BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Exists

Here are two arguments that does favor a God, the first argument is an argument essentially from contingency (from which I heard from apologist William Lane Craig), the other one is an age old one from the appearance of design, it has many variations. I’m not sure if I’ll bring up more or not next round, this debate is a 24 hour round debate, so I don’t want to bring up too many that I can’t defend, I just want to see how it plays out. But anyway, thanks for starting this debate. 1. Argument for a personal cause. P1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.P2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.P3. The universe exists.C1. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (as see in P1 and P3).C2. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from P2, C1). Explanation of P1 — to understand the first premise, one needs to know what I mean by necessity and external cause. Things like the abstracts like numbers are believed (by a lot of mathematicians) to exist out of necessity, as in numbers aren’t really caused by anything. Alternatively there is another kind of explanation which is an external cause… To explain it, let’s say that while walking around you find a teapot in the middle of the road, do you think that it simply spontaneously popped into existence there? No, you think that three has got to be an explanation as it why it’s there. This would be true with just about any object, flower, ball, computer, etc. This is the other category of explanations outside of necessity. Explanation of P2 — I find this reasonable, why? Well when you think about it the universe is composed of all space, time, and matter… so wouldn’t the explanation be immaterial to be the explanation of matter? Wouldn’t the explanation need to be beyond space and time to be it’s explanation? There are the abstracts that are like this, but the problem with saying that abstracts like numbers are the explanations is that they can’t cause anything. However there is a view on God that God is an unembodied mind held by many theists of the Christian branch, an unembodied mind would work as a cause. 2. Argument for a designer As Paul wrote in Romans 1:20 (ESV) “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Just about everyone knows the immense complexity of the human body, it looks very much like it was made. Even the remarkable fine tuning of the universe for life shows that it’s not exclusively to the human body. Tell me does Con disagree that the universe is finely-tuned? Do you deny that anything has appearence of design?
God Exists

This debate is open to members of any age with at least 8 completed debates, and an Elo rating of 2,235 points or more. There are some strict rules that apply. Judges must penalize any trespassing of the rules.1. (a) Forfeiture is an IMMEDIATE loss, granting me an immediate 7-point victory. Therefore, the opponent MUST NOT forfeit ANY ROUND of the debate EXCEPT in Round 5 (see Rule 4). 1. (b) My forfeiture will result in my opponent gaining an immediate 7-point victory.2. The Burden of Proof (BoP) initially lies with Pro, to prove the existence of God; following his first argument (see Rule 4), BoP is extended to both sides equally. Verifiable sources can be provided to strengthen the proof, but proof is necessary for all arguments.3. All arguments must pertain to the definitions given below. 4. PRO must begin the argument in Round 1 and, therefore, MUST forfeit Round 5. 5. Appropriate conduct must be maintained: No inappropriate, profane, and/or vulgar language No swearing/cursing No insulting of other members of DDO NO TROLLING IF appropriate conduct is not maintained, then my IMMEDIATE 7-point victory is guaranteed, and the argument WILL BE REPORTED to DDO authorities. If I do not maintain appropriate conduct, then Pro reserves an immediate 7-point victory and the right to report the same to DDO authorities.6. LOGIC must be accepted or rebutted; not refuted by claiming, for example, that God is beyond logic.7. Failing to follow the rules will guarantee an immediate 7-point loss to the rule-breaker.Definitions:1. "God" - A sentient, intelligent being that acts as the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being; the properties of GOD in this debate are: OMNISCIENCE, OMNIPOTENCE, and TRANSCENDENCE2. "Exists" - THIRD PERSON PRESENT FORM of "Exist": having objective reality or being 3. "Omniscience" - the knowledge of everything4. "Omnipotence" - the ability to perform any action both objectively and subjectively
God Exists

