BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God

Okay, fourth round. Time for rebuttals. In response to the teleology argument, which was "6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause. 7. The universe had a beginning in time. 8. Therefore the universe had a cause. 9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god. 10. Therefore, god exists. [4]" This argument is flawed in one crucial aspect. It fails to state what the cause of God is. If the universe must have a cause, so must God. In response to the Modal Ontological argument, which was "1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]" This argument is flawed because if a maximally great being existed, then it would exist in every world. It would have the power to do so, or it would not be maximally great. If God does not exist in this world, then it would not exist in any world, because a maximally great being would be powerful enough to exist in every world, if such a being existed. To prove that a maximally great being does not exist in this world, I will provide the argument of locality. The argument of locality states that 1. An omnipotent God that wishes to be praised would make itself known to all people, in order to be praised. 2. In no religion has a God done so. In Christianity and Judaism, it was the Hebrews that were chosen by God. 3. Unless that God is racist, God would reveal himself to all people, not just one race. 4. Therefore, no omnipotent God has been revealed. In order to disprove the locality argument, we would see tribes from secluded islands having the same religion as other groups of people. We would see one religion that was the same no matter the location. There is no religion that is like this, however. If a God wanted his people to know him, he would reveal himself to more than one ethnic group. Also, there is the argument of knowledge. It goes as follows. 1. An omnipotent and omniscient God would have knowledge beyond the current culture of humans. 2. Therefore, we would see a true religion that has morals beyond what the culture was at the time. We do not see this, however. In the Christian Old Testament, and the Jewish Torah, we see human slavery, inequality of women, and brutal war techniques, with no mercy. Would a loving, omniscient God not know morals beyond that? The views expressed in the Old Testament and the Torah reflect the culture of the time. If the God was real, it would tell of better morals in its holy books than the culture of the time. Therefore, no religion accurately displays a good God, and God does not exist.
The Abrahamic God is not an Entity Mankind should Endorse

However you offered no arguement at all. I assert that the Abraham God will be endorsed, even if my opponent does not agree. . https://www.google.com... King James BibleFor it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. . http://www.google.com... . https://www.google.com...
The Abrahamic God is not an Entity Mankind should Endorse

This debate will be over the discussion of whether or not the Abrahamic God is a good god and whether or not man should worship this entity at all. Pro: God should not be worshipped Con: God should be worshipped The first round will be for acceptance The second for primary arguments, no rebuttals The third and fourth will be for our arguments in defense and opposition The fifth round will be for closing statements and/or concession. Please ask any questions about the rules in the comments before accepting.
Resolved: It is more likely than not, that morality does not exist.

Resolved: It is more likely than not, that morality does not exist. This debate is about Moral nihilism, VS objective or subjective morality. I will be affirming the resolution. The set up for this debate is as follows: 4 rounds total. The first round will be for acceptance, while the following 3 rounds will be for debating. 10,000 character max. 3 days" time to argue. 2 week voting period. Yes to required voting comments. I am going to keep this challenge open to all, though I hope to get a serious debater to engage in a fruitful philosophical discussion. Good luck to my opponent in advance!
Creating laws in support of gay marriage would create discrimination against church leaders

I will state my conclusion in this round, because my opponent cannot respond to rebuttals. A lot of things were said last round that were wrong and manipulative, however I think the voters will come to that conclusion there selves. I responded to all my opponents arguments in a fair way, and argued the debate exactly the way he as pro with the burden of proof argued. Conclusion So at the end of this debate, we can weigh several things into the factoring of our determining how we decide on this resolution. 1. What is the impact behind the resolution? My opponent made a great point saying that discriminating pedophiles is not considered negative behavior. So there is a certain impact behind how we discriminate. That said, in the last round my opponent also said that I took this debate out of context. In the end, the point still proves exactly what my opponent was trying to say when he said the bit about pedophilia. Why care about religion being "discriminated" against, when most of the time they are the ones behind the discriminating themselves? 2. The bible says to help and attempt to cure all. My opponent has countered with many bible quotes, while saying that I have a lack of understanding of the bible myself. But he never went on to dispute the interpretation of Bible.org, which seemed like a fairly good Christian Justification from an established Christian organization. In many of the ways that Christians may feel they will be discriminated against, they could completely do without by accepting homosexuality into their establishments while attempting to cure them. This works against Pastor Carr's ideals however. 3. Violence and protests are not a reason to assume that religion will be widely discriminated against. This is a very loose point, with a lot of stretching behind it. A few people do not make up an entire group of people, same goes for Christianity. That said, a lot of the sources and videos provided were very horrible examples of "discrimination" itself. There is a lot of the blame game that goes on in these types of social issues on the other party. But realistically, are Christians getting discriminated against as a whole? No. When they have more rights (and probably always will) over the individuals they think they are being discriminated against, it seems silly to make such statements. Because church leaders themselves were not brought up at all by my opponent though, I am left standing in negation of the resolution, as I feel there is no substantial reasoning to think that church leaders themselves will be discriminated against. Thankyou.
humans = not evolving anymore

