BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The cosmological argument is evidence for a God

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then time began at the moment of the Big Bang, so there is no need for a pre-existing God. If fact there was no time in which anything pre-existed. If quantum fluctuation theory is correct, then the universe was created solely by random event in nature. That violates the assumption that "the Universe has a cause." I did not say or imply that both theories were wrong. I debated the contingency that "if they were wrong, then ..." It is good debate practice to debate several avenues, as this anticipates objections and covers the case that a certain argument fails for any reason in the mind of the audience. Pro essentially conceded the debate at the point at which he stated that God neither always existed or began to exist. Affirming either alternative denies a premise assumption of the cosmological argument, that all things begin to exist and are caused. However, denying both assumes that there is some unspecified mechanism by which something neither always exists nor begins to exist. whatever that is, if it is possible such could be the case for the universe, so the cosmological argument fails. Pro failed to answer numerous challenges to support his many assertions. For example, he chose not to attempt explain how causality was a logical necessity and not just an observation of nature. Having failed to make a successful logical argument, Pro makes an appeal that is completely independent of the Cosmological Argument. He is saying what amounts to, "Something is happening, and I just cannot see how it could be anything else but God." That is the Argument from Incredulity. It is false, because when it comes to the laws of nature, we already have a list of things that we humans cannot conceptualize, but which are well proven. However, whether true or not, that is not the Cosmological Argument, which is false and Pro could not defend. This debate was not about the existence of God. Disproving the Cosmological Argument does not disprove the existence of God, it only disproves that one argument. I grant that a God conceived solely upon faith cannot be disproved. If anything, Pro diminished the case for a God by so narrowly restricting the definition as to make a God virtually irrelevant.
The cosmological argument is evidence for a God

:| Well, to rap this thing up. Look: "Current theory is that time and space began with the Big Bang, but that part of the theory could be wrong or simply incomplete" If you believe in the big bang theory or quantum fluctuation, your vote belongs to the PRO. CON denies both of those theories, deeming them incorrect. I'm out of time to explain myself, but based on what I just said, my contentions are protected with the most widely accepted scientific theory, the big bang. Thank you.
The cosmological argument is evidence for a God

"An uncaused cause in fact is a beginning. Take the decaying atoms for example. Even though it seems to happen for no reason, it began to happen at some point in time. If that is the case, inevitability is the cause. In the case of the universe, God would be the inevitable event of its creation. :)" The cosmological includes the premise that everything has a cause, and then postulates that god is the cause. Pro than clarifies that if something happens without a cause, then that too qualifies as being a cause. Therefore, to Pro's way of thinking the word "clause" has no meaning. therefore the proposition is meaningless and fails. ">>>I challenge Pro to say whether he claims that God (1) always existed or (2) was created by something else, X." - (1) No (2) No Why does it matter? It matters because I showed that a yes answer to either question defeats the cosmological argument. Saying "no" to both questions means that the proposition has a logical contradiction within it, and therefore fails. The claim that god was neither always existent nor created, if somehow found to be logically consistent, means that the universe too could be both not always in existence nor created. If so, the cosmological argument is false, because then a creator is not required. "If the big bang theory or quantum fluctuation is true, the PRO is still correct, because we can define either of those as God (creator/cause of the universe)." Of course, and if you define chocolate fudge to be god, that too would prove the existence of god. However, the cosmological argument is based on causation, and causation by a creator has to be abandoned to allow the redefinition that Pro proposes. Therefore, the cosmological argument fails. Pro consistently refuses to respond to challenges. For example, I challenged him to defend his assertion that causation is logical necessity and not a law of nature by showing a logical contradiction that followed from supposing it could occur naturally. Pro ignored the challenge. I invite Pro to go through the debate and respond specifically to all the things he has ignored. The only thing that Pro follows through on is claiming that he is right, despite his arguments failing.
The cosmological argument is evidence for a God

Quite an impressive job by CON. I shall first start by making a few things clear. ">>>I challenge Pro to demonstrate a logical contradiction that results from the universe coming into existence completely without cause" - Ok then. "the definition of "cause" does not allow a thing to cause itself." -RoyLatham ""cause" is "The producer of an effect, result, or consequence." " An uncaused cause in fact is a beginning. Take the decaying atoms for example. Even though it seems to happen for no reason, it began to happen at some point in time. If that is the case, inevitability is the cause. In the case of the universe, God would be the inevitable event of its creation. :) ">>>I challenge Pro to say whether he claims that God (1) always existed or (2) was created by something else, X." - (1) No (2) No Why does it matter? If the big bang theory or quantum fluctuation is true, the PRO is still correct, because we can define either of those as God (creator/cause of the universe). For the CON to be correct, he would have to declare both of those theories in their current state incorrect. Therefore, the cosmological argument still stands firm and so do my arguments.
The cosmological argument is evidence for a God

