BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence of a god is a logical certainty

Alright, I will also be going line by line. 1. Time. My opponent states that time is simply the measure of change, he says that this is a logical certainty because before this there was nothing. So let me point out the circular reasoning here. My opponent is arguing that *before time existed there could not have been anything* and then *time must have started somewhere because nothing could begin before it*. It is readily apparent that the premise in his first argument is the conclusion of the 2nd argument and visa versa. Thus it is logically flawed. Furthermore my opponent argues that he can sense time because in his perception things have happened. However this does not mean time flows in any manner at all or even exists. I can perceive a phantom this does not make it true. It is rather possible that I am experiencing a hallucination right now. Furthermore there is no way to verify that anything that I believed to have happened in my past actually happened. In fact each instance I believe myself to exist could be the only instance. 2. My opponent is once again arguing that a super natural being must have created the universe. I will concede that I do not know how the universe was created, yet on the same card neither does my opponent, nor anyone to my knowledge. We lack the research, we lack the understanding of quantum physics, we lack the technology, we have very little understanding of the concept of nothing and we do not understand time at all. Until we have these things no one is gong to be able to come up with a definite answer. My opponent however feels that the best answer lies outside of the laws of the universe. An assumption on my opponents part and a totally illogical one. 3. My final point was dropped by my opponent and I think it probably holds equal merit with my second point. I stated that it is possible that we are some sort of robot that has been programmed not to understand how we came to be. The idea is simple rather and on a broader scale looks something like this. Some beings (being A) creates some other beings (being B) but makes it impossible for (being B) to ever understand how their existence came to be, no matter how simple or complex it was. Something that is rather easy to do in computers today, as we can easily make it so that a computer does not understand a certain number or line of text etc.... In other words, how we came to be simply will not process through our brains. This scenario is just as likely as any scenario my opponent has given and still falls within the realm of logic. =) Thanks.
The existence of a god is a logical certainty

I will be taking up argument with many of his premises. Premise 1: My opponent states that logically everything must have a beginning. This conclusion is flawed as this would indeed prove that there is no beginning to everything. For example if we find that the universe must have a beginning then before the universe there was something else (perhaps nothing) which must have also had a beginning. And before that there must have been something else which must have had a beginning. Many people feel that nothing existed before the universe but if this was the case it would still have to have a beginning somewhere. Premise 2: Perhaps. If we are going to assume that an intelligent being must have caused the universe to exist though we might as well just assume that the universe was powerful enough to create itself. Premise 5: A being that was powerful enough to create itself. In other words this being created itself from nothing. First off this falls outside of time, thus it isn't logical. Secondly nothing still existed before this being which means nothing must have had a beginning. Third creating something from nothing denies the logical idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Thus it is illogical. Finally I ask my opponent what kind of power he speaks of. Premise 6: Why can't the universe just create itself? ------------ Disclaimer: The above premises interest me and I will doubtlessly dedicate a great deal of the next three days thinking about the correlation of time and the human mind. However the premises below this will be the ones that I take the greatest deal of my time attacking because I believe them to be philosophically unfounded. ------------ Premise 7-9: Not necessarily, in all reality I may just be viewing a predestined thought process. Our brains are made up of a great deal of complex switches that determine how to react in all situations. In other words we are designed in effect in the likeness of a complex computer our thoughts, emotions, feelings etc are all products of many if-then statements. If I am driving and my car flips off the road then adrenaline is pumped throughout my body. If I see a good friend then I am happy. In all reality you and I may have no actual control over anything that is happening, this of course includes our thoughts. However this still means somewhere on some level I likely exist. Premise 11: No definitely not. The idea that I exist does by no stretch of the imagination mean that the world does exist. In fact outside of my own existence (a proof that I will continue to consider throughout this debate as I do not believe it to be entirely sound) I cannot prove that anything else exists. Everything else could be for all I know entirely fake, a faulty perception of my mind, could be a reflection of something else. In fact now that I think about it, I could have possibly created my own existence which is within my mind and mandated how it flows. There is no definite way to prove that the universe exists.
The existence of a god is a logical certainty

