BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Evidence Points to Atheism

I would appreciate it if all conduct points would go to Pro for his excellent show of courtesy and understanding. Back to the Non-Cognitivism argument. 1. It occurred to me while I was in bad last night that even if the non-cognitivism argument was valid, it would not invalidate or disprove the existence of a omnipotent, omnipresent being. Instead, it would only demonstrate the finiteness of our minds. 2. This debate is actually about the evidence pointing to Atheism. The Non-cognitivism argument is an attempt to disprove the existence of God rather than proving Atheism. If my opponent could show me reasons why Atheism is true, rather than why God is false, it would be evidence for Atheism as opposed to evidence against God. Back to my contentions: "If every reaction must have an equal action that caused it, then God would have to be caused. "God is outside of time and space. If He was not, He would not be omnipotent, therefore not actually being God. If God is outside of time, then there is no such thing as a beginning or an ending. God sees everything totally different then us. Also, "every reaction has an cause" is an interpretation of Newton's Third law, which is part of physics. "Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations"OK, I have done a little reading on this nook on the bookshelf of physics, but not much. I can only offer a few questions in response to my opponent's brilliant argument.1. "Tryon's model is falsified, but he set the stage. There's newer updated models that use the same foundations as Tryon. Like Alexander Vilenkin's quantum tunneling model. His model states the universe came from an uncaused quantum tunneling event. " While science changes, God does not. Think about some of the things that have been disproved in science in the last 100 years: Einstein's static universe, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel Embryos, and others. Science changes. All of those things I just mentioned used to be used to argue against God. Now, there are not (unless you are a public school teacher, then they are still in the text books. "2. "Sources:Logic. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...http://www.toptenz.net...http://www.wnd.com...http://www.talkorigins.org...
The Evidence Points to Atheism

Non-Cognitivism Con then gives response with the same misunderstanding as his first argument. The moon is within what we experience. As I said before “The premise is “We give meaning to words by our understanding and experience” This doesn't mean we need to comprehensively understand or directly experience everything. It just means a word must refer to something that we already understand or experienced. For example, if I say there's a tree the size of a molecule in my back yard, we have no experience or understanding of this tree or trees of this size. However the statement isn't meaningless, because it refers to things that we do have understanding and experience of.” The moon is different from God. The moon is something that we can refer to, since it's within our experience. Appealing to past historical ignorance doesn't work either, since God isn't suppose to be a mere historical event. Con says he believes in God, but doesn't understand it. He's missing the entire point. God isn't just something that we don't understand -like quantum mechanics- God is meaningless -like a zsgarbub-. God doesn't refer to anything that exists, meaning we have no knowledge of this God. The second God refers to something that does, it would become meaningful. The argument isn't we don't understand God comprehensively, it's we don't understand or experience this thing called God at all. If we can't even know about God at all then God would mean nothing. It seems Con is assuming God is meaningful, but is just not understandable. He's attacking the concept of being fully understood instead of my argument which says he's meaningless because it doesn't refer to anything that is understood. No one understands or knows what a "zsgarbub" is, but I believe it. Since a “zsgarbub” doesn't refer to anything that exists it is meaningless and doesn't exist. When it finally means something, then we can put it in the category of a possible existent. I must ask Con, is a belief in a “zsgarbub” rational? Because it's the exact same category as “God”. I find my argument unrefuted. His main objection is based on a misunderstanding of P2.
The Evidence Points to Atheism

“Just because we do not have understanding or meaning of an object or concept does not mean that the do not exist."First, tell me what "zsgarbub" means and then we can debate to whether it exists. We can give meaning and concept to words even if we do not completely understand it. The moon for millenia was nothing but a white ball in the sky for mankind, but now we know a lot more about it. Just because you don't completely understand something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but simply that our puny minds cannot comprehend it. As for the quote... I believe in a concept of God, even if I do not understand it. Meaning that I believe in something that I do not understand, not that I believe nothing. Huge difference.Do to time restraints, I apologize, I cannot finish this round of this debate. My apologies. I will pick up in the next round.
The Evidence Points to Atheism

Resolution: The Evidence Points to Atheism BOP is shared Rules: No Forfeits No Fallacies No Insults 72 Hours to Post 8000 Characters Max 1 Week Voting Period Acceptance in R1 Follow the debate structure Structure: Round 1: Pre-debate info and Acceptance Round 2: My argument + Con's arguments and rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals from both parties Round 4: Rebuttals from both parties Round 5: Conclusion, no new arguments or rebuttals. Keep under 1000 characters.
The Two-Party System In Our Government Is Outdated And Unhelpful