1. Argument for a personal causePrior to the Big Bang's recombination that created the universe as it is today, the "universe" was a hot, dense baryon plasma sea where photons were quickly scattered from free charged particles [1]. The CMBs showed hints of unstable neutral hydrogen contact, but neutral hydrogen primarily became stable during the process of post-Big Bang recombination. Thus, the CMBs were pre-recombination or during recombination and thus are from the Big Bang. [2]2. The Omnipotence ParadoxYou are still illogically arguing against paradox. I am not stating whatever is impossible, I am stating that if God can make something that he can't do, he isn't omnipotent; if he CAN'T, he isn't omnipotent. Instead of responding to this paradox, you are arguing illogically against paradoxes. Here, you disobey Rule 6: you CANNOT claim God is beyond logic. 3. Omniscience ParadoxFor God to predict something DEFINITIVELY is impossible. Even your drinking water (before you drank it) had at least a 0.01% chance of not happening. But DEFINITIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE of EVERYTHING completely violates contingency. 4. Grand Design QuestionThen why can't energy exist as an abstract force out of necessity?PRO cannot post an argument in Round 5 (Rule 4). Reasons for Victory:PRO's only definitive argument is the argument for a designer and even that is based on instinctive consideration. There is no verifiable PROOF provided for the existence of God. In the last round, Pro disobeyed Rule 6 and Pro has NOT fulfilled complete BoP, instead making conclusions without VERIFIABLE PROOF. While PRO's arguments were excellent, they did not have proof and were based on only logical drawing of conclusions that were all rebutted by me. By Rule 7, disobeying the rules (here rule 6) results in my immediate 7-point victory and I request the judges to take that into consideration. PROPER reasons for votes must be provided by the judges. Thanks a lot to PRO for accepting this debate and for providing such amazing arguments. I take my hat off to you. Sources:[1] Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965). "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s". Astrophysical Journal 142: 419. [2] Spergel, D. N.; et al. (2003). "First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: determination of cosmological parameters".Astrophysical Journal Supplement 148 (1): 175. Response to Notes:I did not create my definition of God; ALL my descriptions were based on descriptions I found in many strictly monotheistic/henotheistic religions. But yes, "The Monotheistic God Exists" might have been a better title. I sincerely apologize for any offense.
i think, therefore, i am

the video took the argument in the wrong direction. it concluded "there are thoughts" is all a person can conclude. but, if there are thoughts, it means 'you' are having them. you could be a demon's play toy, your brain could be in a jar..... you could be a figment of someone's imagination,,,, but you are still you. as i said in my initla post, my ideas are self referential, and that is how i prove my existence to myself, not someone else. con should have given the arguments in the video himself, and just cited the video. it shows a weakness that he couldn't, or at least didn't.
i think, therefore, i am

If your brain saying "I think, therefore, I am" is your only proof for your very existence, your idea that you "really ARE" is unstable as you do not have a witness. You cannot be the only one to prove that you are real. For all anybody knows, your life and everything in it could be a hallucination! Watch the video for three good reasons it is a faulty basis. http://www.youtube.com...
i think, therefore, i am

i think, therefore, i am that is how i prove my existence to myself. how is it a faulty basis? my thoughts are self referential. if i have a thought, it means somewhere somehow i must be thinking it. it might be a dream or somewhat illusory, but it is still a thought that is occurring. it might be an illusion flat out, but it's still an illusion meaning there is something there to delude.
i think, therefore, i am

Though my opponent has forfeited I won't cease to prove my point--especially because my last round put a bad light on my position. My last sentence written in Round 2 is faulty and I would like to correct this. In doing so I will prove how the statement we are debating is faulty more-so. If the machine that is built to say "I think therefore I am," in order for the machine to say it must exist, doesn't correlate with the actual saying. If it was programmed to say I It is not thinking, only obeying the programmer. Same thing could be happening with us right now: we could be figments of a Higher Deity's thoughts, no more no less. We need to define what "exist" and "am" means. If it means thoughts of someone else, this would all be different. But it doesn't that the figment is thinking, only obeying what the programmer was thinking. am = 1st person singular present, indicative of 'be. ' exist = have objective reality or being. For example, if someone was dreaming at night, and he was dreaming about himself, telling that guy in the dream (himself) to go on this website and debate this exact "I think therefore I am" concept, the guy in the dream would obey the real dreamer but would not be thinking. If you were only the guy inside somebody else's dream, and that person was controlling everything you do, if you said 'I exist because I think," it would be like saying 'I exist because I'm saying this. " But when the person dreaming wakes up your "existence" would be destroyed.
i think, therefore, i am

We all know that if a person (you) are having 'thoughts,' 'you' are the only one to think that exact thing at that exact time. So that's out of the way. But the phrase 'I think, therefore, I am' cannot, does not, apply to a figment of someone else's imagination, yet you suggested otherwise. If we allow that all of our thoughts are generated by The Brain, & sometime thereafter, Some Internal Sense becomes "Aware" of These Thoughts, This Second process or "Artifact" occurs after The Creation of The Thought. One may argue that The Awareness of The Thought occurs simultaneously with The Creation of The Thought, But in Either Case; The Brain is Constructing The Thought, & The Mind Becomes Aware of it. If one were to argue that Any Given Thought is "Considered" & then "Debated" in The Mind, These are all Processes of The Brain, Which The Mind is Then Later "Aware" of, But The Awareness itself has no mechanism of telling The Brain that it is experiencing these Thoughts. This is "Epiphenomenalism"; It asks; Does The Mind ( Awareness ) do anything? According to this line of reasoning; No, It doesn"t. A Device The Says: "I Think, Therefore; I am." Obviously; A Machine that is built to Say "I Think, Therefore, I am." is not Experiencing any sense of What The Sentence "Means", But nevertheless, In order for The Machine to Say this; It must Exist. http://transamoebae.blogspot.com... http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com...
Coveny Is A A$s Hole