I would prefer that an atheist or agnostic accepts this debate, as I would like to see them uphold their beliefs. Now, defining terms: Existence is defined by Merriam-Webster as "actual or present occurrence" to clarify, this means that there is or once was (for the purposes of this debate) a god (at least that's what I have to prove) a god for this debate, to limit the parameters of this debate is a being or a group of beings that are powerful enough to create the Universe. Examples would include the Judeo-Christian God, the Greek and Roman gods, etc. Universe: (This will be important) the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated I don't think I need to define other terms as my opponent can present his or her own definitions if necessary. My case will be presented in a syllogism form: I will list premises and conclusions. Premise 1: Logically the Universe must have had a beginning, everything must start a some point. (Not geometrically) Premise 2: Something must have caused the Universe to be created. Premise 3: That something must also have had a beginning. Premise 4: This would continue would go back indefinitely, as all somethings must have had a beginning, and must have been created. Premise 5: Only a being(s) that was powerful enough to create itself could stop this logical impossibility. Premise 6: This being(s) would then have to create everything else in order to create the Universe. Conclusion: Therefore, only a being(s) that fits my definition of a god could have created the Universe. Premise 7: I think. (Or you think, in your case, I can only prove to myself that I think, not to anyone else, same goes for you) Premise 8: In order to think, I must be able to think. Premise 9: In order to be able to think, one must occur, or exist. Not necessarily physically mind you. An illusion still exists. Conclusion: I exist. (Or you exist) Premise 10: I exist. (Or you exist) Conclusion: The Universe (as defined) must exist. Premise 11: The Universe (as defined) must exist. Premise 12: Only a being(s) that fits my definition of a god could have created the Universe. Conclusion: It is certain that a god(s) once existed.
scootering

While scootering certainly doesnt have a good standing in social culture, it is still FAR better then other aspects of society such as crocs, roller skating, and actually wearing a helmet when doing any of those things..... Besides, scooters actually fold up for easy storage which is something you cant do with a bike, and they fold up to take up less space than a skateboard or roller blades. So yeah, people who like scooters are usually nerds, but they are still way better then those who roller blade everywhere, wear helmets, or *gulp* WEARS CROCS
Christian Conservative Youth are The Worst

To start, I find the article you posted extremely exaggerated. If you have ever stepped in a truly BIBLICAL based Christian church, you would understand that they do not teach that we, as humans, are worthless. But are lost. The God I believe in loves me. He must be pretty irritated when His people turn their backs on Him. We are like children, chasing after the "toys" and useless material things that can never satisfy. If you are a parent, you would understand how hard it is to experience your child not listen to reason. If I ever have kids in the future, I can already tell how hard it will be to give my children vegetables when they have the distractions of sugary sweets. Fruits and veggies are difficult to put in any child's diet, but I know that its better for them. Although, they may not know that yet. This is just like the miracles and stories of the bible that are hard to believe for us. For example, the crucifixion is thought to be too brutal and many question God's ways. I mean, who would send their only son to die such a brutal death? The answer to this is simple, is it fair for the clay to say to the potter "Why did you make me like this?", "Why did you do this to me?" No it is not, for the clay has no understanding of the potter at all! Trying to understand God's ways is like an ant, trying to explain to another ant, why humans do what they do. I truly apologise for the "Christians" that are confused and make Christianity look like a very hateful belief. But I assure you, a true church does not attempt to brainwash their children, but awaken their children. My parents did not make me to go to church, I chose that myself. My dad was raised in a Catholic home, and shared his experiences to me. To him, he didn't belong. It was a world-view that believed rules and good deeds were the way to God. But what they don't understand is good deeds can't make up for our human nature. Our "good" deeds, matched up to God's perfection, is not really a comparison at all. Catholics are trying to walk towards heaven, looking back in fear of hell. So they try to cover up their mistakes by being the best they could be, which doesn't work. I agree with you, human sexuality is natural, I experience lust everyday. But the difference is, I do not ignore it, I use it as a constant reminder that shouts to me "I CAN'T DO THIS LIFE ON MY OWN". If anything my addiction to pornography has taught me just that. Your list of stuff that you were taught not to do are apart of life, and people who commit these actions are not to be put on trial in church. "The church is not a museum of good people, it is a hospital for the broken" (I got this line from a Christian poet)
Christian Conservative Youth are The Worst