Pro’s account is no longer active—that explains the forfeiture. No matter, I will address the arguments brought up by Spedmen in Round 1. Although my opponent said the party system in the US is limited to two-parties, while technically true is not necessary the only reading of election politics. Currently there are two independents in the Senate, albeit they caucus with the democrats. Moreover, it is unclear how to accomplish this goal since it would require a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court willing to overturn recent precedent.[1] Although my opponent notes the current political dysfunction in Congress, it is unlike how abolishing the system would do anything other than add to our existing problems. Usually, when you want to get rid of a bad system, it is worth asking and answer the most obvious question: what do you put in its place? While I am sympathetic to make of the ideas entertained by my opponent, I have very little confidence that a wholesale end to the current party organization would provide or help guarantee civil liberties and other rights, and even less confidence it would mitigate the gridlock that defines the current relationship in both houses of congress. Even if you abolished the two party system something very similar to it inevitably would emerge because groups would reorganize based on stated goals and vision, and since the US states uses a single-choice voting system, meaning the candidate with the most votes wins. For the sake of argument, imagine the United States has three parties. This almost happened with the rise of the Tea Party. What happened here and what would happen with the abolition of the current system? Well based on the way, we elect members of congress, one party dominates and unless the two minority parties combined their platforms, they stay in their position as minority parties. I hope that voters will read the rebuttals and vote for Con. Given that BOP was Pro’s, Con believes Con had the upper hand. In addition, voters should take into consideration the forfeiture in round three. [1] U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
The Two-Party System In Our Government Is Outdated And Unhelpful

I know I promised this debate to another and I apologize for that, but I thought you were going to accept it hours ago and someone beat you to the punch. Once again I am sorry to that individual. Now for my first major argument I would like to point out another famous civilization that was once on the path we were, the Romans. In the final days of the Roman Republic the Senate was becoming more and more corrupt. The Major Houses ruled it with an iron fist, and almost every Senator was affiliated with one of these houses. These houses constantly schemed against one another hoping to find damaging information to the other in order to strengthen their house. It wasn't before long someone's greed and lust for power drove him to take control of the fragile system, Julius Caesar. He made himself life-long dictator threatening to destroy the power of the people until a few brave Senators took things into their own hands and murdered him. After these Senators were hunted down and killed civil war followed between Octavian and Marc Antony. Octavian was victorious and the Roman Empire was born with the Senate for the most part being irrelevant. Now what is the point of all this? The Democrats and Republicans are the Major Houses constantly scheming to find damaging evidence against the other in order to strengthen their party. They do this with our tax dollars and continue to do this despite the sufferings of many Americans. They are becoming more corrupt and greedy using whatever they can to destroy their opposition. When does it all end? The one thing the founding fathers failed to realize is that the two-party system can only work for so long. It eventually comes to the point where these politicians focus too much on their agendas and positions. We will eventually be at the point where one greedy individual will take power for himself in the midst of the political chaos. We will live in a dictatorship where our rights are at the mercy of a tyrant. All because of the corrupt and greedy politicians were so caught up in their petty debates and agendas they failed to see how fragile the government had become. I am tired of seeing people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Christie, and John Boehner look on as America slowly destroys itself. These parties can no longer be trusted to represent us and work for us. It is time to install a Congress without parties to sway each Senator and Congressman into their way of thinking. It is time to start electing people we know will represent us the way they should and try and make this country a better place while keeping the institutions that made this country great.
The Two-Party System In Our Government Is Outdated And Unhelpful

I accept. Based on your profile, it looks like we have a lot in common. I actually agree with your position personally, but I want to do a devil’s advocate debate just for the fun of it. I am already bored of taking position I support, thought the Con position on this one would be both fun and challenging. Good luck to my opponent I wish him the best. He has an endless arsenal of sources, evidence, and straightforward logic to draw from. Anyway, again good luck.
The Two-Party System In Our Government Is Outdated And Unhelpful

