BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists

My arguments for the existence of God are all variants of the general theistic arguments, with my spin on them. Argument 1 Contingent: existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on Non-contingent: existing irrespective of any other conditions Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole Every physical thing in the universe we observe to be contingent; every single physical thing exists because certain circumstances have arisen. For example, human life is contingent on our beneficial proximity to the sun, the sun is contingent on the forces of gravity having exactly the right magnitude etc.. Therefore, every physical thing is contingent. As the universe is simply a name for all the physical things, it makes sense that the universe is contingent. As an analogy, if an society is entirely made up of Belgians, the society as a whole will be Belgian. Simply amassing all things that have one property (contingency) does not make the whole have a completely opposite property (non-contingency). Therefore, the universe is contingent. This cannot go back to infinity; there must be some being that is non-contingent that is the source of everything's existence. This being cannot be a physical being because all physical beings are contingent, therefore it must be transcendent. This is God. Argument 2 The universe came into being. (1) Everything that comes into being requires a cause for doing so; therefore the universe required a cause. This cause cannot be something from within the universe as this would mean that it would have to create itself in order to create itself (a paradox). Consequently, the universe must have a cause that is outside the universe (transcendent). It is then not unreasonable to say that this transcendent creator is God. Argument 3 The universe is massively complex and the higher the complexity of an object the lower the probability of it occurring simply by chance. As the universe is so hugely complex the probability of it occurring by chance is hugely minuscule. Out of the multiple explanations for the universe"s existence (chance or God) it is rational ceteris paribus to take the more probable explanation. As the probability of a God existing (asserted by arguments 1 and 2) is high, his existence is inductively proved. Argument 4 God can be defined as "that which nothing greater can be conceived". I can conceive of a God in my mind but a God that exists in reality is greater than a God that only exists in my mind. Therefore God must exist in reality otherwise he wouldn't be "that which nothing greater can be conceived". God is perfect in every aspect. Existence is an aspect, and so he must have perfect existence. Existence is more perfect than lack of existence so God must have the property of existence. Therefore God exists. These arguments may not provide conclusive proof of God's existence on their own, but these multiple avenues of logic and reason can combine to prove that an existing God is highly probable. (1) http://science.nasa.gov...
The Tanakh describes Messiah as Divine

Pro shall show that the Tanakh describes Messiah as being divine. In other words, Messiah may be rightly called G-d. Con shall show that the Tanakh does not support pro's claim. First round is acceptance. Any other round may be used as the debater deems fit for winning. This can be a very controversial debate among different groups. I request voters provide in their RFD at least one specific argument they believe wasn't well met and why. I want the two debaters to understand why one person won and the other didn't, if there isn't a tie. Thank you. Open Voting 7 point system with 2000 minimum elo. 1 month voting period. 5 rounds with up to 8000 characters. @EmilRose Thank you for taking up this debate with me. If there are any modifications you would like before accepting the debate, please discuss them with me either publicly in comments or privately in messages. I'm looking forward to a challenging and friendly debate with a respectable opponent such as yourself. I can tell from your previous debates on similar topics that you are very well informed on the topic at hand, so I'm assuming this will turn out well.
You choose the topic

I just realized that I wrote 'the only rule is to be a dick' rather than 'to not be a dick'. Lol. Vaccines for kids - The argument is really pretty simple: there is absolutely no reason for kids to die of preventable illnesses. Vaccines work by imitating infection and training the body to fight those infections[1]. Weak, dead, inactive and/or incomplete viruses are put into the body and the body's immune system is able to use these viruses to produce antibodies against them. It's no different than using a training simulation to teach someone how to do something in real life. [1] . http://www.cdc.gov... Vaccines are also important for protecting those who can't be vaccinated due to health reasons or age. Some vaccines require children to be a certain age before they can take them, so by making sure that other children are vaccinated on schedule we keep otherwise deadly viruses from spreading through a phenomena called 'herd immunity'[2]. When everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated, we create a sort of buffer which keeps the disease from spreading further. It would be like if you surrounded a fire pit with stones - sure there are things outside of the pit that could still catch on fire, but those stone create a buffer that makes the spread unlikely. [2]. http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk... There is rarely any reason not to vaccinate a child. Sometimes a child's specific medical history may warrant avoiding or putting of vaccination entirely if they have an autoimmune disease or some other medical problem, but these specific instances are ones that a child's pediatrician will diagnose. On balance, there is a net benefit to vaccinating children.
You choose the topic

