BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This shack would state: God has existence in our reality

I apologize to the readers for the waste of time this debate is turning out to be. Clearly, Pro either has no understanding of how intelligent debate works or no interest in having one. I will assume however that the readers do, and continue anyway.Argument number onePro claims that I misunderstand his argument because I referred to the world. Con should read his own argument. He stated that since the world is imperfect and finite that the cause must be perfect and infinite. I simply repeated exactly what he said. Although I do admit to a typo when I stated that the world was [im]perfect. If Pro bothered to read my response he would have figured that out.Pro also states that greatness is not subjective. Pro should look up the word. He states that a pile of sh*t is not as great as flowers. If the goal is to attract flies for a scientific study then sh*t is far greater then flowers. Pro should explain what he is talking about.Argument one has established nothing.Argument number twoPro actually gives us a definition of positive. Now that we have one we can plug it into his axioms to see of it works:Axiom 5: Necessary existence is [an aesthetic and moral sense] property.Great, so it's beautiful and makes us feel good. That doesn't help us prove God exists.T1. The only objection is that it was not useful, Pro failed to show otherwise.T2. F*cktard is not an argument. Also, Pro took the lords name in vain. He'd better hope the resolution is wrong.T3. Glad we agree that T3 has nothing to do with realityT4. It does not follow because Pro has done nothing to show that it does. "WTF?" doesn't change that.Argument two has established nothing.Argument number threeYes, naturalism is a self-equaling system. That means it is consistent with the first law of logic. The idea that a being must precede our natural system is what the debate is about. I am sorry if Pro doesn't realize that in a debate you have tolay out and defend your argument, not just state it.Pro has yet to establish anything relevant the resolution. Note that my responses are in direct response to his points. If it seems that we have strayed away from the topic it is because we did, and that is because Pro would rather call me a f*cktard then to defend his resolution. The burden is on him, so it's not my problem.
This shack would state: God has existence in our reality

Argument number oneCon misunderstnads this argument. The argument had nothing to do with the world, it doesnt assume the existence of the world. Anyone can see that. this has to do with the idea of god. He also breaks his rule because he masturbates on what it menas to be greater.Greatness cannot be subjective, for example a pile of sh1t clearly isn't as great as a pile of flowers. Flowers have more qualites like god.Argument number twoIt is no more trying to defined god into existence as the definition of a triange tires to define if it exists, it has three sides. He disputes some of the axioms by jerking off to semantics. If you want to all up tight about it godel defined positive properties as "an aesthetic and moral sense, or alternatively as the opposite of privation(the absence of necessary qualities in the universe)."He disputes the theorems by circlejerk neo-atheist hand wavingT1. Nothing useful conveyed here.This is not an objection nor is it any thing but a smug self-richous ejaculateT2. Defines the property of being God-like. Does nothing to establish that this property exists.Not the point you f*cktard. Jesus Skywalker christ. T3. Of course it does, because that is how Pro defined it. Nothing to do with reality.He agreesT4. Does not follow from any of the previous theorems. And again, calling something necessary doesn't make it necessary.Wtf? How does that follow? Are you high? You did nothing to refute any of the theroms. You comment on them and act like youve proven to the universe that god doesnt existArgument number threeThe other guy does jack schtoko to refute this. He say "I dont know". Your ignorance is no exuse. Naturalism contains beings which are contained in themselves, but naturalism is a self equaling system. Meaning being must precede a natural system. That is the argument. If you cant understand it then you shouldn't of accepted.
This shack would state: God has existence in our reality

Yesssss. Ok, yeah erm, right.Argument number oneWe have an idea of god obviously. We must ask what this means. Where did this idea come from? God is the perfect being, the perfect thing, he is the perfect drug. A cause must in some way contain its effect cuz then it wouldnt be able to cause it. This follows it must be greater than its effect, also because of entropy. Things tend to degrade, meaning a cause in the past is greater than its effect. Riiiiiiight so we have the idea of God it cannot have come from our world because its all imperfect and finite. God is perfect and infinite. Our world cannot have caused the idea it must have been caused by something perfect and infinite. God. Yes. BoomArgument number twoThe Mathematician Kurt Godel proved the incompleteness theorem but he also had a nother theorem that the atheists try to surpress. We lay out our axioms. Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property Now we move onto the theorem. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified. Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent. Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. Very Chin rubbery. Argument number three I point out that naturalism is a system. One that exists and is itself (its not not itself). LEts examine the nature of being though1 A being is one that has mental occupancy. This being is one that is contained in itself it is not itself really. A being has no meaning outside of the mental occupants. This means since naturalism cannot be equal to itself but contained in itself but this cannot be since naturalism is itself. Since being isnt. Meaning if there is a natural system then there best be being to precede it. Like in accupunture. There is a tense nerver and it needs to have a needle precede it to release the nerve. There must be being before there is world. QED Go exists.
There Is Substantial Evidence to Prove Jesus Existed