Interesting. This will be fun^_^ Happy new year to debate.org! Hello, and thank you for accepting my debate. I will start by rebutting your arguments. You seemed to have put words in my mouth stating that I made certain assumptions, altering definition of God. "God is claimed not to be part of the universe" - I never said that. "Pro assumes that there was a God that always existed prior to the universe, therefore he admits that it is possible for something to always exist." - I didn't say he always existed. "Note that as defined by Pro, "God" has no properties other than being an 'uncaused cause' for the creation of universe." - Instead you should have taken out the 'uncaused cause' part. :| "1. Pro claims "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." In the current state of human understanding, it is not known whether or not everything has a cause." No, its simple logic. 1+1=2. 1+1 does not equal 3. Basically what your saying is that 1+1 may = 3, we just lack the intellectual constructs to comprehend how. In the case of this debate, its causality. What would exempt the universe from simple causality? "There are at least two possibilities: (1) the universe began to exist and (2) the universe always existed" (1) Then your agreeing with me and therefore proving my point. Its part 1 of the cosmological argument (2) An infinite chain of events with no beginning or end eh? I guess we lack the constructs to comprehend that as well. "No will, intent, or design is implied. Thus as defined, "God" is no more than a particular property of nature." BINGO God doesn't have to be a deity, a being, but simply the cause of the universe. My opponent has yet to prove how the cosmological argument is not how evidence for a God. By a God, I simply mean the cause of the universe, and my opponent cannot explain how an uncaused cause can occur, so my contentions still stand.
The cosmological argument is evidence for a God

Pro fails to define "the universe." We know that all the things that are observed exist, so those things are part of "the universe." Pro posits the God exists (or existed), yet God is claimed not to be part of the universe. There is no logical reason to exclude God from being a part of the universe. The exclusion serves only as part of an attempt to make the cosmological argument sensible. 1. Pro claims "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." In the current state of human understanding, it is not known whether or not everything has a cause. The idea that everything has a cause derives from notions in everyday life, but other such commonsense notions have been proven false. For example, everyday experience provides a notion that there is no limit to how fast something can travel, yet we now know that contrary to that notion the speed of light is a limiting speed. In everyday experience, we seem to be able to know the position and momentum of any object with theoretical certainty, but it has turned out there is an inherent theoretical limit to the concurrent accuracy with which both can be known (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, http://en.wikipedia.org...). Events such as the radioactive decay of individual atoms are well-described statistically, but there appears to be no cause for a particualr atom to decay at any one point in time rather than any other point in time. Perhaps some proximate cause will be discovered, but there is no necessity of a cause being discovered. Similarly, there is a theory that the universe was created by a "quantum fluctuation." We cannot relate such an event to ordinary experience. But because we cannot imagine an uncaused event does not mean that such a thing is impossible; it only means we lack the intellectual constructs to comprehend it. It is even possible that we will never be able to build such constructs. 2. Pro claims "The Universe began to exist." There are at least two possibilities: (1) the universe began to exist and (2) the universe always existed. Is it possible that there is anything that always existed? Pro assumes that there was a God that always existed prior to the universe, therefore he admits that it is possible for something to always exist. If God is admitted as possibly always existing, then the universe must also be admitted as possibly always existing. Even if Pro had not postulated that God always existed, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that the universe always existed. Current theory is that time and space began with the Big Bang, but that part of the theory could be wrong or simply incomplete. Note that as defined by Pro, "God" has no properties other than being an uncaused cause for the creation of universe. No will, intent, or design is implied. Thus as defined, "God" is no more than a particular property of nature. As an explanation for the universe, there is no explanatory power beyond naming an uncaused cause.
The cosmological argument is evidence for a God

I am here to affirm that the Cosmological Argument is evidence for a God. By accepting this challenge, God must be defined as simply the creator of the universe. Cosmological Arguments go something like this: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. Thus, the cause of the Universe is God I eagerly wait to hear my opponent's contentions.
Religion vs Science