Dude, three topics. Not just one. What if I wanted the chance to choose a topic that wouldn't have automatically been voted against by the conservative bloc? These kinds of topics are bad on so many levels, but for a debate with only 3000 characters it borders on being satirical. Aside from that the way the topic and initial framework is presented skews the burden of proof. One would think that current scientific trends backed by the academy would take presumption over personal skepticism, but the way you're laying out the topic's framing reverses that burden of proof. There are plenty of scientific disciplines that necessarily depart from laboratory experimentation; we can't test and retest certain things, but that doesn't bar us from observing the natural world through a skeptical, scientific lens. Psychology studies dealing with trauma, environmental disasters, and astronomical phenomena are good examples of observational science. Repeated experimentation can't always happen due to ethical or pragmatic reasons, but that doesn't mean we can't study the effects of such things. Recording the effects of trauma as well as treatment is a scientific approach, even if a counselor doesn't inflict simal trauma on others to form a control group. Evolutionary science is something we can actively see on the small scale, and passively study the effects of on a larger scale. This isn't a balanced topic, it's a request for me to change your opinion. Any argument I provide that fails to meet that goal is one you'll outright dismiss. This topic has not grounding, no balancing in terms of fairness, and can have no real educational benefit. Further, I can't stress enough that this is a topic that deserves a specific focus and nuanced framing to be a valuable one. Basically this debate boils down to an easy vote for Pro. Con shoots him/her/theirself in the foot before we can even begin an equitable discussion. Combine poor framing, a bad understanding scientific disciplines, and a failure to follow a minimal set of directions and Con has no ground to make up.
You choose the topic

Topic: Validity of Evolution If evolution was scientific is must be observable and repeatable. The major foundation of evolution is animals changing kind over billions of years. Any rational being must notice that evolution can't possibly be observed because no mortal can live billions of years. Homology which is the comparison of animals anatomy is not evidence because it only points towards a common purpose and not common design. Natural selection doesn't point towards an evolutionary world view because for evolution to be possible new genetic info must be added. Info is lost in the process of natural selection. Where is the science of evolution? Is there evidence of progressive changes in kind?
Atheists Are Evil

Well, my opponent appears to have inadvertently admitted that he is an evil homosexual... Asides from this, let us take a look at his logic. If he is correct in saying that if you are not God, then you are evil, then this would mean that St. Mary, St. Paul, Mohammad, Moses and all the other leading religious figures were evil. Taking into account that my opponent is religious, then he seems to be inconsistent. More to the point, theists as well as atheists are not God so, according to Pro's logic, they are all evil as well. If this is the case then there would not be any point in phrasing the debate title in such a way as to imply that atheists are evil because of their atheism. Furthermore, if everyone who is not God is evil, and everyone who is evil is gay, then everyone who is not God (i.e every human) is gay. Apart from the fact that around 95% (1) of the world are NOT gay, having a 100% homosexual population would invariably mean that the human race would have become extinct thousands of years ago. I'm coming to the conclusion that my opponent is not being serious about this debate; as what he is saying is so ludicrously absurd. (1) http://www.gallup.com...
Atheists Are Evil

Right, so you DO believe that God is equivalent to good? According to that logic, to say something is good is to say that it is God. This would mean that saying 'Cake is good' is equivalent to saying 'Cake is God', which is nonsensical. Furthermore, if good is equivalent to God then everything that isn't God, isn't good. I am not God; does that make me not good? My opponent is not God, does that mean he is not good? Therefore, God cannot be equivalent to God.
Atheists Are Evil

I will be arguing that atheists are not necessarily evil. Of course, many are evil but they are not automatically evil by virtue of their atheism. As my opponent is making the positive claim (that atheists are evil), the burden of proof is on him to prove, a priori or a posteriori, that atheists are evil. All I need to do is refute his claims. My opponents argument is a poor one I am afraid to say; it is formed upon a misunderstanding of language. When one asserts 'God is good', they are not saying that God is equivalent to good, they are saying that God has the property of being good. Obviously the latter is a bit of a mouthful, hence the simplification to 'God is good'. It does not actually mean that God is equivalent to good. For example, if I state: 'John is kind' I am stating that John has the property of being kind. I am not stating that 'John' is equivalent to 'kind'. Reductio ad absurdum, using the same logic as your argument: 'John is kind, Sarah is not John, ergo Sarah is unkind' Of course, this is not logically sound. As I have refuted my opponent's argument, he can either defend it or create another argument in favour of the proposition that atheists are evil. Over to you!
Send ground troops to Syria where Isis is