"I generally believe that Jesus may have existed"Jesus, or a messiah-like figure, very well may have existed. However, the evidence just is not there to prove that Jesus, the historical figure, who is referenced so often. I'd like to start by presenting an interesting and compelling statement on the claims of the existence of Jesus, the historical figure:No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. (Jim Walker, "Did a Historical Jesus Exist?")I'd like to argue the legitimacy of the Testimonium Flavianum, the earliest non-Christian writing that referenced Jesus, the historical figure.The first non-Christian sources of the existence of Jesus appear in Testimonium Flavianum, a portion of Flavius Josephus's Antiquities. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that these writings are not entirely factual. Firstly, Josephus was born in 37 CE, which was well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Additionally, Antiquities was not written until 93-94 CE, which means it was written after the first gospels. Furthermore, and perhaps most convincingly, it is more than likely that the text was subject to Christian interpolation and forgery at the hands of Eusebius or others (Kennneth A. Olson, Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (2): 305, 1999).I am excited to learn what my opponent has to offer as substantial evidence to prove the existence of historical Jesus.
There Is Substantial Evidence to Prove Jesus Existed

My position is that there is no substantial evidence to prove that Jesus actually existed.DefinitionsJesus: The central figure of Christianity.Substantial: of ample or considerablea mount, quantity, size, etc.; of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real.(http://dictionary.reference.com...)Any evidence must coincide with the entirety of both definitions. Your evidence must pertain to Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, and must be considerable in amount while being tangible/real.We are not debating whether a messiah-like figure existed, but rather whether or not the existence of Jesus, the historical figure as portrayed in biblical writings, can be proven.Tautology will not be accepted as substantial. "Jesus exists because the Bible says so" will not be accepted as substantial. This argument would also support the existence of Harry Potter, Scylla, the Balrog, etc.Remember, that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.If you have any concerns with the phrasing of the debate, please leave a comment. I do not want to have any confusion once the debate has started.Debate structure:1. Acceptance2. Opening statements/arguments3. Rebuttal to opponent's opening and an elaboration on main arguments4. Rebuttal to opponent's main arguments5. Closing statements/arguments---Any concerns with the debate structure can be expressed in the comments. I am more than willing to restructure the debate if you have any concerns.
The profanity filter is pointless

But this isn't a museum, certainly not a children's museum. This site is not being paraded in front of children's eyes, how many of them do you think honestly Google "Debates". Even so, I'm fairly certain there are no members below the age of 14. All I have to say on that is, unless times have changed since the 4 years I was 14 (or they're sheltered) profanity is already a big thing, and they probably use it to be cool. If they're intelligent enough to debate, they can take a bit of profanity.
The profanity filter is pointless

I'd rather not please you. I'm a guy. I would take an artist's brush away if they were painting nude people and hanging them up in a children's museum. Parents and children would both be offended by it and want it taken down. That is like the profanities on this site. I should probably elaborate more on that, but I only did this debate to get my point proven on this topic. I knew that there was no way I would win if I was PRO, so in a way, I am happy.
The profanity filter is pointless

Why should I bend to societies will? Why must they censor me? I doubt very much there are people on this site that can't stand to see profanity (by all means make me a list :D). The constant Ann Coulter ads that adorn this site are probably more annoying to people. People that swear are artists, you can't just take the brush from an artist and give him a crayon, thats what using "comfortable" words is doing, stunting creativity and freedom. Its impossible to please everyone, so please me. :x
The profanity filter is pointless

There are plenty of people who don't want to see any profanities. Some people get offended by it. This makes a profanity filter necessary. In order to please everybody, it had to be made. If you really want to swear, replace the word with something people are comfortable seeing or hearing. Though the profanity filter works, it misses a few words, or if you add something to a word, it gets by.
The profanity filter is pointless