An earlier comment from dappleshade asked for my clarification. As pro has forfeited, not putting forward arguments for me to base mine on, I may as well enter this clarification into the debate. The aim of a theory is to have enough evidence for in ratio to evidence against, and therefore necessity to become an accepted theory. A lack of a need here reefers to necessity, where, if a theory is to lack evidence, it therefore lacks the necessity to be accepted. The theory of divine creation, until recently, had no theoretical or physical evidence for or against it. However, due to the theory of gravity disrupting the singularity, there is sufficient theoretical evidence, which is supported itself by theoretical and physical evidence, against the theory of divine creation. Therefore, it lacks sufficient evidence and so lacks necessity. In conclusion, it is not an accepted theory (although it may be an accepted belief).
Religion vs Science

Pro states that a) science is based on faith, b) one cannot be certain that a theory is correct and c) God exists a) Science is based on necessity and a theory's evidence to correlate with our observations. If a theory has sufficient evidence to reflect reality and prevent being proved incorrect, it is therefore necessary to be used in the way of evidence and is therefore an accepted theory. Therefore, a theory is not based on faith, but on the needs of modern science. b) Pro is correct in this, however, as stated above, science does not depend on correct theories, but necessary theories. c) If, as pro states, a theory can never be proved, the theory of a deity is as correct as M-theory, however is not a necessity, so has no sufficient evidence to become an accepted theory, therefore M-theory is more necessary than God. Also, the theory of gravity destabilizing the singularity stated in my opening argument is a theory with physical and theoretical (which, in itself contains physical evidence) evidence - more evidence than of divine creation -, so is therefore more of a necessity than divine creation.
Religion vs Science

I will ask you this: how big is the universe? Isn't it infinite, according to most scientists? Tell me, have you ever measured how big it is? Then how do you know it is infinite? You believe that the universe is infinite without actually knowing how big it actually is. Sounds to me like science is based on faith as well. :) ---- to believe in something without circumstantial evidence to support it. ----- You can never be completely sure that any scientific theory is true anyways. Just because there is no evidence to contradict one does not mean that there may be evidence in the future to contradict it.I believe that God created science to get a more precise view in life, but people believe that they can prove that he doesn't exist because of atoms and cells, isn't it easy to say that that is what God created for us to understand. He is not just gonna give us an easy trip to the mountain, we ourselves have to climb it in order to enjoy our success. What I mean by that is that most likely God would not wish to declare that he is real but allow us to believe and discover on our own and to put our faith in him.
Religion vs Science

I am interested to observe the outcome of this debate, as I agree with neither side, my view undecided at the present. I will be arguing on behalf of science, however, being a committed Church-goer myself, I do not wish to state anything I say as a truth. I would like to thank my challenger for accepting the debate and I am hoping you will be an interesting opponent. You will notice the word infinite becoming overused and that it because it is a key point in M-theory, the ultimate theory of which I am using to demonstrate the lack of need for a divine being. My argument is based on the works of Stephen Hawking. That which with simple rules, complex happenings can be explained to their full extent. The complexities of the beginning of the universe, in this case, can be explained by the force of gravity. The singularity (or big bang/inflation) consisted of a single point of infinitely small volume in which all space is present. This space then, due to gravity, inflated within an infinitely small volume of every dimension (including the fourth - time). Gravity did this, because of the point's infinite mass. An infinite amount of mass is not affected by Planck's Constant (and to a lesser extent, quantum theory itself), therefore its path is ultimately set: an infinite amount of mass bends space-time infinitely, and so contorts itself with such a force the fabric of space inflated. Gravity, finding irregularities in matter, twisted the dimensions, causing mass to bend around the latter mass, creating what we up until recently know as gravitational orbit. Gravity and matter's irregularities therefore are a theory backed up by much evidence opposing the mere hypothesis of a divine being creating the universe. A lack of necessarity means a lack of need for the theory to back our developing world's ever-growing scientific needs.
World war 3

I feel the 2 world wars effectively cleansed the world, it created great opportunities and great advancements for man in a very short space of time, our ambitions have heightened greatly in the past two centuries and they all been fuelled by war and change - not religion and peace. War is a process in our lives like death and life it is a necessary it makes us value what is good and what is not. It effectively brings out the best in all of us and can force us to become the best of what we can be, how can we understand what peace is and what it is worth without war? How can we have the light without the dark? I think the benefits of war outweigh the cons and the level of naive fools in government are increasing - would a 3rd world war be a bad thing? What do you think? I have experienced the horrors of war first hand and what it does to families but it also creates a love stronger than anything i have ever known, fighting for something you love changes you for the better.
The Bible condones slavey as seen in colonial America

