BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: It is rational to believe that God only lets Atheists into Heaven

Sorry it took me so long, back to school shopping has been a real b*tch. "Five: Creationism/ theism/ metaphysics is rational thought when compared with scientific understanding of physics"That one doesnt have anything to do with this. For the sake of the debate everything else was implied and accepted...Now then, the one argument for why God would only allow those who dont believe in him into heaven is that God allows/gave people free will and the will to make up their minds about anything. Atheists, Buddhists, etc dont believe in an all powerful God since there is close to no evidence implying his existence, whereas all God-Fearing people do believe in God/Gods despite little to no actual evidence for their existence. I argue that God wouldnt give humans the capacity to reason just to only reward those who believe crazy sh*t without evidence and punish those who dont, which implies that God would only allow for Atheists and those who dont believe in God/Gods entry into Heaven
Resolved: It is rational to believe that God only lets Atheists into Heaven

To even begin to debate this topic one would have to make several assumptions. One: An intelligent creator exists Two: A classical, metaphysical form of state exists and can be called a spirit Three: A Christian-judo understanding of metaphysics is correct Four: The current philosophy for these religions is incorrect Five: Creationism/ theism/ metaphysics is rational thought when compared with scientific understanding of physics
Psychology Tries To Prove Everything Explained Forcefully - In Reality It Doesn't !!

Sadly Pro forfeited, so all of my arguments stay unrefuted. Finally, logically there should be no overlap between psychology and natural sciences if the former was just a collection of everything that - using Pro's definition - principally cannot be explained by the latter. Thus the existence of neuropsychology further contradicts Pro's hypothesis, who didn't present any support to his claim.
Psychology Tries To Prove Everything Explained Forcefully - In Reality It Doesn't !!

I disagree. As said - if 'psychology' were an umbrella term to blanket everything spiritual, every such aspect should find some kind of explanation in it, which doesn't happen. Also, since psychology exists, for Pro's claim to be true there must be anything supernatural to begin with, at least to the human mind. Only contrary evidence was found [2]. If scientists denied the spiritual per se, then parapsychology, openly investigating it, shouldn't exist. [2] http://www.humantruth.info...
Psychology Tries To Prove Everything Explained Forcefully - In Reality It Doesn't !!

My point still stands. Anything paranormal, or spiritual, or super-natural, is strongly opposed or totally denied of its existence in Psychology or by psychologists. It seems like anything which is beyond the understanding of human intellect is only addressed using false flag of psychology, just in order to oppose or negate the existence of its spiritual/paranormal/super-natural form. They define everything, and refer every power to brain, while spiritualism claims those powers to Soul.
Psychology Tries To Prove Everything Explained Forcefully - In Reality It Doesn't !!

Firstly, although all early sciences ascribed spiritual elements to everything in nature, most of those (alchemy, astronomy, etc. ) aren't assigned to the beginning of modern psychology. Secondly, psychology is by definition a natural science itself and doesn't cover topics like ghosts or the afterlife [1], which would be central to any science of the spiritual. [1] . http://www.abacon.com...
Psychology Tries To Prove Everything Explained Forcefully - In Reality It Doesn't !!

I believe, Psychology is a kind of science which is specifically created to give names to those super-natural/spiritually existent things which are not actually proven by Science itself, or science is unable to prove them. In order to keep Scientific explanations alive they had no other choice except to create another kind of science which has answer to everything that is not actually understood by sciences. And they named it 'Psychology'.
parents should be responsible for their children's safety

If you say that the parent must be responsible for their child, what you are really endorsing is slavery. You are saying that a parent must be the slave of a child. If you permit this form of slavery, if you force obligations on individuals towards each others, you are really promoting slavery. It is fine to express an opinion that parents SHOULD take care of their kids, that they have a non binding ethical obligation to take care of their kids, but you cannot say that a parent MUST take care of their kids because then you are forcing that person's will to be subservient to your own. Ultimately the only thing we can demand of someone is that they do not hurt others or their property we cannot demand they become subservient to little brats running around crying. Natural selection is for all creatures. If we protect our children then the stupid and lazy will survive. That stupid and lazy child could one day grow to exercise an incredible amount of power, and since they are stupid, they will not be able to exercise that power judiciously. Further, if we as a species deny natural selection, then we risk our species as a whole becoming lazy, stupid and eventually superceded by a race of super intelligent monkeys, a la planet of the apes. Is that really what you want? For the children of your children to be ruled over by chimpanzees?
parents should be responsible for their children's safety

