BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Logic Analysis: These arguments disprove the existence of God.

============================================================================ Defense ============================================================================ ~~~C1. P1.~~~ The definition of lift is to "raise from a lower to a higher position" [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]. My opponent then forfeits that God can not lift things with physical independence and a local gravity source. Omnipotence is defined as having unlimited power. If God, no matter what paradigm it exists in, can not raise the stone as previously described from a lower to a higher position - then his power is limited. Omnipotence absolutely demands the power to do anything and everything - and by God not being able to do something - then God is not omnipotent. Thus, God does not exist. ~~~C1. P2.~~~ RE.1 This argument makes no sense whatsoever and I'm going to ask my opponent to expand on this. Also, Molinism has to do with free will - which isn't what my argument is about. RE.2 This argument does not refute my argument either. If God knows everything (like my opponent claims), then changes something of everything (like my opponent claims), then everything becomes a different everything (given), and God therefore didn't know an everything (conclusion) - therefore God is not omniscient. RE.3 This is an approach to free will ("choice"), which is a straw man because it has nothing to do with my argument. ~~~C.3~~~ I will forfeit this contention - it doesn't work well in this debate with the definitions and resolution and such. ============================================================================ Conclusion ============================================================================ Both premises of contention one still stand. Also, my opponent hasn't even tried to counter contention two yet. The resolution is affirmed as of right now.
Logic Analysis: These arguments disprove the existence of God.

Logic is often a poorly used commodity where religion is concerned; whether arguing for or against the supernatural, many fallacious arguments are posited and accepted as truth. I stand against the idea that the spiritual can be proven or disproven by physical evidence, or that any system of reasoning that claims to have answered this question is failsafe. I challenge all reasoners to prove their assertions in formal debate. I contend that the arguments my opponent will post against the existence of God are not logically sound. RESOLUTION: These arguments disprove the existence of God. DEFINITIONS: By accepting this debate, you agree to accept these definitions for this debate. God: the one Supreme Being; perfect, omnipotent, omniscient; the creator and ruler of the universe. His known attributes include goodness, holiness, wisdom, independence from His creation, immanence within His creation, immutability, immeasurability, and eternity. (Taken from . http://dictionary.reference.com... ) Disprove: to prove (an assertion, claim, etc. ) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate . http://dictionary.reference.com... Exist: to have actual being; be; to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions. . http://dictionary.reference.com... FORMAT OF DEBATE: By accepting this debate, you are agreeing use this format for this debate. My opponent will post: -Any relevant definitions they choose, other than the terms I have already listed; -Two or three arguments against the existence of God, with at least a couple sentences of explanation; not simply statements. He will be arguing that God does not exist; not that he probably does not exist, or might not exist. Please label each section clearly, to keep the arguments separate. In my R2, I'll post my opening refutations of each of my opponent's arguments in order, and from there we have a debate. Hope this is instructional and enjoyable for both sides!
Resolved : A Christian God is necessary in order for objective morality to exist.

Con: "Both of these assertions are the ramblings of an indoctrinated person brought up in the church."Con loses conduct points for his innappropriate and misguided attack on my character.I offered two arguments right from the get go: One from intentionality and one from morality. Con has never addressed either of these. These remain unrefuted, and as I'll not be able to get to chance to remark on his rebuttal (if he even gets around to it), out of fairness these two arguments will remain unrefuted until the end of the debate. I displayed the burden of proof, and therefore won the debate.The problem with my opponent is that he is not understanding my arguments. Subjective morality and amorality are equivlaent, they are just two ways to say the same thing. Subjective relativism is nihlism. If morality is relative, one cannot escape the logical consequence of nihilism. An atheist cannot act morally, because without God, there is only nihilism. Morality would be an illusory concept. This is why an atheist cannot act morally, and con entirely misunderstood my argument, and his perpetual straw-mans are becoming increasingly tiring.My opponent did not add anything to his arguments, so they need not rebutting, however, lest he think he's actually constructed good arguments, I'll attempt once again to explain why he's wrong.Veil of Ignorance My opponent is basically saying, 'My subjective opinion tells me that a rational person would not want to harm someone, therefore, a rational person would not want to harm someone.' My opponent is trying to make an objective statement from his subjective opinion. Clearly, this fails, because one cannot creat objectivity from subjectivity. He failed to offer any objective arguments or evidences to support his position for what a rational person would desire.Help Vs HarmAgain, my opponent argues that because he believes harming people is wrong, then it must therefore be objectively wrong, without presenting any objective evidences besides his own opinion.UtilAgain, con personally believes that what is best for society is morally good. But different people have different opinions for what is best for society, and my opponent presented no objective standards with which to follow to make a good society.ConclusionThis was a poor debate, where I presented only two arguments, and my opponent never addressed them. He only repeated his same arguments after I refuted them. Even if my opponent finally addresses my arguments and addresses the concerns I raised for his, I won't get a chance to rebut them, so he may just put forth terrible arguments that I won't be able to knock down.
Resolved : A Christian God is necessary in order for objective morality to exist.