Definitions: Coveny- A user on Debate.Org who goes by the username "Coveny". A$$Hole- Someone being arrogant, rude, obnoxious, or just a total d!ck head. [1] Rules: 1. Not accepting the debate round is concession. 2. No Kritiks/Semantics 3. No Trolling 4. No proper debate etiquette required. Round 1- Acceptance Round 2- Arguments Round 3- Counters Round 4- Closing Remarks All definitions come from my creativity and DDO or the Urban Dictionary for [1]https://www.urbandictionary.com...
Masturbation, when single, in moderation, is immoral [Whether or not there is a god]

Bonjour, jemappele freind watashi wa grenouille. I assume this is first round acceptance, and I, uh,... accept? Your definititions seem legitimate and I am ready to go! I actually masturbate several times a day and keep my semen in the fridge to sell online. It is good money! You begin good sir. Note:Your definition of single - no marriage has any sexual kind of relationship.
Masturbation, when single, in moderation, is immoral [Whether or not there is a god]

I shall give definitions. first round is not acceptance, it is proposing the pro's case.Masturbation[1]: the stimulation or manipulation of one's own genitals,especially to orgasm; sexual self-gratification.Single: NOT JUST UNMARRIED BUT SIMPLY NOT IN A RELATIONSHIP OF THE SEXUAL KIND. In Moderation[2]: without excess.Immoral[3]: conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles.The theory that God made sperm to only be used for reproduction is not valid since we don't know 100% that God exists.Also, to embark on this debate the following must be fully accepted as truth:1) Masturbation harms no one, when done in moderation and when the person is single.2) You will not 'run out' of sperm to reproduce sexually if you leave masturbation for a day after your last. So masturbaitng doesn't 'waste sperm for reproduction'3) Killing a sperm cell (or billions of them) is not immoral jsut because killing a human is.Sources:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The US Government should fund the development implementation and of Alternative energy tech

My opponent says that programs such as welfare and medicare/aid are programs that we can just throw out the door, but he forgets, the constitution of the United states requires the government to ensure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare. And by getting rid of those things, we are doing neither, this the government cannot do. People need help sometimes, and maybe I would debate this at a later time, but back to the debate at hand. My opponent continues to neglect the fact that even when we stop acquiring more debt(ten trillion dollars(http://www.brillig.com...)), that debt does not go away, and many of our available resources will go into that debt. Resources such as research. The government cannot afford this when they are still paying off the debt of the last eight years. China will demand we pay faster, thus making us pool every resource we have including, unfortunately, social programs. If we are to better this country we cannot sacrifice social programs for research, This is discrimination, and it goes against our ideals, and our constitution. My opponent also brings up an idea, that in theory would work. But how can we trust the people that if they sponsored this technology, that would go out of business. This goes against all bounds of logic. We cannot trust this to happen. It is an unfortunate truth of the greed of the human mind. I would like to thank my opponent, He is extremely talented at debate, and has provided an incredibly challenging and intellectually stimulating debate. Thank you for voting, no matter who you decide.
The US Government should fund the development implementation and of Alternative energy tech

Bats do play a very important part of the ecosystem worldwide. Would another species be able to fill in the gap? It's possible. Back to the debate at hand though, the US government has the funds (after some fiscally conservative changes to the current budget) (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) to "dangle the carrot" to manufacturers, inventors, and even the common man who likes to tinker to find alternative energy production. Now, if the government decides to continue spending money on: fruitless wars on things; not reform social security, Medicare, or Medicaid; continue taking care of people who should go out and get jobs; etc, then it would be harder to find the funds. Long term planning and saving however would make it easy. Even a $1,000,000 in a conventional six month CD at 3.92% (. http://www.bankrate.com...) would increase to 1,039,200 in six months. I'm not going to insult people's intelligence and continue doing math, but you can see how easy it would grow. Not only that, but often times, companies like GE and Exxon-Mobile will co-sponsor these dangling carrots with the government. Let's face it, if anyone has the money to spend on this right now, it's Exxon-Mobile! So, again, the government not only should, but must fund the development and implementation of Alternative Energy Technologies, so the America can become less dependent on foreign energy supplies.
The US Government should fund the development implementation and of Alternative energy tech