Hey man, I disagree. What if I want to express myself? I can't paint, I can't do interpretive dance, I can't even snap decent photographs or sing on key. Profanity is the only way I am able to express myself, cmonnnnnn :) cmonnnnnnn :) This isn't a school, this is DDO (Lol Debate Dot Org, I just grasped that.) And hey, if my profanity makes it through all the defenses they already have: 1. Inability to read properly 3. Norton Anti-Virus (Profanity ver. 1.2) 4. Parents 5. Eyelids cmon :)
Life without technology

Sorry for my round forfeit had some family problems As i will continue life without technology would be pretty easy life. Many people did not have many hard ships in there life in the late 1900. People in the late to early 1850 had a very easy life they would eat sleep farm ( if they had one ) As one fact you brought upon was bikes and cars as a fact there ware horse and buggies and bikes back then http://www.machine-history.com... http://www.northwesthistoryexpress.com... This will be my only statement and i would like a rematch later when i don't have family problems
Life without technology

Hello, No I meant modern technologies at all. Because some people think that life without technologies would be easier as it was in previous centuries, but I take another vision on this matter... and I think that most of people will agree with me. Because of technological machines people are getting help in every sector. Cars and bikes are helping people to reach anywhere quickly. Airplane and superfast trains have been reduced distance between cities and countries. Computer and internet are providing information in simplest way also it has changed the way of communication. Now people are doing video conferencing and chatting to communicate with their friends and family used communication technology. I take the view that the main advantage of technology is probably that it gives access to the information quickly and easily...
In Vitro Fertilization

Aside from the ethical issues with IVF, and the whole affair with having multiple birth and problems associated with it, there are legal debates as well. These legal issues stem off of several different questions, but the main argument is over ownership, whose baby is it really? well, according to an article on haveababy.com, it states that "The "Uniform Parentage Act" which has been adopted by most states in the United States declares that the woman who gives birth to the child will be regarded as the rightful mother." So, no matter who the egg or sperm are gotten from, whoever has the baby is declared the 'mother' of that baby, with all the implications that go with that title as well. That's just one side of it, say there's a husband and wife who undergo this procedure, and afterwards get divorced. Whose eggs are they now? This happens often with celebrities, when they break up, the person who makes less money will fight for custody, because then that baby makes them money from the other parent. IVF is just causing issues in that regard. The argument is that, if the man is fighting for it, that embryo has his property in it as well. he gave sperm to fertilize that egg, it is as much his as hers. Well, the woman will argue that he doesn't have to give birth, which is correct, but neither does she. the beauty of IVF is that any woman can technically have that baby, it just has to be inserted in his new wife. Really, there are just too many issues with the IVF procedure. It is not yet accurate enough to be advertised as it is, nor is it near efficient enough to be justified. Once the cost, and the legal issues are considered, one must ask, is it really worth it?
In Vitro Fertilization

As it was stated the reasoning for the increased amount of multiple births regarding IVF is because multiple embryos ( up to 4) are implanted to ensure that the woman becomes pregnant and increase chance that they will give birth. Worldwide IVF is responsible for over 5 million child births with more than half of that number coming from the last 6 years. This statistic shows that IVF has already become slightly more prominent and available to people. The procedures for IVF from information provided by www.shadygrovefertility.com are Step 1: Initial IVF consultation and preparing the ovaries for stimulation. This allows for the doctor's to do a Mock Embryo Transfer to prepare for when the fertilized eggs will be implanted. Many women choose to take birth control pills for a certain number of days which decreases the chance of creating cysts during the cycle. It also synchronizes the egg follicles so that they are all on the same stage and allows for the woman to control the timing of the cycle Step 2: This step includes the ovarian stimulation and monitoring. In this step, FSH and LH hormones are injected for 8 to 14 days to stimulate the ovaries and produce eggs. Also during the stimulation phase, the doctor's often take bloodwork and a transvaginal ultrasound. Step 3: The next step ends the stimulation phase with a trigger shot. This allows for the final maturation of the developing follicles and starts ovulation. Timing is the most important, so factors such as the size of the follicles and the levels of estrogen decide when the woman receives the trigger shot. Approximately 3 days after the trigger shot, the egg retrieval occurs and usually the day of the retrieval the sperm from the partner is collected. There is also the possibility of using a sperm donor if the couple is incapable for whatever reason. Step 4: In this step the egg is fertilized in a petri dish containing the partner's sperm and early embryonic development occurs. The egg can be fertilized two ways. There is the conventional form of fertilization or Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) which is used when the quality/ quantity of sperm is poor. After the eggs are fertilized the embryos begin to develop for the next 5 to 6 days. Microscopic observations are made and any unhealthy embryos are destroyed and used in research. Step 5: This step is the embryo transfer which takes only 5 to 10 minutes. The most common is eSET or elective Single Embryo Transfer. Extra embryos can be frozen and stored for future use, donated to others, or also can be chosen to be donated for research in IVF technology. Since 2 or 3 and even up to 4 embryos may be healthy, the woman can decide if she wants to implant multiple or not. Step 6: In this final step, all that there is left to do is take a pregnancy test. This usually occurs 18 days after the egg retrieval. It is different from a regular pregnancy test; in this test, blood is drawn and the hCG level is measured. Over 100 is considered positive. To be sure this is repeated 2 to 3 times.
In Vitro Fertilization