Whether or not you are a Republican or a Democrat you must realize that both parties are extremely caught up in their own agenda and do not care for the rights of the people anymore. Neither party can agree to anything, and each childishly blames the other for this problem. They spend too much time trying to convince the American people what is and what isn't right, but do nothing to actually help us. The two-party system was originally created to offer different opinions with how the government is run, and for a time it worked. However, the current Democratic and Republican parties are equally unhelpful with their agendas and leaders preventing them from working with political opponents. Today, the American people would be better off abolishing the two-party system and elect people based on their ideas and values rather than their political affiliations. We live in a new age and while I am right-leaning I truly believe the world we live in needs to be changed for the greater good. New types of governments need to be drawn up in order to protect people's civil liberties and prevent destruction due to political incompetence. We need to limit the terms of every politician in order to bring forward new ideas and prevent political domination. America would be so much better off without parties who let their agendas get in the way of representing the American people.
Low Mental Health Is One Of The Main Reason For Shootings, Not Any Media

since my adversary FFed this will be an easy choice. He established an entire case around mental health being a main reason for shootings. What he fails to establish in order to help him win is that there can only be one primary cause. The way the resolution is phrase leaves room to argue that there is more than one primary cause. We he states "one of the main" reasons, automatically entailing there can be other primary causes for shootings as well. I've made a case for two things 1) that media can act as a catalyst for some mental issues and trigger shootings. My studies show this by correlating it to suicide rates 2) That media is a main factor and primary cause in most shootings because it triggers that breaking point My adversary failed to contest this, and FFed last round and was not able to provide a proper response vote me sorry for the confusion about what the debate was about, it was worded poorly
Low Mental Health Is One Of The Main Reason For Shootings, Not Any Media

Structure - (1) Acceptance (2) Beginning arguments + definitions + links for evidence on arguments points posted on this debate (optional) (3) Main arguments + definitions (optional) + links for evidence on arguments points posted on this debate (optional) (4) Ending arguments (important! No new definitions and new argument points are to be made in the last round, say something in a previous round or remain silent) Reasoning for debate: I am tired of hearing people claiming that media, or some other element, is why kids are shooting up schools, and people attacking malls or other public areas. (This does not include terrorists, because their main purpose is to instill fear in order to gain control) People rarely ever look to the mental health of our people, but will rather romanticize it. It's time to see what the monster's face truly is, don't you agree. (Don't agree if you want to debate, let me try to convince you, or you convince me it's media or something else entirely.) I thank the person who accepts this debate with an open mind, and a crateful of integrity in the goal for finding a solution for a problem in the United States! Note: It would be worth our time if we discussed how gun control would be an Independent Variable, and how it would change our Dependent Variable. Gun Control is the IV, while rate of Shootings would be DV. You can find what the Controlled Variables are on your own. (yay General Physics!)
"Does philosophy and science work together to offer compelling evidence for the existence of God?"

The past has to be finite. If the universe never began to exist, then the number of the past events in the history of the universe is infinite. If all events are infinite then you cannot have infinite numbers of past events because it leads to absurdity. The universe must have a first event. You cannot have an infinite number of events this means that the universe must have a cause, it must have a first event. Based on the metaphysical principle something cannot come from nothing and therefore there must be a creator. At the beginning of the Universe, the Universe had a low level of entropy. This means that it was extremely complex (Siegel, 2017). However, in the present day, we find that the Universe has a high entropy, meaning that it isn't as complex. So, Cosmologists all have been left with one great question: Why the change? The second law of thermodynamics states that the energy in the universe is gradually moving towards disorder" (Jha, 2013). To put simply, this means that eventually, things balance each other out over time. The universe at its beginning was complex and had a low entropy. Stephen Hawkings has stated, "a change in one part in a million, million would make the difference between recollapse and everlasting expansion" (Gangadean, 2008). In the high level of entropy, even if one single thing was absent, then we would not be here today. If even one small thing was missing in the equation of the universe, then life would not exist at all (Lewin, 2016). The universe was made in perfect tuning, any less or more would"ve resulted in non-life. In this exact, specific equation, can it really be by chance? Can the formation of this complexity be natural? The beginning of the universe is proved through science by the change of entropies. Knowing that the universe had a beginning, means that the universe is finite. If the universe was infinite then it would have an infinite amount of time to reach the state of high entropy. In Fact, it would have reached it multiple times already. However, it is obvious that the energy in the universe has not reached sameness and is still moving towards high entropy. This example serves as evidence that the universe is not infinite. The universe had a beginning and is finite. Therefore, according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, below. The universe must have a cause. Its cause must be something outside the Universe, it cannot be something that the universe is made of. It cannot be matter because matter is part of the universe. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be something that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial and conscious. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. People would refute the first premise because they believe that something can come from nothing. They"d say Physics gives examples of things coming from nothing. However, the vacuum is not "nothing."
"Does philosophy and science work together to offer compelling evidence for the existence of God?"

