BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is evidence for God

"Yes, the Abrahamic God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, and if I cannot confirm these things, then I have not demonstrated the Abrahamic deity to exist.But, who says I cannot confirm these things?Evidence is incrimental, WaterTipper. It accumulates, gets stronger and weaker etc. If I were to give evidence of all of God's attributes, I'd be doing much, much more than just indicating that God exists: I'd be proving that God exists. Instead of giving a cumulative case for God's existence in which I argue there's something that is omnipotent andomniscient and morally perfect and...etc., I've chosen to just argue for one of God's attributes: supreme intelligence. This suffices to indicate that God exists. "So... where's that evidence of supreme intelligence, then? :PBecause up until now, you've only alluded to the possibility that that evidence might exist."I haven't assumed that causes are geared towards producing particular effects, I argued that they were. Check out my citation of Thomas Aquinas again wherein he argues that if causes weren't geared toward one effect instead of another, they wouldn't produce any effects at all."Ah, sorry about that. I seem to have misunderstood your words."The sensations, images and ideas that exist in our minds are very much often grounded in mind-independent reality. E.g. The image of a tree in my mind is grounded by the tree I'm looking at, etc. Your suggestion implies radical skepticism of the external world."The sensations, images, and ideas that "exist" in the mind is perceptions encoded and stored using electricity and chemicals.When you think of an image, that image doesn't actually exist as a tree inside your brain or in some "mind world." While the tree itself may exist, your image does not exist in the objective reality.
There is evidence for God

"Let's begin by noting that something may indicate God's existence without entailing God's existence. For example, if I were able to demonstrate that a perfectly good being exists, this fact would indicate that God exists (in so far as he'd be perfectly good), but it wouldn't entail his existence, as it would not have yet been shown that this perfectly good being is omnipotent, omniscient and so forth."Sorry, I'm not following you here.Indicating that God exists does not necessary entail that he exists, because you haven't yet shown that he's omnipotent, omniscient, etc.?Isn't the Abrahamic God supposed to be omnipotent (Revelation 19:6) and omniscient (Hebrews 4:13, Isaiah 46:9-10)?If you cannot confirm these things, how do you know that the deity you have demonstrated to exist is the deity of Abrahamic religions?"But, how can these non-intelligent agents (like atoms, rain drops or solar flares) be directed toward effects that don't yet exist, as when heated water is directed toward boiling before it's boiling?"Water boils when its vapor pressure reaches its surrounding pressure."In my earlier sandwhich example, the uncompleted sandwhich was just an idea, or image in my mind before I worked my magic. But, non-intelligent agents don't have ideas or mental images. So...what exactly are they directed towards? It has to be something, or, they're not in fact disposed toward any effect and we're back in Wonderland. These effects have to be in some sense, even though they're not in reailty yet."Your argument seems to be flawed in that you initially assume all things in the universe have a purpose, or as you've stated it, "gearing towards an effect." To make such a baseless claim and assume it as fact is fallacious. Please provide evidence for so before basing your argument on it.Also, your argument seems to be that parallel to something like investigating "the meaning of life." That is up to an entirely different debate. "The problem is that there are really just two ways for something to exist: either in reality, or in a mind. Since the effects these non-intelligent agents are geared toward producing haven't been produced yet, they cannot exist in reality. That leaves only one option: they exist in someone's mind."Again, you are assuming things again and using it to carry you through arguments. Please provide evidence that objects can only exist in reality or the mind, no more, no less.Your assumption is actually false in that the definition of existence is "the fact or state of living or having objective reality" (Oxford English Dictionary). Since "existing" in the mind is not grounded on objective reality by definition, it's not really existence at all, thus invalidating your entire point.Sources:New International Version. Bible Gateway. Web. 29 March, 2014.Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Web. 29 March 2014.
There is evidence for God

Just curious, since so many people on DDO claim that there is. Anyone can accept (I hope – I'm new to all this stuff o_O). Boring info and clarifications:In this argument, we will use the term "God" as meaning the deity of the Abrahamic religions – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – and all of their recognized branches and denominations. The Oxford English Dictionary defines evidence as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. " Presenting anecdotes or personal stories will not be considered valid evidence, as they are unverifiable, untestable, and lack a meaningfully large sample size to test for consistency. Any scripture cited by itself as direct evidence will not be considered, as this results in the fallacy of circular reasoning (however, scripture used for other purposes, such as in historical context supporting another point, may be accepted). Attempts to disprove scientific theories will not be valid as evidence for the Abrahamic God, as such assertions only disprove that theory and nothing else. This will be more of an informal debate, and will be closer to a deliberation. No rigid structure or sequence of events (contention > cross ex > rebuttal > conclusion, etc. ) will be required. As Pro bears the burden of proof of presenting evidence for God and it is not the duty of Con to disprove God per se, I invite Con to go first.
The Christian god exists and rules over the universe - read rules.