Parents can teach children what they want it's there kids but you shouldn't brainwash your children. Children are the future and giving them only half the story will cause them to hate the other we shouldn't close off or make up facts you're spreading lies to your kids. Also alot of young conservative kids are even against some actual human rights mainly for LGBT community and often those who hate are the ones to attack first. I've looked more on the subject of what children are taught here are some links http://www.huffingtonpost.com... - This link shows what some parents and teachers are teaching their children a religion based on fear to me is not a good one so I disbelieve in their lord and believe in my own. I can also put down my own personal experience as a kid I went with my dad to a religious meeting or something like that. I could not believe what I was hearing at one point a priest told me as a female I would have to choose to either become a nun or a mother then a puppet show was put on. The story was about a boy who wanted to watch Harry Potter and wasn't allowed as told by his Guardian angel. But the biggest thing we were taught to be fearful of hell a child shouldn't really be taught of hell in that way I was so scared when I found out I went around crying because I thought I could go to hell if I were to die any minute and I was only six. We are also taught as a teenager that human sexuality is a bad thing I disagreed saying that it was a natural part of humans we experience lust and yet we were taught to ignore it. I made a list of things that I were told were sinful Meditation that was not christian Yoga Evolution Sex Thinking of Sex Talking of Sex Watching stuff about Sex Sexuality Watching things about Magic Being Gay Birth Control Atheists Other religions Greens (Political Party) Questioning God and the Bible And Science That to me is quite a list and I even forgot a few you might say well weren't your parents Christians yes but not conservative I learnt the list from others being priests to really religious people. My mother believed in evolution and both my parents believed in equal rights for everyone. I'm angry that kids have no one else to go to not their parents or friends and even teachers cause I didn't.
Christian Conservative Youth are The Worst

Who are you to decide what goes on in someone else's thoughts? Parents have their own beliefs, and of course, would wish for their children to follow. But Christianity is not something that is forced onto the next generation, it is a personal decision. I am a Christian, I chose this at a young age, but I did not decide this without doubts of my own. Of course, my parents taught me about Christ, but I received another version of Him through school. A version where Christians are thought to be blind, but calling people blind doesn't automatically mean you have vision.
Christian Conservative Youth are The Worst

At such a young age you should not have an ideology that you are so strongly for. I'm still very young and don't actually have an ideology so I just say i'm moderate cause I'm really on no ones side. This all really boils down to their parents who raised them to feel so strongly about one side. I feel that they still lack alot of knowledge to know what to believe especially only ever been taught one side of the story. I'd like to hear from an actual conservative young person. Websites showing A Conservative Teen magazine http://www.buzzfeed.com... http://www.vice.com...
Modern Warfare 2 has better online multiplayer than Black ops online Multiplayer

Snipers MW2- Modern Warfare 2 is better because you can quickscope. Snipers Black ops- In Black ops you can quickscope but they have made it more difficult. Shotguns MW2- In Modern Warfare the give you shoguns from today's world like the Spaz-12 (1970's), AA12 (1970's), M1014 (1998). Also they have shotguns from earleir century, Model 1887 (1887), Rangers (1930's). The shotguns are better because they are from different generations and can be made akimbo (dual). Shotguns Black ops- The shotguns in MW2 are better than Black ops because in Black ops, they take to long to reload, cant be made akimbo, and don't have range nor firepower. Also the melee in MW2 is way better, it has further distance and when you clearly hit sombody it gives you the kill besides Black ops when you don't.
Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member.

I will respond to all your points and then create my own if I need to. First, you say "1. I have no idea how long I have to respond to a debate. " You will see that after I post this rebuttal. I don't really feel this is not important before posting a debate. If you have somewhere to be, don't make the debate. ---------------------------------------------------- Next, you say "2. There is no area that explains things like short hand for arguments" Please explain short hand for arguments, I have no idea what that means. ---------------------------------------------------- And, "3. There is no place that discusses what would be considered "good form" an appropriate way of interacting with each other, other than what I am not allowed to say. " You should really already know if you mean talking to other debaters through comments. It IS explained, you know. No racism, no cursing, etc. It's all explained when you join, you just weren't paying attention. ----------------------------------------------------- And last, "4. As I am typing there is a little counter counting down. But I don't know if there is a way to adjust it or if the "next round" (something I discovered by reading through the completed debates) will have the same amount of characters. " Why wouldn't it have the same amount of characters? There is no way to adjust the timer. That makes debate. org realistic and challenging. In real life, you're not going to just walk away from court just because you don't have time. And honestly. You don't know what the "next round" is? You made the debate three rounds at the starting of this debate. Round 1, Round 2, Round 3. Amazing. ----------------------------------------------------- If debate. org gave you more information, what would be the challenge? You would all be a high level debater at the start. What's debating if you don't work your way up to the top? And besides, I don't think anyone would like a website telling them how to be a good debater. They should develop their own styles of debating.
Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member.