BOP is on Pro. We kind of threw back ideas as to what the resolution should be, but we finally went with this one. Christian God - The Judeo-Christian God (Yaweh, etc) Objective morality - is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true Pro shall begin his arguments in round 1 and pass in the final round to even out the rounds. He has the BOP as he is the affirmative in this debate and requested I send it to him.
The Death Penalty Is Wrong & Should Be Banned

First of all, my opponent did not satisfactorily address my points. In response to what I said about her first argument being hard to understand, instead of trying to explain her argument, she merely stated that it wasn't, forcing me, as Con, to take her arguments as they were presented. She continues to assert that not all murderers are bad people, and that they deserve a second chance. Well, let's look at this logically. My position is that all murderers are bad people. If we look at the definition of "murder", we can see that murder is the "the unlawful premeditatedkilling of one human being by another"[1]. Therefore, to qualify as a murderer, a person must have premeditated the killing, and must have broken a law to do it. If a person kills someone intentionally, and breaks the law, he is bad person, and deserves punishment. If you look at this logically, all murderers by definition are bad people, and the argument that they deserve second chance is not tenable. Moving down to her "case studies":Her first case study stabbed a helpless woman 17 times with a knife until dead. .. Pro used this as an example to illustrate her point that not all murderers deserve punishment. But how does this support her point? This fictional person was guilty of ruthlessly killing a woman. Nothing in that person's past in any way justified the cold-blooded killing described by Pro. We can see that this person is a "bad" person. The answer to the question posed by Pro, "Do you think she deserves death? ", is also misleading. The death penalty is only applied to certain crimes, and if the courts identified other aspects of the case, such as mental problems or self-defense, she would not even be eligible for the death penalty. Her second case was much the same. Her "protagonist" was guilty of shooting and killing a man, without any proof of whether or not he deserved it, and with no reason for self-defense. If this man's crime was eligible for the death penalty, than yes, he does deserve death for his crime. Throughout the debate, Pro has done two very questionable and inadmissible things consistently throughout the debate: First, she has utilized the emotional appeal, secondly, she has made the assumption that all murderers are eligible for the death penalty. Both of these are fatal to the Pro side, since she uses them to support her entire case. Her appeals of "if you have a heart" and similar phrases have no place in a debate round that relies on logical thinking and proof. Pro completely ignored my arguments against her "forgiveness" verses, saying that my 1 verse was weak compared with her 10 verses. Given that my verse applies to this debate and hers didn't, my verse is much stronger. She said only that I shouldn't be "picky". As the opposing team, it is my job to be "picky" and point out the problems with my opponent's arguments. She also made ad hominem attacks by saying that I was "selfish and close-minded". I think I have shown enough problems in the Pro case to merit a Con ballot, and on top of that Pro hasn't been able to counter my own arguments.
The Death Penalty Is Wrong & Should Be Banned

I will be addressing the arguments of Pro, and showing how the death penalty is not only not wrong, but justified by my opponent's own source. My opponent brought two arguments into today's debate. I will be addressing them in order. 1. Nobody Deserves to be Killed on Purpose. Pro presented a long, rambling, confusing supporting paragraph for this argument. She began by trying to appeal emotionally that "cutting off heads" was cruel and evil. Then she said that murderers made mistakes, that they should be given a second chance, and that not all murderers are bad people. If you think about this logically, it doesn't make any sense. First of all, the death penalty does not utilize the cruel method of "cutting off" one's head, it also is a modern punishment, not merely reserved for "olden kings and queens". This was an emotional appeal by my opponent that has no place in today's debate. Also, I would agree that all murderers have made mistakes by murdering people. However, this does NOT merit a "second chance". A second chance for what? To murder someone again? What if the murderers don't think they've made a mistake? My opponent again utilized an emotional appeal, stating that she "has a heart and can forgive people for what they have done". Forgiveness is a separate issue from punishment. Whether or not I forgive someone has no bearing on whether or not they deserve a punishment. Pro has repeatedly used an emotional appeal as a "straw man" in this debate. Moving on, even if the murderers are "deeply sorry" for their crimes, (again the "forgiveness" appeal) this does not merit a "second chance at life". Now remember, we are discussing whether or not anyone deserves death as a punishment. If a murderer has killed someone, in order for true justice, he must be given the same amount of a "second chance at life" as his victim: none. There was no second chance for his victim. The murderer deserves death for his deeds, no matter if he is forgiven, no matter if he is "deeply sorry". These have no bearing on the crime committed, and consequently have no bearing on the punishment. 2. God forgives As I have already pointed out, forgiveness has nothing to do with punishment. Just because we forgive someone does not make their sin any less deserving of punishment. My opponent brought no reasons, not even any Bible verses, supporting her assertion that if you "turn to God" there is no reason to be put to death. The reason she could not show this is because it is impossible. The Bible is 100% clear on the punishment for murder: "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed." (Genesis 9:6a) This verse both sets out the punishment for murder and gives explicit authority to man to execute this punishment. The verses my opponent brought up are, again, a straw man, and have nothing to do with the issue at hand. In conclusion, I've shown how Pro's arguments are faulty. I've also shown using her own source, the Bible, that murderers deserve and should receive the death penalty. Thus, it is easy to see that a Death Penalty is justified, and should not be banned.
Playing an instrument increases your intelligence