My opponent must be a Christian that believes in every word of the bible. They must construct one strong evidence-based argument that proves the existence of their god. If my opponent or I disagree with one another (which we most likely will) we must post a refute/defence. I will not post any points as to why being an atheist is best as we do not have the burden of proof. If my opponent agrees with me I win, if I agree with them they win, if we disagree the voters are suggested to look for any violations of my rules and/or see if his argument holds up to my refutes. Terms All terms and definitions are influenced by or excerpted from the Oxford Dictionary. Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions 8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 9. The BOP is shared 10. The first round is for acceptance only 11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Structure R1. my rules, your argument R2. my refute, your defence R3. my summary and refute, your summary and defence
The Christian god exists and rules over the universe - read rules.

Con: "It must be accurate." Show us the inaccuracies. * Con: "It must be in the Bible." It is in the Bible. * Con: "It must be unambiguous." It is. Gospel preached throughout the world, great prophet comes and renounces Christ, sets up a graven image that is bowed to, sets up something at the Temple Mount declaring it God, death to those who reject it, it's a group that beheads Christians, Ishmael's seed will not be God's children (Islam's father is Ishmael ), they make up 1/4 of Earth, they are represented by the sword, their belief is hellbent on conquest. * Con: "It must be improbable." That's about as improbable as it gets. * Con: "It must have been unknown." No one could have known Islam would appear around 700 AD fulfilling the book of Revelation in every way imaginable. * Islam 101 The Most Awful Name In Allah"s Sight " Sahih-Al-Bukhari Bk 73; Num 224 Mohammed said, "The most awful name in Allah"s sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the King of kings)." Jesus is referred to as King of Kings in Revelation. https://carlosmdiaz.wordpress.com... "The beast of the Earth" The book of Revelation mentioned the "beast of the Earth" who marks the followers of Antichrist on their forheads. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(Revelation) And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs. "R01;Qur'an, sura 27 (An-Naml), ayat 82 "It will destroy the nose of every unbeliever with the rod, and write the word "Kafir" (unbeliever) on his forehead; it will adorn the face of every believer and write the word "Mu'min" on his forehead, and it will speak to people." www.discoveringislam.org/daabba.htm What is 666?(Short video) http://youtu.be... Mystery Babylon(For those interested) http://youtu.be...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

For future record, acceptance is pretty much just saying: Ok, I accept your challenge without posting an argument. Now, in regards to your argument. 'If everyone was gay, how would the earth's population grow?' That is not what we're debating. We're debating if gay marriage should be legalized, not that everyone should be gay. Thats like me going onto a debate about the death penalty and arguing: if everyone was dead, how would the earth's population grow? It would still grow if the death penalty was legal, regardless of your opinion on the death penalty, because guess what. Not everyone is on death row. ' male cannot have a child with another male, same thing with females' There is something called adoption. Do you really think that the only reason people get married is for babies? There are elderly couples that get married, couples where the woman can't get pregnant or the man can't produce sperm. Should they not get married just because they can't have children? Thats ridiculous. ' Gay marriage is not natural' Another overused, incorrect argument which I hear too often. I like how you use no evidence to back up this claim. You say gay MARRIAGE isn't natural- well, by that logic, marriage itself is not natural, because you don't see marriage in nature. You DO however, see gay and lesbian animals in nature. There are many instances of dogs, cats, rodents, etc being gay, and scientists have found reasons as to how they could have been born gay. I didn't 'choose' to be straight, just as gays and lesbians didn't 'choose' to be their own sexual orientation. Because they were born like that, it obviously is natural, and because it is seen in nature, it MUST be natural. http://en.wikipedia.org... Heres MY evidence for homosexual animals. Look it up yourself. You'll see a bunch more sites to look at if wikipedia is too inaccurate a source for you. ' We were created to populate the earth and to do that we have to be married to another gender.' Again, not all couples that get married can reproduce. And I don't believe in a creator, so I don't consider that part of your argument valid to me personally.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