My opponent brings up a good point, my information was wrong. Unfortunatly I read my source wrong and the source comes from a 1998 Danish wind farms average. Since technology in the last decade has become much more advanced, this number is wrong, and I would like to apologize to my opponent for this misinformation. BUT while the cost of wind may not be an issue, The size, danger, and reliability of these turbines certainly are. We've all seen how amazingly large wind farms are, we can see them from many miles away. And in a world where the population is increasing 383.047 million every five years(http://en.wikipedia.org...) and this rate is increasing every day, soon overpopulation is bound to happen and because of the shear size of these turbines, we will run into a problem where we have to find a new energy source because we need the space that the wind turbines are occupying. Wind turbines may go hundreds of feet into the air, and many animals need that space for flying, such as bats. In many North American Wind farms Thousands of bats are found dead underneath the turbines per year, since Bats are so essential to the ecosystem, we cannot let this happen if we wish to survive. Bats consume many dangerous insects that may carry fatal diseases. Also they control over population. In addition the bats eat bugs that would consume much of the food that is located on many farms around the world. With this food gone, there will be a food shortage, followed by resource/food wars, which eventually will lead to nuclear war, and finally, to extinction. All of this, because wind turbines. (http://www.fort.usgs.gov...) Wind turbines are known to be extremely unrealiable, and in a world where power needs to be readily abailable to all citizens at all times of the day, this cannot work. We need a power source that is reliable. Such as nuclear energy. My opponent refers to nuclear energy as an alternative energy, but we define alternative energy as energy that is not popularly used and is usually environmentally sound, such as solar or wind energy (as opposed to fossil fuels). (www.nrdc.org/reference/glossary/a.asp) because nuclear power produces more then 15% of the world's power, how can this fit the definition of alternative energy. The disadvantages of wind are far too great to consider if we wish to continue living peacefully, or even, living at all.
The US Government should fund the development implementation and of Alternative energy tech

I'd Like to thank my opponent beforehand for accepting this debate The Government should not Support the development of alternative energy technologies because at a time of extreme economic crisis, the goverment cannot afford to fund these, and instead should fund improving our already existing energy technology. Additionally the environment cannot handle all of the dangerous bi-products that these energies leave in their path, such as arsenic in Geothermal energies case. http://books.google.com... Finally, even if the government manages to find the capital to research the tecnology, it is not possible for them to fund the implementation. for example, the average windfarm costs roughly 1000$/KW. This is just something the government cannot afford.
The US Government should fund the development implementation and of Alternative energy tech

My opponent is truly the ninja his avatar makes him out to be! Skillful, swift, and a master at his technique. That technique, dear readers, is hyperbole. I never said to sacrifice social programs, far from it! Many of these social programs will commit suicide within 50 years (http://www.whitehouse.gov...) (http://www.karlloren.com...). My opponent seems to believe that these programs must continue on their merry way, digging a hole literally to China. These programs need to be clipped, the same as a tree, that way they can grow better. Again, off topic completely as to whether the American Government can afford to fund research. We would not give money to everyone who claimed to be working on these alternative technologies, but use a dangling carrot; where only the person, persons, or corporate entity that brings a viable working model to the table gets the money. My opponent tries to bring fear of companies going insolvent, yet Exxon-Mobile (to use the company I've used before) has posted record earnings every year since 2005. They have entire teams of R&D that are working on this problem right now. Do you not think that Exxon would be willing to give $500,000 to go half with the government on the same project and save themselves money as well? My opponent also points out that Exxon-Mobile would never give this money, as it would put them out of business. However, a smart business would put in a small stipulation that they would be the first to get to experiment with the technology. Giving Exxon-Mobile a good amount of time before any other company to figure out how to squeeze every dime out of the technology. My opponent has done a lot of research against wind power, that I was able to poke quite a few holes into. The rebuttal being that bats could be harmed and eventual habitation would require the land that wind farms are on, forgetting about the vast ocean that we could also use. What of solar power, wave turbines, even trash (http://cleantechnica.com...) is a good alternative source we already have. What other treasures can we find from our trash? My opponent believes strongly that human life is precious, I could not agree more! That's why we need to get people out of harms way on oil rigs, in coal mines, by natural gas lines, working with toxic waste and get them working with safe, alternative energy technology. Will it be difficult in the short run? Yes! Will we complain every step of the way? Probably! Will we thank those who we trust with civil power after we have cleaned up the Earth? I promise. My opponent has made this a fun and interesting debate and I thank you for it. This is much better than arguing gay marriage debates! You have made my last 36 hours much more enjoyable in my sickly state. To our readers, there is no right or wrong answer, simply a good answer and a better answer. I hope that your heart and mind guides you on which is which. Read carefully and consider topics fully. Happy voting!