But, it is the parent's responsibility to look out for their children's safety. Furthermore, let me take an example, if my parents didn't take care of me, i wouldn't be sitting here right now. Next, I think natural selection is for animals not for humans because no parents would want to see their child get beaten and hurt and just left them there like corpses to rot their whole life, right? So it is the parents responsibility to ensure that their child is safe and not relying to other factors. Therefore, I strongly believe that parents are responsible for their child's safety.
Should Minors Be Aloud To Drink Alcohol With Their Parents Consent

Alcohol has been a mildly heated topic of discussion throughout modern history. Prior to scientific and psychological revolutions of thinking, people either perceived it as an indication of high status and flavor or as a drink of sin and temptation. But now, there are a lot more new and factual arguments revolving around this kind of beverage. It is because of these new arguments that I will be inclined to be arguing against the legal permission for minors to drink with their parents consent. The first point that I have to make is the fragility of adolescents and their human development. Teenagers, and children for that matter, have not yet reached the peak of physiological and mental development. In fact there are a lot aspects of this young population that are still under the short yet crucial stage of growth. The most renown is morals/ethics. Being in the period transitioning from childhood to adulthood, teenagers have trouble and are training to sort out priorities, improve their character, and ultimately differentiate right from wrong. To ALLOW minors the privilege of drinking with their parents consent would greatly undermine their moral upbringing. By giving them this freedom, you are teaching them that they are as much capable of being a citizen as an adult, thus putting them under the illusion that they are ready for life which they are not. For a society to function properly, you need to draw a line between age groups. When that line begins to blur, or disappears completely, problems will occur in which privileges that are shared by both adults and teenagers are being exercised, but only the parents hold the responsibilities and duties accompanied with that privilege (if that makes sense...) Another moral consequence resulting from minors being allowed to drink is the increased chances of them being exposed to more dangerous substances like drugs. Teenagers who drink alcohol are 50% more likely to try drugs like cocaine than those who never use alcohol. There are other components to the premature development of adolescents, but I'll save it for the next round.
Race is unnecessary in society.

Necessary: “unable to be changed or avoided” “of an inevitable nature” “determined or produced by the previous condition of things” All Definitions from the first link below.(1) As race has been defined by my opponent as “distinct Physical Characteristics” it becomes clear that race is “inevitable nature” and “determined or produced by the previous condition of things." As far as I know, one’s race is “unable to be changed or avoided.” As such, by definition, Race is necessary in society as it meets the definitions given by Merriam-Webster Verbatim. Society is unable to change or avoid race. Race is an inevitable part of the nature of society. The resolution is negated, as race is necessary for society to function. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Race is unnecessary in society.

Argument #1: Race is Inherently Flawed Race is based on physical traits. However, most of these traits are found amongst humanity. Asians have some of the same physical traits as white people, and black people have some of the traits as Hispanic people. For example, there may be an pale-skinned, dark-haired, brown-eyed Asian person residing in your hometown. What makes this person Asian? One cannot judge whether he/she is Asian by his/her hair color, because people of other races can also have black hair. And he/she cannot be judged by his/her skin color or eye color, because the traits of pale skin and brown eyes are shared by some whites. The monolid is a stereotypical "Asian" feature. However, would this make an Asian without a monolid not Asian? Race is a general term that applies to large and varied groups of people. Classifying one by their race is no more useful than classifying one by their income, political views, or area of residence. Due to this, I assert my original claim.
Race is unnecessary in society.

Welcome to this debate. This is my first debate, so excuse me if I do anything incorrectly. This debate will discuss whether race is necessary in society or not. race- each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. Please note that race is different from culture, as culture is a social group, and race is purely a physical classification. The main question here is, "Is race necessary for our society to function? Why or why not?" ROUND 1- Presentation of Rules and Acceptance of Debate ROUND 2- First Claims ROUND 3- Second Claims & Rebuttals ROUND 4- Final Claims & Conclusion Please address all previous claims made when typing a response. If you choose to accept, welcome to the debate. Good luck.
The health care reform currently in congress should be passed