LOL, I cannot believe how... and excuse my language which I know I will lose points for and probably everything else... stupid and gullible you are. I just want to say that you are disrespecting god and the Bible, which is definitely not good. So in essence, you are saying we don't have freewill. That it was never our choice to be gay or not, and that it is not right to follow laws that we cannot control, so it is okay to be gay, and that gay marriage should be legalized. In essence that is what you are saying. In essence I am saying that we do have freewill. It is a choice to be gay or not, and the the right choice would be to choose to not be gay. So to be gay is not okay, and gay marriage should NOT legalized. In essence that is what I am saying. In the future you will see that I am right. I have decided not to debate any further, if I know that I will not influence anyone thoughts on the matter. I already know for a fact, that all of you, that have been viewing this debate, will most likely vote for Bagelmaster10. In the comments already you are going against me. Which I was prepared to take on. All that I ask, is that you all make it a fair match, and actually look at BOTH of our arguments, and really think about my point of view on this topic and also bagel's point of view on this topic. BagelMaster10, it has been a interesting debating with you, and I think you would do great on a debate team, if you are not already on one. Thank You and Goodbye.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

It is impossible to follow laws that you cannot control. You do NOT choose to be gay, as animals in nature and humans themselves show. Thats like saying: Oh, god created everybody- however, he needs to put some laws in place. In this case, its to not be black. One, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being black. Two, how can that person decide the color of their skin? Should they be punished for something they have no control over? On top of that, the bible also says that men shouldn't shave their beards, so how come nobody makes a fuss over that, but they make a fuss over gay people? The bible says to be loving to everybody, right? So even if you don't accept gays, how does their marriage effect YOU in any way, and how is it loving to deny them freedom? If god does not send you to hell, who does? Don't tell me you 'send yourself' to hell. I can't choose to believe in god or not, thats not how it works. God has a responsibility to prove to me that he exists if he loves me enough to want me to get into heaven, instead of getting people to write it in dodgy books with tonnes of contradictions in them. Maybe, instead, he should appear to each person and give them a distinct message that proves he exists? Don't tell me its a test of faith, because that still doesn't explain who sends you to hell. Gays are humans also, and while some who might disagree with gay marriage may be benefited by your god's laws, how is it fair to gays, or to people like me who support gay marriage? I have female family members who are bi. They've gone out with girls in the past, and they aren't monsters. They're loving, caring people who only want to love who they're attracted to. Why do they deserve to go to hell just for loving who they were born to love? Now, lets assume god isn't real for a moment here. I want you to give me 3 good, NON-RELIGIOUS reasons as to why gays should not get married, and I want them to be original reasons that you haven't stated before. Because if you can't come up with anything then it appears as if your gods only purpose is to oppress and deny others their freedom, which is not an example of a loving god at all.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

Well for starters, God does not send you to Hell. That is cruel and unloving. But that is another debate for another time. And you are right, everyone does have freewill. All the gays and lesbians around the world, does god kill them the instant they kiss the same gender? No. If that were true, SO many people would be dead. So everyone does have freewill. And it is their choice on how to use it. You can follow god's way and marry only of another sex, or you can be gay. But now think about this. If you were god, and you created everything and everybody, and you gave them some laws to follow, (in the case, do not be gay) and many people did not follow them, would you just sit there for an eternity and not do anything? I am know i would not, and I know many other people around the world would not. And the same is with god, he will not allow it. So in due time, just as he did in bible times, gays, along with all of the other sinful people will have to die. But those who did the right things, will live forever. But i am getting a little ahead of myself. But people just think about that logic and how it is not cruel, god is not TAKING our freewill, but he is to some degree restraining it for our benefit.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