1- I'm not contradicting myself at all. If you might take a gander at those statement when they're NOT taken out of context, you will notice that the reason that I have many studies that corroborate my hypothesis is to show that we are even on that particular playing field. I... don't even know for sure what you're talking about here. And the "so?" was from something completely different. 2- You are aware that the conclusion in question is "You seem to believe you have leverage on this debate because you are posting more links than I am," yes? Again, stop taking things out of context. I mean, even NOT taken out of context, I fail to see how my pointing out of the existence of supporting studies makes me claim that I am granted leverage on the debate by posting MORE of them. 3- No, I did not seem to think that. What you are trying to pull off here is called a straw man argument. It is a fallacy. (1) 4- "You claim I haven't proven my side of the claim." That's obvious. The fact that I'm on the opposing side of the debate says that in and of itself. "Why are your studies more authentic than mine?" I never claimed that they were, and I even implied that they weren't when I suggested that we were evenly matched in terms of studies. Stop with the straw man arguments. "Finding studies corroborate my hypothesis." I did that too. "Finding real test subjects that have an increase in intelligence as they learn an instrument." That goes with the studies, and I found subjects that didn't have increases in intelligence. "Providing many reliable sources." Again with the studies/sources. You're very fixated on this subject aren't you? "Explaining every thing I'm saying." I did that as well. I fail to see how any of the above four things that you cited as reaasons for your "proven" claim actually prove your claim. "I didn't argue my point in the previous round because there is nothing left to argue." So you basically forfeited the round. And this round, really. This debate seems to have turned into something totally different than what it was supposed to be, so thanks for that. 1- https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...Oh, right, and this is for your whole "burden of proof is on you, too" spiel. 2- https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Playing an instrument increases your intelligence

Rebuttals:1:"You are stating that studies have corroborated your hypothesis and gave an example of one. That's all well and good, but I have plenty of studies that corroborate my hypothesis (I'll post more examples below), and I gave an example of one as well." "So?" "So?" In one of the previous rounds, you said you have many studies that corrobrate your hypothesis. You're contradicting yourself.2:"He is not representative of the population as a whole, and for every genius that could play a musical instrument, I can find you one or more that didn't. "" as for studies in general, I was able to find plenty that gave the exact opposite conclusion that my opponent's alleged studies did." I draw my conlcusion through what you said.3:I said, "It seems to me you think having more links gives you edge. So here are many, many links supporting my hypothesis:" I only posted those links because you seemed to think having many links and many studies help backup your claim.4:You claim I haven't proven my side of the claim. However, I given many studies that prove otherwise. Why are your studies more authentic than mine? I show studies that say playing an instrument improves your intelligence. Whereas you show studies that prove otherwise. So why are your studies the ones that are right? So far, I have proven my hypothesis to be true through: Finding studies corroborate my hypothesis. Finding real test subjects that have an increase in intelligence as they learn an instrument. Providing many reliable sources. Explaining every thing I'm saying. What more is there to prove? You said in the last round, "I'd also like to point out that you didn't actually argue for your point during this round."I didn't argue my point in the previous round because there is nothing left to argue. I proved my side.
Playing an instrument increases your intelligence