"true, people in africa and other poor, many religous fanatics die, but as a whole, we are adapting the environemnt to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt." This statement is incredibly disjointed. What does the former have to do with the latter, at all? Everyone dies. The environment forcing us to adapt is not a requirement of evolution. "remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animal doesn't cause evolution... you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless. (i'm sure there's minor deviations esepecially from radioactivity that can be continued but as a whole you can't change your species from yourself) this is the evolution i was taught at school. if this is right, there's no way evolution could be occuring given that even the weak are likely to breed." 'The weak' breeding does not hinder evolution. "Survival of the fittest', as you are trying to explain, just means that the members of a species who acquire the most favorable adaptations are the ones that will most likely live on, and those traits will over time be the ones that remain in the species. However, just because the human species doesn't exactly follow "Survival of the fittest" anymore, it does not stop us from evolving -- our genes are still randomly chosen when new life is created, and causing adaptations. The adaptations which turn out favorable will overtime become predominant over the less favorable traits. Therefore, we are still evolving. P.S. Fix your shift key.
humans = not evolving anymore

we are not longer evolving signficantly as humans. true, people in africa and other poor, many religous fanatics die, but as a whole, we are adapting the environemnt to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt. remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animals doesn't cause evolution... you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless. (i'm sure there's minor deviations esepecially from radioactivity that can be continued but as a whole you can't change your species from yourself) this is the evolution i was taught at school. if this is right, there's no way evolution could be occuring given that even the weak are likely to breed.
I have never been to 4chan

I'm finding it vexing and increasingly difficult to lay a foundation for my argumenation with such a lack of clarifaction that was not set until the next round. I will do my best, though, it's all I can do. You seem to know generally about 4chan. You stated that you can't go, which means you likely tried to go, and you know what to do when you get there. It sounds like you have been there, or been there by proxy, following a picture, link, etc. In another case, you said you wished to be Dutch. You may not know everything about them, but you can still visualize in your mind clear enough to want to be one. Since a website is not a tangible object, it a mental object, an idea. Ideas are formulated inside of the mind. MY POINT: Since you formulated the idea of the website and obviously have a clear description of it from your mind. Whether online or not, your mental capabilites manifested an entity of 4chan, therefore you have been there. (P.S. The Dutch aren't so hot in the globe right now....)
I have never been to 4chan

I thank this guy for arguing and stuff. I said maybe a meme is pronounced mey mey. Not chinese food. When I said I don't "understand a word", I meant the big picture (4chan). Please avoid being semantical next time. Anyways, I am stating that when I play online games and chat to friends online who claim to be "internets professionals" (probably yet another "meme"), I hear how these "meme"s direct from a place called 4chan. I've never been there. If I had been, I would know what a "meme" is. Which I don't. Since I don't want to be too contradictory here, I can't go to 4chan myself, so why don't you go taike a visit. But be warned, I've heard that there's from pretty nasty stuff there, especially at a place called "/b/" in there. I think that that's the miscellaneous section of the website, but googling titles and not clicking on them only does so much. P.S. Since you're con in this debate, you might want to start doing what the title is, and proving that I've never been to 4chan. Just a suggestion. P.P.S. I'm proud to be Texan, but not American. I wish I was Dutch.
I have never been to 4chan

I may be the only one having a difficult time understand what my is talking about or even if relates to the topic, but I'll do my best. First of all, I just did a bit of searching and found "Mey-Mey". I will provde the link. (http://www.ruislip.co.uk...) I do not understand how Chinese fast food relates to 4chan. Ther site *(www.4chan.org ) states that : "4chan is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images." I have not heard anyone talk about Mey-Mey and if you can understand what I'm saying now, then you do "understand a word." (Be proud to be Texan! Be proud to be American!) Good luck, friend.
I have never been to 4chan