As my opponent has made no move to counter my previous analysis of arguments 1 and 3, I can only assume two things. 1: We need change and 2: we WANT change Additionally, I'd like to point out that my opponent, given the opportunity, did not explain any of his claims of my arguments being "factually incorrect" or "emotional appeals". Anything he says beyond this point should not be considered, either, as I will not have a chance to respond. I will now go on to show you why this specific change is better than our current system 2A: My opponent seems misinformed: if you look to the biggest economic crisis in U.S. history, The Great Depression, you will see that President Roosevelt, through New Deal and WW2 SPENDING got us out. The so-called "crisis to save the banks" is tied to the recession, and so anything we can do to make the recession recede will help. This calls for reform in health care. My opponent argues that we are coming out of the recession, but the facts show that we are in fact only slowing down our decline. Besides, there can never be any harm in improving our economic status. Lastly, my opponent makes the spending on this bill seem like some absured price. But according to The Washington Post article, "Law-makers debate health care spending", July 17, 2009, "Although the House plan to cover the uninsured, for example, would add more than $1 trillion to federal health spending over the next decade, according to the CBO, it would trim about $500 billion from existing programs -- increasing federal health spending overall." Lets do some math. One trillion over the next decade equals about $100 billion per year. But as I stated in my case, the emergency room costs from subpoint B will be saving us JUST THAT MUCH. Additionally, as the article quote states, we will have a nuggest of $500 billion excess to spend on other things... such as the bailouts of companies, as my opponent mentioned. 2B: My opponent's math is flawed: what he does not figure in is that the reason most of these things cost so much is because we lack the preventative care necessary to make them cost less. Indeed, in many other countries such as France, the Health Care Cost Per Person is about $3500. Being as the bill is modeled strongly after France's system, we can assume ours will lower as well, which cuts ALL costs, including current insured coverage, in half. $100 bil a year is pocket change comparatively. All in all, the bill will benefit our economy enormously, and provide coverage for all Americans. As President Obama said, "We pay more than any other country for health insurance, but aren't healthier for it." But with the passing of this new bill, we take the first step toward something Obama campaigned on, and my opponent has admitted we both need and want: Change. Thank you.
The health care reform currently in congress should be passed

Thank you for the answer.Unfortunately, I feel that it is not much more than a repetition of what was already said, and what I therefore already have explained to not be good arguments for the current reform. First you say that you want to stabilize the economy, and you continue your support for state spending that you posted in your subpoint 2A above. Having the state spending yourself out of a crisis is typically not a good idea, and the debt and taxes that results of that actually tends to prolong the crisis. Add to this the fact that the US is already spending a lot as a result of the crisis to save the banks, and spending on health care seems even less attractive. But worse, the US economy is not in a significant downturn any more. The economy has already turned and is already on the way back. Spending in that situation is likely to first cause overheating, and then a second crash, that is made worse by debt and taxes. Secondly, you argue that the reform will actually make the health care cheaper. That means that the reform would in fact not help to spend money even from the state, which makes all of subpoint 2A moot. You implicitly agree with me that 2A is false. I see that I was unclear about subpoint 2B, but the conclusion still stands. The public today pays, according to your quote, a 100 billion dollars for emergency room care for people who have no money for health care. Your argument is that it will be cheaper to pay for their health care. That argument does not become correct because you repeat it. Let's do a small calculation. A 100 billion dollars a year is a little over 2000 dollars a year per uninsured. However, average health care costs per person in the us is around 8000 dollars per year. Giving every uninsured person health care coverage is likely to cost around 300 billion dollars per year. It is not going to be cheaper. All in all, your repetition of the arguments I already countered in the first round did not get us anywhere. I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't come with any new arguments in this round, but that does make my job easier. It's also understandable that you don't come with new arguments. Before I accepted this debate, I did try to figure out exactly what the health care reform currently en Congress entailed, and it is very hard to find any concrete information about it, and it generally seems to make very small changes. I suspect most of the reform is hot air. But your arguments for the reform are both contradictory and wrong.
Black is the opposite of white but white is not the opposite of black. Red or blue is.

My opponent is presenting a false dichotomy. Black is in fact the opposite of white, which would automatically make white the opposite of black. The fact the different colors can be considered the opposite of black if you define black as the absence of color, and the other colors as the presence of color, doesn't mean that whit is not the opposite of black, it merely means multiple things can be the opposite of black. A false dichotomy is where somebody presents two options, without realizing both options or neither option can also be true, in this case both options are true. I can say hate is the opposite of love, while also stating that the opposite of Love is apathy, and have both statements be correct.
Black is the opposite of white but white is not the opposite of black. Red or blue is.