Burden of proof is most definitely not on me. You are making a claim that something is the case. I only need to prove that there is not sufficient evidence to take the idea that you are claiming to be true as truth. I have nothing that I'm trying to instate as scientific law. You do. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, any religious/lack thereof connotations aside, is a great statement about this. (1) One may be claiming that there is an invisible, flying spaghetti monster in the room, and another person may be arguing that there is not sufficient evidence to support this claim, but if neither side can *absolutely* win the argument, the person arguing against the existence of the monster wins. This also is supported by the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality, and, also, science. "For every link I post, you seem to have 4-5 that refute my claim." So? "You seem to believe you have leverage on this debate because you are posting more links than I am." From whence are you drawing this conclusion? "But I see no reason to as the few links I provide are sufficient to support my hypothesis." You posted 20 links on this round alone. "It seems as though we are both going to keep giving studies that corroborate our hypothesis. We may even throw in a few side notes here and rebuttals here and then to help us out. Yet, it seems neither of us are actually proving everything.For every link I give that supports my hypothesis, you have one that knocks it down.But it works the same on the flip side." That's exactly what I said. Remember? Here's the quote: "You are stating that studies have corroborated your hypothesis and gave an example of one. That's all well and good, but I have plenty of studies that corroborate my hypothesis (I'll post more examples below), and I gave an example of one as well. This means that neither of us has the edge here, and since burden of proof is on you, and I only need to keep you from being proven to be correct, I believe that I come out on top in this area." So, thank you for supporting my side. Much appreciated. I'd also like to point out that you didn't actually argue for your point during this round. You just claimed that I have the burden of proof as well (which I don't), that I am posting too many sources (which I wasn't), that neither of us has the edge in sources, and then you proceeded to post 20 sources. 1- https://en.wikipedia.org... More examples: 2- http://testtube.com...3- https://answers.yahoo.com...;4- http://www.nytimes.com...;
Playing an instrument increases your intelligence

Burden of proof is on you too. By taking the con side of the argument, you must proof that playing an instrument doesn't increase your intelligence. You can't simply disprove my hypothesis. Which results in you also having the burden of proof. For every link I post, you seem to have 4-5 that refute my claim. You seem to believe you have leverage on this debate because you are posting more links than I am. However, I could post 5, 10, even 15 links if I wanted to. But I see no reason to as the few links I provide are sufficient to support my hypothesis. Conclusion: It seems as though we are both going to keep giving studies that corroborate our hypothesis. We may even throw in a few side notes here and rebuttals here and then to help us out. Yet, it seems neither of us are actually proving everything. For every link I give that supports my hypothesis, you have one that knocks it down. But it works the same on the flip side. For ever link you give that supports your hypothesis, I have one that knocks it down. It seems to me you think having more links gives you edge. So here are many, many links supporting my hypothesis: 1- http://www.wwbw.com... 2- http://journals.plos.org... 3- http://www.jneurosci.org... 4- http://www.mms-us.com... 5- http://www.livescience.com... 6- http://ed.ted.com... 7- http://commonhealth.wbur.org... 8- http://www.nature.com... 9- http://www.worldmag.com... 10- http://www.musicianbrain.com... 11- http://www.musicianbrain.com... 12- http://www.musicianbrain.com... 13- http://www.erin.utoronto.ca... 14- http://pss.sagepub.com... 15- http://phys.org... 16- http://brainblogger.com... 17- http://www.hasdk12.org... 18- http://www.wwbw.com... 19- http://newslite.tv... 20- http://www.pbs.org...
Playing an instrument increases your intelligence

I would like to restate that, because the burden of proof is on my opponent, I only need to refute his points in order to win the debate. Addressing your first point: You are stating that studies have corroborated your hypothesis and gave an example of one. That's all well and good, but I have plenty of studies that corroborate my hypothesis (I'll post more examples below), and I gave an example of one as well. This means that neither of us has the edge here, and since burden of proof is on you, and I only need to keep you from being proven to be correct, I believe that I come out on top in this area. Addressing your second point: Irrelevant. Coordination is not intelligence. Addressing your third point: Irrelevant. Reading quickly isn't intelligence either. Plenty of people read rather slowly. It does not make them less intelligent. Granted, people who read quickly are rarely unintelligent, but again, slow reading does not necessarily denote inferior intelligence. Addressing your fourth point: The Mozart Effect applies to only one kind of music (classical, particularly Mozart's), applies to listening, though not necessarily playing (meaning that the music one makes while playing music, not the playing itself, causes the effect), and only effects visual-spacial reasoning. Additionally, it's only temporary, often only lasting a few minutes. (1) Addressing the conclusion: Studies have proven that people never play music well as the result of genius? I would like to see the evidence for this. 1- http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... More examples that corroborate my hypothesis: 2- http://www.newser.com... 3- http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 4- https://www.psychologytoday.com... 5- http://www.experienceproject.com...