Thanks again for that reply and junk. I never have been to 4chan, and all I have is a brief description of it from Urban Dictionary which says: you have just entered the very heart, soul, and life force of the internet. this is a place beyond sanity, wild and untamed. there is nothing new here. "new" content on 4chan is not found; it is created from old material. every interesting, offensive, shocking, or debate inspiring topic youve seen elsewhere has been posted here ad infinitum. we are the reason for "not safe for work". we are the anonymous army. cross us and you will fail. anonymous is everywhere. you depend on us every day. we bag your groceries, we fix your computers. anonymous sees you before you see him. sitting at desks around the world right now is a nameless, faceless, unforgiving mafia composed of the best of the best. we are 4channers. the people devoid of any type of soul or conscience. products of cynicism and apathy, spreading those very sentiments daily. anonymous is the hardened war veteran of the internet. he does not forgive or forget. we have seen things that defy explantions. heard stories that would make any god-fearing, law abiding citzen empty their stomach where they stand. we have experienced them multiple times and eagerly await their return. 4chan is a place of sheer genius and utter stupidity, and there is often a thin line dividing the two. here you will see a state of mind that exists in most human beings, but is rarely if ever shown. this is a place where taboos do not exist. 4chan cannot simply be regarded as a simple website or imageboard. it is so much more than code. 4chan is alive and constantly changing. this is a subculture, a self-governing sect of the world. rich in history and foundation. to become a 4chan user is to speak a different language. to leave behind any methods of conventional thinking you once knew. there are things here that you will not understand and things you never will understand. if you cannot accept this then GTFO now. because there is no turning back. this is 4chan this is /b/ so yeah.
Aria is A

The dress could just be a coincidence or as I said before Aria could be the one with the evil twin. There have been too many episodes where she is alone and receives an A text. We are also are we forgetting that A kidnapped malcolm" if aria was part of the a team she wouldn't have freaked out the way she did. Point is, no matter how much they try and throw suspicion on Aria it"s actually impossible for her to be a part of this, unless she has a twin.
Aria is A

Aria is not the smartest of the liars. Spencer, on the other hand is very smart. Hanna, although it may seems she is not, she is really smart. Aria isn't. They want us to believe it's her then reveal -A is the one person we least suspected. Marlene said: "It's only been one time in the history of the show," she said. "Both my assistant and I saw it online " I won't even say where " but there was someone who had it completely right, and I think I saved it. If I have it, and once that revelation is revealed, I will call that person. It was shockingly correct." Many people have guessed Aria, which means she can't be A. http://www.etonline.com...
Aria is A

I believe Aria could be the one with the evil twin; many photos in her house suggest that. Aria cares about her friends, why would she hurt them? Some people say that among the liars, she has never been hurt. However; Aria was locked in a box with a dead body and almost killed by A. A also sent Aria a text message about her relationship with Ezra which he found. Why would she jeopardize her relationship with him? .
Phil Robertson did not deserve to be suspended from Duck Dynasty.

I want to start out and be clear that I do not particularly agree with what Mr. Robertson stated, and my assumption is that you did not either. Phil expressed his viewpoints on his opposition to gay marriage and his experiences with blacks during the Civil Rights era that led to the network A&E indefinitely suspending him from the show. Here is what he said: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right. ”“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. " He went on to say: "However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other. ”As Phil has stated that he does not agree with gay marriage and homosexuality, he also goes on to say that he would not disrespect anyone who associates themselves with that as Christ would. The bigger issue here is a problem with violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If what A&E did was okay, then if I were a TV network, I could suspend anyone for-Owning a book collection by atheist Richard Dawkins-Explaining why it's okay to read the Quran every day and make the journey to Mecca. -Quoting Malcolm X or Dr. King and why the Civil Rights movement was important. -Quoting any part of the Bible in any form or manner. -Saying abortion is wrong-Saying abortion is right-Disagreeing publicly with President ObamaThe list can go on for ages. I feel personally and countless others feel that this is a violation of their freedom of religious expression and religion. This problem is not about whether what he said was wrong or right, or whether he was ignorant to the surrounding circumstances. This is a problem about civil liberty in the workplace and The United States' first amendment right, that he seems like he was punished for exercising. His family is a religious family. I find it very unusual that A&E would act NOW as if they were outraged and surprised at what Phil said. This is about preserving free civil discourse while off work (which he was when he said what he said) as well as free expression of religion or nonreligion for everyone who has this right. This violates YOURS and MY given constutional rights and this could be used as a precedent for future constutional issues. I don't watch this show, I don't care for it, but this man had his religious expression show down and was then punished for using it.
Phil Robertson did not deserve to be suspended from Duck Dynasty.