Okay, so its been said that there are technologies that are supposed to be preventing multiple births, wanted or unwanted in the IVF procedures. In an article on oneatatime.org.uk, it is written that over 20% of all multiple births in the world are from IVF births. "This means that IVF births contribute a disproportionately large number of multiple births to the overall rate." Not very impressive statistics considering the amount of 'technologies' being used to prevent them. it is also written that "At present, about 1 in 4 IVF pregnancies result in multiples: this is around 20 times higher than the rate after natural conception." Evidently the precautions against multiple births from IVF are quite cutting it. The scenario in which an IVF procedure results in multiple births is due to several different factors as a result of the procedures core steps. In the same article, it says that "The chance of a single embryo dividing and resulting in identical twins is also higher after IVF though it is not yet known why this happens. So it is possible to end up with twins from a single transferred embryo, or triplets from 2 embryos." It is clearly stated that they don't know why this phenomenon even happens, so they cannot possibly be prepared for it as they claim they are. No matter what they do, there is going to be a high chance of there being a multiple birth, especially with as many eggs as they put in to ensure a baby. "Data from the UK (2005) shows that almost 46% of babies born as a result of IVF to women under 35 (using fresh eggs) are multiple births." Its just the simple facts, and probably cannot be wholly prevented by our IVF experts any time soon according to the data collected.
In Vitro Fertilization

I suppose that IVF could be seen as "playing God" by extreme religious disciples and puritanical, though for the average American, or any other human for this matter, IVF is viewed as a way to help unfortunate couples who dreamed of having children, but were cursed with the plague of infertility. The so called "greedy scientists" work endlessly towards improving the IVF procedures and advancing the technology making it easier to perform, cost less, and work at a higher percentage of the time. Anyway, the situation regarding multiple birth with IVF is very controversial. Although IVF has been known in the past to increase the chance of multiple birth new techniques, procedures and technologies are being performed that have the potential to reduce the risk of multiple birth. Information from www.resolve.org provides different innovative technologies that are used during IVF. One new technology is the Blastocyst Culture and Transfer in which the clinicians grow the embryos in a nutrient rich environment for 5 days rather than 3 which was done before which allows for the healthiest embryos with the highest chance of success to be picked for implantation. The rest can be frozen or the mother may choose to use more embryos to increase the chance of it working. Since multiple birth is closely associated with birth defects and prematurity, reducing this could be beneficial. Or with new procedures, multiple birth can be accomplished with a significantly lower chance of birth defects and a higher chance of success. Another plus having to do with multiple birth is IVF in animals. Since most animals can give birth to large quantities of offspring, IVF is the perfect choice especially with those animals threatened with endangerment. A large number of zygotes can be made at a relatively low cost which allows for IVF to be used as a way to cultivate food sources and help in poor countries where livestock and other food supplies are limited. Overall, multiple birth can be beneficial and the issues that arise from it can be eliminated or at least reduced with new procedures. If excess embryos are not used, they can be frozen and stored for another time or even donated to another infertile person in need. This also reduces the cost of IVF if it were to be used again.