This is a filler. I am not addressing the excellent challenges of Philocristos. I will give my students a chance to answer the challenges from round 1 this coming week. Admittedly, there is expected skepticism towards arguments that rely on science to support their premises. Now, I say this with a caution. Be wary of how quick you dismiss these arguments based on their dependence on the oft-changing physical sciences. It is not that the science that supports the premises is some kind of fringe science that will likely be made obsolete with soon discoveries. Actually, most of the science that supports the premises, of say, the fine-tuning argument, for example, is very sound and will likely not be made obsolete any time soon. That being said, I am going to present an argument for the existence of God that is based solely on philosophy. An argument like this is not subject to any type of scientific scrutiny. If an argument, like the one that follows, is to be found fallacious, it must be found to proport a logical fallacy, some other violation of logic, or a metaphysical absurdity (i.e. God can create a square-circle). If, however, the argument is logically and metaphysically sound then its conclusion is necessary. For one to not believe the conclusion is then to prove one not interested in intellectual integrity. However, a lack of intellectual integrity is what the skeptic often accuses the theist/Christian of having. The Ontological Argument for the existence of God. 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2. A maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. A maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. It will be noticed upon careful analysis of the argument that the only premise that can be reasonably challenged is premise one.
The Walking Dead is the best show ever

The walking dead scored 8.7/10 on imdb http://m.imdb.com... Battlestar Galactica also scored 8.7/10 on imdb http://m.imdb.com... Game of thrones out scored them both with an unmatched 9.4/10 http://m.imdb.com... Game of thrones was so popular in china that a Chinese alcoholic beverage company used the GoT intro in one of their commercials http://www.youtube.com... (Chinese liquor commercial) It appears as though the Chinese and the IMDB agree that Game of Thrones is better than The Walking Dead (traveling corpses, walking meats). Therefore The Walking Dead can NOT be the best show "ever" even though it might be the best show currently running. I rest my case and thank you for your time.
The Walking Dead is the best show ever

I agree with con that there are other shows like Breaking Bad and The Game Of Thrones but The Walking Dead makes you attached to the characters. When Lori, Shane and Merle died, it was very sad. Even though Shane and Merle were d!cks there death made the plot more suspenseful. If Darryl died, I bet everyone who watched the walking dead would riot. I also enjoy Breaking Bad and The Game Of Thrones. The Walking Dead consists of Action, Adventure, Love, and Survival mixed into one epic show, The Walking Dead. After reading an article, seems to me that the Walking Dead is more popular than Breaking Bad in China. http://entertainment.time.com... The WD (short for walking dead) is on a global scale unlike Breaking Bad or TGOT.
The Walking Dead is the best show ever

The walking dead is indeed a great show. But there have been many great shows before it, and there are bound to be many after it. The Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Battlestar Galactica and American Horror Story are all great shows. I think it would be hard to qualify The Walking Dead as "the best show ever" when it hasn't even been viewed in its entirety. I understand that Pro is very excited about the show because I am too.
Be polite and rule over the world

True if u are polite most people will start liking u but however the most polite people in t he world are not politicians. So it is more than politeness that gets people there. Usually it is greed or love of money or selfish ambition or somethino along that line. Many caring, loving, and polite people never made it to the top because they were to polite to feed people's ravishing greed...or their own.
Humans ARE Animals

You seem to equate more evolved to superior. I made no such distinction. Therefore there is no contradiction. I believe we are more evolved. Comparing those two pictures proves it. Only humans can grasp abstract art. The reason I believe animals superior to humans is that they have reached their full potential. They do live in harmony with nature. Humans on the other hand have the ability to reach for the stars, quite literally. Yet there are children dying of starvation. Lives wasted in wars over beliefs, money, land and oil. With our intellect we should have created an ideal world by now, but instead we have acts like rape, murder, abuse of the weak. Actions we call animal yet its actually very rare for animals to do such things. You ask what makes us different from animals? Its not our humanity. Its our inhumanity that makes us different. Animals reach the hight of their potential. Humans reach the depths.
Humans ARE Animals

How are we different? I believe I have already answered that. Animals have intelligence, but not as evolved as ours. Animals have morals, but not as evolved as ours. Compair the painting by the elephant to a painting by Davinci. Yes we have animal instincts and some organs can be transplanted, but not the human brain. To some it up, I have never stated we are superior to animals. Far to the contrary I stated our behaviour typical to that of a virus. But we have the ability to rise above our animal instincts. No matter we choose not to. We still possess that ability where animals do not. That is the fundimental difference between humans and animals.