No I don't support ground troops I was just explaining that just because you send ground troops doesn't mean you stop drone strikes. Drone Strikes actually increase I believe we should just back out of the middle east and let the middle east deal with ISIS Even drone strikes in my opinion is too much And I doubt the president said we need to send 50 troops to that area. If he did he may have been talking about generals aiding Kurdish or resistance forces
Send ground troops to Syria where Isis is

Just because the governments of certain middle east nations do not like us doesn't mean the civilians don't. Just look at Iran. Sure many of them say "Death to America" but many view America as friends now if you look at some interviews. Invading a county and occupying would decrease that standard some civilians in the middle east. No this is not the only way to keep America safe. Quite the opposite. Killing of civilians= Radicalism of other citizens. You might think that drone strikes are killing civilians and they are but ground troops would increase civilian casualties. Just because you send ground troops doesn't mean you stop drone strikes. Actually quite the opposite since you've made a commitment you need to increase drone strikes whether it means aiding a battle or some other situation. Also do you think the US indiscriminately uses drones to bomb specific areas? That's funny!
Send ground troops to Syria where Isis is

Ok well first off who likes us in the Middle East anyways besides Kuwait and Israel. I mean this is the only way we can keep America safe. Are you more worried about the cost than the safety and well-being of the United States. Ok it costs a lot, but in the long run we will be able to pay it off. And you are worried about killing civilians in places where Isis is. Let me tell you air strikes kill more civilians than ground troops. When you are on the ground you have more control and can determine if they are the enemy or not.
Send ground troops to Syria where Isis is

Well I expected that you would do the argument. Because this is turning into more discussion I wont show fancy graphs or list sources. Ill just argue Ground Troops unless deployed in the most EXTREME manner will draw the US into a economic quagmire that will cost trillions of dollars. Not only this, but the loss of life on both sides as well as civilans would be in the hundreds of thousands This would lower support of US in the middle east because occupying a country makes you look like a an oppressor. If you need an example of this just look at Iraq. Not only this but the Iraq War created the problem of ISIS. More war will just create more destabilization in the middle east. Even if ground troops were deployed in the most extreme manner (Full out warfare, civilians are targeted, mass destruction weapons are sued), this would again make the US look bad. Combine all these factors and you have a war that will create a huge deficit and more hatred towards the US
pit bulls are misunderstood

Pit bulls are one of the most misunderstood dog breeds and (like any other dog) is only dangerous if the owner trains them to be. Pit bulls were often considered to be America's dog in the early 20th century being praised for their loyalty to their masters and the ability to defend them as well, however as they became more common in an urban gang members bred them to be violent and thus all pit bulls were seen as violent. There is also the fact that pit bulls are responsible for the most dog attacks and dog bites recently like while this may be true, it is also to be expected. Once the Pit bull was given the title of "the most violent dog" dog fight trainers began to breed them and make them extremely violent leading to their being more headlines and the cycle starting over again. It is important to remember that dogs like humans become how they way they are by growing up in their environment raise a child to be violent and the end result is not surprising.
I'm going to forfeit the second and third rounds of this debate.

Well, I read the resolution to myself. .. "I'm going to forfeit the second and third rounds of this debate". When I read it to myself, I feel as if I am the one being addressed, since my opponent define who "I" refers to. However, I have no intention to forfeit those rounds. And if I don't forfeit both, you have no choice but to vote CON. Of course, my opponent could try to refute my opening argument. .. but he won't, because if he doesn't forfeit both rounds, he will have proved the resolution false. If he does forfeit them, my argument will be uncontested, declaring me the winner.
German Automakers Make the Best Automobiles