I know wikipedia isn't that good. Thats why I implored you to look it up for yourself and see all the other sites. One thing I really do not like is when religious people use the bible as an argument against gays. I do not believe in god myself, so I do not consider the bible a good argument- particularly as the bible is solid evidence. I mean, nobody knows if god is real or not. Then again, others do, so I'll verse you on the assumption that a god does exist if thats what you wish. Now, can I ask you why god hates gays? He created everything, right? According to that logic, he must have created gays- or the genetic coding that controls whether a person is lesbian, bi, straight or gay at the very least. Speaking from experience, I know one lesbian and have two bisexual friends, and I have spoken to gays on the internet. Not one of them has chosen to be gay, bi or lesbian, just as I have not chosen to be straight. On top of that, god (assuming he exists) gave man freewill for a reason, right? What is the point of him giving us freewill if we cannot exercise that freewill? If we lie with another person of the same sex, he'll send us to hell? If we don't believe in him, he'll send us to hell? That is NOT freewill, that is a threat. That is like if I robbed somebody, pointing a gun at them and said: Give me your money or I'll shoot you in the face. One could say that the person I'm robbing has freewill- they can either give me their money, or die- they have a choice, right? NO, because that isn't how it works. If lying with another person of the same sex will label me a sinner or send me to hell for exercising my own freewill that god gave me, then its NOT freewill. Its threatening someone and scaring them into doing something that they do not want to do.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

I like how you used references. But next time why don't you get some better ones. Wikipedia? Really? Everyone knows Wikipedia cannot be trusted. Anyways... lets take this debate to higher levels. The Bible says god created... wait for it... Male and Female.* Not female and female, not male and male. God created adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The Bible even says, "You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act." ** Those words are coming from god, if they legalize gay marriage and they can take that up with god. So according to these reliable sources gay marriage is not natural and should not be legalized. * Genesis 1:27, 28 ** Leviticus 18:22
protest

Con has done nothing to negate the resolution, and has provided no challenges for me to overcome.I will now present a few arguments with the aim of affirming the resolution as well as rebut the only claim Con presents. Arguments & RebuttalsI. Governments are not inefficient. The only argument Con makes is that governments are inefficient. Unfortunately, Con provides absolutely no proof whatsoever to validate this claim. As it stands, it is nothing more than an unproven opinion, thus it gives no grounds to be accepted as a fact or valid argument. II. Protesting raises awareness. Many people argue that movements like the "Occupy Movement" was useless and never achieved the success they desired. [1] Some would say it was due to lack of proper leadership, lack of motivation, lack of educated supporters willing to act. Whatever the reason may be, one thing is clear, that movement raised the awareness of the class separation here in America and around the world. Was it common knowledge that the leading 1% had more wealth than the remaining 99%? I would have never known that if it wasn't for this movement. What it accomplished was exactly that, it raised the levels of awareness which might not have ever been made known otherwise. III. Allows for social progressAnother important benefit to protesting would be that it allows for social progress to come from the people, not just the government or governing leaders. If there is a pressing issue, such as a chemical spill-over of local manufacturing plants into surrounding neighborhoods, it's up to the people to make the change they want. Without protesting to their local government regarding the manufacturing plant waste there might never be any notion or incentive to change their dumping practice. By Protesting, we are making it possible for the common man to be heard, and in essence, fight for a better quality of life. Without such protests, many changes for the better that have happened in our society might have never been. What we can see is clear, protesting allows for social progress to be had, whereas without protesting such changes might have never occurred. In closing, I've given two arguments as to why Protesting is good for society. My opponent has given no arguments for their side. The one claim my opponent did make, I've now rebutted - by showing that it lacks all forms of validation. Thank you. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
protest

I accept the debate, and believe that protesting is good for society as a whole. ClarificationsProtest is defined as: A statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.As Pro, I must show that Protests are good for society as a whole.My opponent, Con, must show that it is never good to protest. The BOP is clearly split. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------With clarifications now done, I'll return the floor to Con to start with arguments since they were instigator. Thank you and good luck Con!
Any topic

Lord of the Flies is a GREAT book Obama was a bad president The EU is bad Globalism is bad Free Trade is bad "Russiagate" is sensationalist propaganda Same sex schools are bad for all concerned (I could actually debate this) Donald Trump sucks as a President (I could actually debate this) Should students be paid for having good grades? (I could actually debate this) Extras: TPPDJT has the greatest profile picture of all time. TPPDJT is the greatest username of all time. TPPDJT is part of the Illuminati Being serious, if none of these are your cup of tea I'd be willing to reverse roles in this. Thanks again!