail traffic. Near future: A short period of time, referring to the amount of time from now until 10 years or so into the future. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Debate format: Round 1: Acceptance of terms of debate, statement of definitions Round 2: Main arguments Rounds 3 - 4: Rebuttals and additional arguments Round 5: Closing arguments. - Anyone who makes a statement in the debate has the burden of proof on that statement. - Anyone accepting the debate should finish the debate and not forfeit any of the rounds. - Pro should be arguing against the resolution, that a nationwide high speed rail network in the United States should be built in the near future. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I look forward to a good debate from my opponent and, whoever you are, good luck. :)
The teleological argument is an argument from ignorance

First, I would like to point out that the teleological argument is not listed in the page about the argument from ignorance. "I lack the imagination to understand how this thing, as complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful it is could have occurred accidentally. So it MUST have been created by some wise, sentient being." My opponent fails to provide an argument for how something can be so complex by occurring accidentally. Additionally, it is not from a lack of imagination, but the observance of a lack of things that actually could have created something as complex as life. "This argument assumes that complexity CANNOT come from randomness, but lacks the proof to explain how, and is therefore an argument from ignorance." Just because something doesn't explain how something cannot have occurred, does not mean it is ignorance. My opponent has failed to link the teleological argument to a lack of knowledge, education, or awareness, and has thus failed to affirm the resolution. Thus, the resolution is negated. Thank you for this debate.
The teleological argument is an argument from ignorance

Sincerest apologies for the forfeited round http://en.wikipedia.org... Another word for argument from ignorance is argument from lack of imagination. I lack the imagination to understand how this thing, as complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful it is could have occurred accidentally. So it MUST have been created by some wise, sentient being. This argument assumes that complexity CANNOT come from randomness, but lacks the proof to explain how, and is therefore an argument from ignorance.
The teleological argument is an argument from ignorance

Thank you for starting this debate. The teleological argument: an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design, or direction — or some combination of these — in nature. http://en.wikipedia.org... Ignorance - lack of knowledge, education, or awareness (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) And so, I ask my opponent, how is arguing for the existence of God showing a lack of knowledge, education, and/or awareness? I think that it shows intriguing thought, observance, reasoning, and skill.
Ps3 is better than Box

What I meant was PC is better than both. The Xbox is superior to the PS3 for a number of reasons, the first being the controller. The Xbox 360 controller is designed to fit into your hand comfortably while the PS3 controller focuses too much on symmetry. There are many complaints about the overall shape and size of the PS3 controller and how uncomfortable it is to use for long periods of time. Graphics on games released for both the PS3 and Xbox 360 almost always look better on the Xbox. This is because when a game is released for both consoles it is actually made for the Xbox then translated onto the PS3. When this happens the graphics take quite a tole and are extremely noticeable. answers.yahoo.com " ... " Games & Gear " Other - Games & GearR06; Microsoft also does an outstanding job with the social aspect of the Xbox 360. This isn't even a close comparison. xbox makes it much easier to talk to your friends or enter a party than PS3. The PS3 party chat is terrible and extremely slow. Deleting messages on the Xbox happens nearly instantaneously while on the PS3 it has been known to take hours.
Whether or not there is a god, Churches and community around them is a healthy thing for mankind

You are right, Jewish extremists mostly died out when Christianity came, And Christian extremists died in the medieval ages, When Islam came. However, When their extremists took over, All progression halted. What still surprises me is that Muslim extremists have not targeted science, They actually predicted it. Their holy book, The Quran, Which was written at the year 650, Predicted all things about the universe that we now know are true. They predicted black holes, The end of the solar system, And so on. Christianity and Judaism both might have the same things, But I haven't learned about them, Yet. If we are to talk about religion as of all time, Religion is harmful to mankind, But if we are to talk in the perspective of today, All religions contribute nothing to society science-wise and economic-wise. However, They do bring up happiness of some, Which in turn does improve our society. By the way, We should abandon all religions that deal with the unknown and believe in science. It is the one thing that can actually tell us what is happening. Also, You said churches as if you expected all religions to have churches, Jews have synagogues and Muslims have mosques and some don't even have a place of prayer.
Whether or not there is a god, Churches and community around them is a healthy thing for mankind

You are right most halting in science comes from extremists, But those extremists are plenty and influential. The extremists are given the utmost respect, Most of the time, From believers of the religion, Therefore when they say that we should not worry about science because god will help us, They halt science for them and most of everyone they talked to. Why do you think ISIS is not fully dead yet? That is because the extremists in the group are influencing so many people that they never die. As for the small churches that have no affect on others, They still only believe in god and sometimes disapprove of science. As a matter of fact, There are entire countries that ban things of science because it disagrees with the religion. You can never get rid of extremists without getting rid of most of the religion.
Whether or not there is a god, Churches and community around them is a healthy thing for mankind

They make people religious and don't allow people to focus on actual science and halt the learning of mankind. We could be researching more into how to more efficiently help the community, But we are spending our time believing there is something out there that is going to do it for us. There might be something out there, But we know from experience that it is not doing anything that we notice, So we must take on matters ourselves. Religion was at one point propelling the science of humanity, But now it is slowing us down. Therefore, We must care less about religion and focus more on actual science. I am not saying that religions are bad, I am just saying they have outlived their usefullness.
The Earth is flat.

That's like asking why don't people fall upwards at the North and South Poles. To explain your helicopter thing, if you were to fly a helicopter above a certain point, you would NOT witness the earth move below you. You are in the same hemisphere as the land section below you. Its not as if you're basking in the ozone layer to see the world pass beneath you. You rotate WITH the earth. If you are saying that you could fly up in the air, wait a day, and come back down to see Paris all around you, that is painfully incorrect. If you're going to argue about something like the earth being flat, the least you could do is say things that would be difficult, but entirely possible, to prove wrong because the earth is indeed a sphere. As for your water thing, its called gravity. There's nothing else to say. Also, if the earth WAS flat, which is by no means true, wouldn't water just drip of the sides because there is not gravitational core? No north or south poles? No layers, mantle, no inner core or outer core, nothing. Your world is impractical.
The theory of evolution is well established

In this debate, I will argue that evolution by natural selection is well established, as its title of scientific theory suggests, while my opponent will argue that it is ultimately flawed. Things that will not be debated: -the meaning of the word theory (scientific or otherwise) -abiogenesis (how life got started). The theory of evolution provides clues to the origin of life, but is not ultimetaly about the origin of life. Arguments on the origin of life from either side should therefore not be considered. Rounds: 1st round = Acceptance. 2nd round = Opening statements (no rebbutals). 3rd round = Rebuttals. 4th round = Further rebuttals and closing statements. Rules: -no name calling. -arguments should be organised into coherent paragraphs for clarity. -correct spelling should be used as much as possible. -statements should be backed by sources. -please make time for the debate.
Huckleberry Finn should be banned from High Schools.

Thank you for the debate. C1- Well I agree with everything my opponent said. Further more the only reason Instructors consulting teaching values through teaching literature will have resolved this debate long before they walk into the classroom to supervise " a close reading of Huckleberry Finn that will reveal the various ways in which Twain undercuts Jim's humanity: in the minstrel routines with Huck as the 'straight man'; in generalities about Blacks as unreliable, primitive and slow-witted..." We discover that this moving, funny novel is being taught not as a work of art but as a piece of damning evidence against that bigot, Mark Twain. good luck