What is the opposite of having something? -Not having it. What is the opposite of not having something? -Having it. What is the opposite of having everything? -Not having anything, having nothing. Black is the absence of color. White is all colors. Red, blue, yellow, etc are one color. The opposite of white (all) is black (nothing). The opposite of red (one) is black (nothing). But the opposite of having nothing is not having everything. It is having one thing. Therefore, the opposite of black is not white. Rather, it is red and blue and all other individual colors.
a simple argument for God's existence

My excuse for insisting you can't talk about thermodynamics is that I'm very, very stubborn. Excuses aside, I stand by my point that thermodynamics and biology are mainly seperate divisions of science, and that theists should only use the thermodynamic argument as a last resort, because all atheists have heard it before."It's amazing because we don't know anything to come from nothing." Well, where did your god come from? Christians can only dream of where their god came from, but with the Hubble telescope, we can look extremely far back into the universe. Because the light farther away from us that is reaching us now is millions of years old, we can see almost billions of years back in the universe the farther we look. Science will have answers in the next two centuries, I guarantee it. "If only con would understand his fallacies there."I am a know-it-all atheist. I have no fallacies.
a simple argument for God's existence

con simply insists that i can't argue about thermodynamics cause i don't know it as extensively as seasoned theoreticists. this ignores that eeryone is ignorant to some degree as argued before, cant they still argue about it even if they are the most versed in it?. and to argue the point better.. have you taken advanced classes in logic? i can provide some complex rules and symbols involved there, and you wouldn't understand it. doest hat mean you can't engage in basic logic skills? no, that it a ridiculous conclusion. most people know the 'disproving a negative' issue in logic, so we should be free to explore it. of course, con misapplied that logic when it wasn't even an issue, but that's beside the point. hopefully it will be considered in the voting etc though. he's ignoring that point now, so i would suppose he concedes he jumped the gun. that, and the bickering about not being able to talk about thermodynaimcs, he's turning this into a side show debate, not quite about semantics, but about issues other than the issues at heart. con admits it seems amazing that we exist. why is it amazing? not just cause we are the few that exist when it's next to infinitely possible that we didn't in terms of probabioity between potential and acutal. it's amazing because we don't know anything to come from nothing. i admit at the quantum level, sometimes that happens, but there was somethingat the quantum level to beging with for us to look at. and even quantum occurrings don't explain how matter in its none quantum formcame into being. you dont have to call it supernatural if you dont like the connotaions to that term. but really, it says it ebst. it defies nature as we know it. you can quibble if it should be considered part of nature, and not supernatural, but i choose to say supernatureal because it could be viewed that way given we dont know the rules that would explain it. it's at least, as of now, 'apparently supernatureal". same thing could be said about thermodynaics, if only con would understand his fallacies there.
a simple argument for God's existence

Well first of all, this is thermodynamics. These are the laws set forward for the from of energy known as heat, this isn't biology. Energy doesn't really cross over into biology. Plus, if you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, then don't talk about them. It's that easy. You can't really point out the holes in the Bible until you read it."the fact that there is something rather than nothing, combined with the issue with thermodynamics, both seem supernatural..."Oh yes, something rather than nothing. Really is gorgeous, isn't it."We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. Certainly these unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, greater scientists than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of those stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here."-Richard Dawkins But there is nothing supernatural about it. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your point, but I do not see anything "supernatural" about the fact that we exist. Amazing yes, supernatural, no.
a simple argument for God's existence

just because i dont understand the extensive mathematical details of thermodynamics by no means i or others are not equipped enough to talk about it. to be sure, there's always someone who understands it more than another. that doesn't mean only the best versed in it is equipped to talk about it. even that one person doesn't understand it all. anyways, this is an extremely weak argument on your part. no one said you had to disprove the existence of God, so we can just move on from that point. what about the essence of my debate, that something from nothing doesn't accord with laws as we understand them? and of course, you need to address the thermodynamics points per 'seeming supernatural'.
a simple argument for God's existence

I accept your challenge. First up, we have thermodynamics. If you cannot read that, then don't talk about thermodynamics.I can't disprove the existence of god, because disproving a negative is impossible. I could tell you there is a twenty foot tall giant sitting right next to you but you couldn't see it, and it only speaks telepathically, and you could not disprove my statement. God is a negative, just like:-Fairies-Leprechauns-Dragons-Griffins-Elves-Cyclopes-PheonixesAll of these things you cannot disprove.I look forward to my opponent's response.