Hello, and thank you for this interesting topic! I may not be the experienced DDO member that you're looking for, but I assure you that I'll be here until the end of the debate with relatively quick responses (hopefully), and while I don't have any DDO experience, I have debated a bit in real life, so I'm not totally inexperienced. I too have been waiting for a while on MIA opponents, so I hope this debate actually ends unlike my others. Certainly not a preferable topic for me to debate, but I think I can manage. Looking forward to the first construtive argument!
Phil Robertson did not deserve to be suspended from Duck Dynasty.

In this debate, I'll be arguing that it was wrong and inexcusable for Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty to have been suspended by A&E for his personal remarks of homosexuality. Round format shall be structured like thisRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - State your case for or againstRound 3 - Refutation to opponent's arguments and conclusion.Thanks for advance. And please, I'd prefer it if an experienced member of DDO would accept this debate . The past three debates I've done have been forfeited by people who never got back on.Thanks!
Humans should colonize Antarctica and not Mars.

Pro highlights that antartica is an economical and easy solution where as mars is not.I would argue that is exactly why we should not colonize antartica, it is like putting in effort to colonize your backyard.Everything is handed to you like a baby, there is no serious effort, problem solving, or learning when you setup a tent in your backyard like there is when setting up a tent in the middle of the dessert. It may be more safe to be in your backyard and close to your refrigerator, but it just shows you are sheltered and afraid to make real progress when it comes to surviving outside of your house. Great advancement is always going to be expensive, but that doesn't dissuade NASA's from making leaps in advancement.The leaps in technology and problem solving that it takes to colonize mars is much more prospective and greatly extendswhat humans can do.
Humans should colonize Antarctica and not Mars.

I will as opposed to pro be arguing that the colonization of antartica is something we shouldn't focus any effort on, and if anything we should instead go for mars.Antartica is not ideal because:1 Antartica has already been colonized to a degree by people.2 If the purpose of colonization is because there is some sort of catastrophe that has ruined most of the planet, antartica would be the last place to go. 3 There is no significant benefit or innovation by colonizing antartica.The planet mars is a better place to colonize because:1 It greatly extends the domain to which humans work in as opposed to antartica where humans already work in, making it a greater feat.2 There are more resources and room on mars (an entire planet) as opposed to antartica (one continent that is mostly just covered by ice).3 There are no ecosystem on mars that humans could disturb (or be disturbed by... O_O) as opposed to antartica which has many species (scientist, penguins, whales, different birds, the usual).4 Colonizing mars will make it one small step further to explore the rest of the solar system... galaxy. And it will be easier to reach other planets.5 If, worst case scenerio, earth gets hit by a rogue planet, comet, charlie sheen, you name it, we have somewhere else to go.
Humans should colonize Antarctica and not Mars.

My opponent's account is no longer active. I don't know why, maybe he'll come back for the final round.As an additional benefit, Antarctic currency is already in print, one less thing to worry about when choosing between Martian and Antarctic colonial life. [1](1)http://moneyart.biz...Here are the sources I promised from my previous rounds:Cost of travel to Antarctica:http://www.lonelyplanet.com...Cost of 6 man exploration visit to Mars: (Minutes 30-39)http://www.youtube.com...Near future launch cost estimates:http://www.nss.org...Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition:https://en.wikipedia.org...Martian soil toxicity:http://science.nasa.gov...Known mineral resources of Antarctica:http://en.wikipedia.org...
Humans should colonize Antarctica and not Mars.

I have no problem with a challenge. Antarctica is very much an inhospitable desert, and a permanent, generational, SELF-SUSTAINING colony there is a challenge that has not yet been met. It is not a safe place by most earth standards. I would contend it would be the difference between setting up a tent in Alaskan wilderness where there are bears, but also berries, and setting up a tent on the crater edge of a very active volcano, in the middle of a North Korean prison camp, where there's nothing to eat.Also, the cost is quite literally, astronomical. Colonizing Antarctica is something we can do, and can afford to do, without government help. Colonizing Mars, at a projected launch cost exceeding the wealth of 5.8 million average Americans per dozen colonists, is nothing we should seriously consider right now. (And that's just the cost to launch the weight of a one time visit for a dozen, not the cost of the equipment or long term support.) What I am highlighting is that Mars colonization is not just uneconomical, but unaffordable and unsustainable, whearas Antarctica is affordable, and concievably sustainable.