That's more like it. Oberbann, if you look at your arguments closely, you will see that there was something missing in the first two: evidence. Aside from the paint issue, you raised no arguments or evidence except congratulation. In the third round you have done better. First of all, you say you felt like you were riding in a cheap car when you rode in your parents' Civic, and that it was far inferior to your A4. This is understandable, as a Civic costs less than half of what your A4 costs now. I assume that this was years ago, perhaps back in the 80s. At that time, Japanese cars, as I'm sure you know, were as indifferently made as the Korean cars of the last decade (although they, too, are much improved.) To compare a Civic from the 80s to today's A4 is not valid comparison. If, instead, you compared TODAY's Civic to your A4, it would have been better. A lot has changed since your parents' Civic was made. I do not dislike German cars, but I hold that they are not, as you say, the best in the world. Nor do I think this of Japanese cars, or American or French or Italian or Korean cars. Frankly, I don't think that one country makes the best cars in the world. The "best car" is not dependent on the country it is made in, but who it is made by. A BMW 7-Series is far inferior to, say, a new Jaguar XF, but a Volkswagen Tuareg is far superior to a Nissan Murano. You are correct in saying that if I judged on style alone, I would not be fit to debate this issue. Styling is only one side of the coin, and horrendous-looking cars can be very capable underneath. The Pontiac Aztek, which probably has never been sold in Germany, is widely recognized as one of the ugliest four-wheeled-vehicles on the planet, but it is capable and I see them around a lot here in western Wisconsin. My conclusion, then, is this: Germans have made many good, and some great, cars, but to say that they are the best in the world is foolish. "Best" is subjective, anyway, and as I pointed out before, I don't think it depends on the country that makes it, but the people. Thanks for the debate! :)
German Automakers Make the Best Automobiles

First of all, as I am the instigator, it is your job to refute me. Second, I answered your opening rebuttal. You asked me to define best; I did. If your idea of argument is to have me pick little quotes out of your rebuttal and post links to some Wikipedia article to refute them, you'll find I'm not your sort of debater. In your opening rebuttal, you state that German automobiles are recognized as unreliable. However, did you know that MINI, the firm that makes the Mini Cooper, is ranked in the top five most reliable automakers by Car and Driver? Now, did you know that MINI is really a German automaker? It is owned by BMW, whose designers work extensively on all MINI models. I responded to you, saying that German automaking is at a low point, but overall, we have produced a long history of excellent and reliable automobiles. I own an Audi A4. This automobile fits my needs and is beautifully engineered and appointed. It is as personal as I would ever want an automobile to be. My parents owned a Honda Civic, which was not designed nearly as well as my Audi. The designers of the Audi were not "impersonal and robotic," but rather, they thought of nearly everything. My Audi has a stowage bag for skis, which I use quite often; heated seats, which are priceless in the German Alps; and auto-turn headlamps, which are invaluable on twisting, winding roads. I don't know what you mean by "feeling robotic," but I have never felt that way in a German automobile. I did, however, feel that I was in a cheap car when I rode in a Honda Civic. Nobody pays attention to detail like a German engineer. You seem to dislike the style of German automobiles, which is acceptable. However, you have not refuted that we build solid, well designed automobiles. If you are judging on style alone, then you have no sense of automobiles. A well-designed automobile blends form into function, and this is evident in its style. I particularly like the style of most German automobiles; likewise, I particularly dislike the style of most Japanese cars. But style is only one facet of an excellent automobile. Germany builds some of the world's best-designed, best-appointed, longest-lasting, and best-performing automobiles. My opponent has not refuted this. Rather, he seems to think that German automobiles are "robotic."
German Automakers Make the Best Automobiles

Oberbann: As far as I can tell, you have backed up your original argument with one piece of evidence: the paint-process of German cars. It's going to take more than that to convince me. As far as I can see, you have given me nothing to refute. Very well. That's your decision, I suppose. Here, then, is why German automakers DO NOT make the best automobiles. First of all, you do not seem to acknowledge that I am here, and that I have made an argument. Your job, my friend, is to refute me. As far as I can tell, you don't even know I exist. HELLO? HELLO? ARE YOU THERE? Here we go: The Germans have made some great cars, including my personal all-time favorite, the Volkswagen Beetle. However, they are not the greatest cars in the world. When most people buy a car, they want something that fits their needs. German cars are too generic. Too impersonal. I know all cars are assembled by robots these days, but they shouldn't FEEL like it. Most of the blame for this, it's true, lies with one man: Chris Bangle. As head of BMW design, he designed the current-model BMW Seven-Series, one of the ugliest, most complicated cars of all time. Along with his pupil Van Hooydonk, he has transformed BMW into some sort of Japanese-wannabe. His cars look like they were designed by a manga artist, and the electronical nannies and the maddening iDrive system are some of the worst in the world. Unfortunately, the other German carmakers, with the exception of Porsche, have followed him like sheep to the slaughter. The S-Class Mercedes, for example, looks like the illegitimate offspring of a baboon and a large chunk of metal. I'm getting a little silly, I know. However, when you make some refutable claims (beside that they paint their cars better. Believe it or not, most people couldn't care less) I will argue. I bid you adieu.