He even quoted parts of my rebuttal towards the end of his argument. He should have saved such arguments as they fit Round 4’s description: “ Both sides defend their original argument” I suggest that voters take this into consideration when you cast your votes. Wicked Pagans: Leviticus 18:21 was to illustrate the kind of practices that these pagan nations were practicing. These people aren’t innocent, therefore it is fair to take their freedom. Foreign Slave Traders: My real question to you is if the Paul condemns kidnapping, where did the slave trader get the slaves? These slaves could have been in poverty and sold themselves to slavery to have food and shelter as the Bible has recorded on multiple occasions. You also seem to cherry-pick your translations. Stipulation about “wickedness” Deuteronomy 20:17-18 “17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods [ex. burning children as human sacrifice], and you will sin against the Lord your God. ” The Israelites killed children, too: This argument is nothing more than a red herring fallacy as this debate is about slavery in the Bible and not "genocide". Re: Exodus 21:16 There are plenty of commentators who would argue against this. The ones you have provided are insufficient to prove that this is what the Bible is referring to. Take for example Gill’s Exposition for the Entire Bible: “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him,. .. . One of the children of Israel, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and so the Septuagint version: but though this law was given to the Israelites primarily, yet was made for men stealers in general, as the apostle observes, who plainly has reference to it, 1 Timothy 1:9,” Or in the Pulpit commentary you have brought up also stated: “though the words of the present passage are general, and forbid the crime altogether” Biblical slavery had everything to do with nationality: I will not address this part of your rebuttal as this argument has made in violation of the debate structure. Protective laws don't necessarily protect slaves from abuse: Will not address for the same reasons as stated above. . http://biblehub.com...
vampires are getting so out of hand.

I shall negate the resolution, "vampires are getting so out of hand. " Definitions: vampires- a preternatural being, commonly believed to be a reanimated corpse, that is said to suck the blood of sleeping persons at night. out of hand- beyond control. Vampires are not getting out of hand because they can be controlled with various methods such as the crucifix, sun light, the stake, and holy water. Resolution negated. Thank you. Source: . http://www.ehow.com...
vampires are getting so out of hand.

My opponent still has not refuted my argumenation and has not upheld her Burden of Proof. The resolution remains negated. It does not matter if the thoughts of vampires are getting out of hand. The resolution only references "vampires," so it is assumed we are talking about actual vampires, not our thoughts about them. If my opponent wanted to debate peoples' feelings of vampires, she should have made that clear in her opening round. The resolution remains negated. I heavily urge a Con vote.
vampires are getting so out of hand.

apparently my opponent does not follow pop culture and that twilight has to do with sparkly vampires what I mean by getting out of hand is that every body that is on this green earth is doing stuff that has to do with vampires like, the vampire dairies,twilight, the marked series I don't think we have ever seen any thing like this till twilight so why are we seeing it now. we use to think of vampires as the count and now as the DELICIOUS Edward Cullen.
It is cruel to keep animals in zoos.

Oh, I'm sorry, do you want to change the subject of the debate? No. You have utterly failed so far to provide any example of suffering or cruelty necessarily caused by zoos. Factory farms are cruel. The production of animals as comodities is cruel. Keeping some animals as pets or companions is simply not necessarily cruel, and this applies in the household and in zoos. Do not assume that I don't care about animals because I disagree that zoos are cruel. As long as the animals are taken care of and treated well, there is no suffering. I never made the claim humans are better. I don't believe it, either. All I said was that other animals are different from us. As for your last question, why should we take advantage of animals in such ways as riding them? Isn't that cruel? It would certainly be cruel to keep humans to ride around on. Horses and camels don't suffer from it, though, maybe unless one hits them to get them going, which I don't approve of. If you think it's cruel to keep animals in zoos, you should also think it cruel to keep them as pets, use them or otherwise interfere with their natural behavior in any way. Do you?
It is cruel to keep animals in zoos.

You clearly don't really understand the context of what you are saying. Because if you didn't you wouldn't keep repeating the same thing over and over again... What I don't understand is why we can't just have Wildlife parks, safari parks and so on... Anything that can let us look and observe the animals in their NATURAL habitat without disturbing them. Who are we to say that we are superior to animals and that they are inferior beings to the human race. That statement is flawed beyond measure. Who is it that carries people to safety when tsunamis hit? Elephants. Who is it that helps us find bodies after earthquakes? Dogs. Who is it that helps us find drugs at the airport? Dogs. Who is it that has carried man for years? Horses. Who is it that carts people around in the desert? Camels. The list goes on, these are just a few examples of how animals have helped the human race all these years... How does this tie in with our debate? Why should we be treating animals the way we do after all they have done and are doing for us?