This is my first debate so I am doing this to learn and to complain. There is simply not enough information available until you join. for instance 1. I have no idea how long I have to respond to a debate. 2. There is no area that explains things like short hand for arguments 3. There is no place that discusses what would be considered "good form" an appropriate way of interacting with each other, other than what i am not allowed to say. 4. As I am typing there is a little counter counting down. But I don't know if there is a way to adjust it or if the "next round" (something i discovered by reading through the completed debates) will have the same amount of characters.
Batman vs Dead pool

(Sorry this will be rushed, spent weekend at friends house XD) Refrences, im sorry for not including them and i wouldve thought this community would be more trusting. Dead bodys, is from 'curse of the mutants' where deadpool has sex with corpses in a chapel, i was not refering to death. I never said that his healing did beat his durability i was merely stating that bat man could easily counter it. "If bones were constantly breaking then it would be very noticable all the time," Obviously it would, however you stated that he could use this to reach super human strength, i was merely stating that the amount of muscle needed to reach that extent would cause serious fractures and breaks in his bones. "Yes; Deadpool's head does need to be reattached to his body for him to heal, this is still far beyond Batman's capabilities to survive without head." Once more obviously batman is human, i was stating that it needed to be reattached inorder to heal. "As for deadpool talking to himself; this hasn't proved to be too much of a problem in combat on any combat scenarios that come to my mind," This has caused him to be bitten by a zombie, crushed by the hulk, diced by wolverine etc etc "Now on to Deadpool's accuracy; my opponent clearly states that Deadpool fires randomly cause he 'likes the feel' (not cause he can't shoot straight), so this does not prove Batman to be more accurate. In fact Deadpool still has far more experience with firearms." If deadpool is firing randomly and batman is aiming, batman is probably gonna me more accurate. Batman has had the Green lantern ring in basicly all of the DC universes, saving it each time. "To answer my Opponents question about Deadpool's teleportation. The ability to teleport at will would remove the need for any vehicle as teleportation would be a more efficient form of transport." Teleporting doesnt gve you rocket launcers, machine guns etc etc "I don't remember this being 'Batman & friends vs Deadpool but for a full list of Deadpool's team affiliations look at the group " Batman would use all the resorces (including friends) he has which includes money (possability hiring an army etc etc) Thanks for the debate sorry for the rushed last one haha Should have other debates ;D
Batman vs Dead pool

Eyes: Brown Hair: Brown Intelligence Level: Extraordinary Genius Strength Level: Peak human Endurance Level: Peak human (enhanced by body armor) Speed Level: Peak human Agility Level: Peak human Stamina Level: Peak human Reflexes Level: Peak human bench Press : 750+ Batman has trained in over 127 different martial arts, this makes him a extremely tough opponent. Batman is a highly skilled fighter, escapologist, forensic scientist, strategist and having the best deductive and observational skills. To increase his already immense physical prowess he employs a large array of weapons and gadgets, such as batarangs, razor throwing knives, smoke grenades, lock picks and grappling hooks. The list goes on to things such as anti-shark spray. Most of these are kept in his utility belt. His suit is make of flame weave/Kevlar which is resistant to flames, blades and small arms fire. Batman uses vehicles such as the batmobile, which is a heavily armored car capable of going 250-300 mph. He also has batboats and batplane which is a specialized F4. In a fight with dead pool, batman would win hands down, I acknowledge that dead pool has insane healing and great skill with blades, however batmans superior weapons and skill would easily give him the victory. Deadpool Team: None Range/Lightning Bolts: 6/2 Speed: 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 Attack: 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 Defense: 16 15 15 14 13 12 11 Damage: 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 BATMAN Speed:8 8 8 7 6 6 6 Attack: 10 10 9 8 8 8 7 Defense:16 15 15 15 14 14 13 Damage: 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 These are the only official stats I can dig up on these two from Heroclix, as you can see batman wins in speed, attack, defense and ties in damage.
Electric vs. Combustion engines... Electric engines are the way of the future

thank you for your views during this debate. After 4 rounds of reading through you views and evidence. I have to admit that you have made me be able to clearly see your views. Although my views at the moment have not changed, the information you provided will help me with further research on the topic. One of the last things I will say is that I hope that your were able to understand my viewpoint as well. I still believe that Electric Engines are the way of the future, but for now the human race will have to rely on ICEs and the alternative fuels sources that will be provided
Electric vs. Combustion engines... Electric engines are the way of the future

No, the basics of the ICE are defined by the Otto Cycle, and the technology is fairly simple. Changing fuels only requires, relatively, minor retooling of existing engines. Although, as with the Ethanol, some fuels do have other concerns to be thought about. In short, anything that burns can be used as a fuel for an ICE, but the specifics of how the ICE works may need to be adjusted. The only 'requirement' is that the fuel be capable of burning, and ideally have a high vapor pressure, though the latter is NOT a requirement, as it is possible, to use lower vapor pressure fuels. While your link makes the claim that it is cheaper, it provides no sources... This source : [8] https://www.masterresource.org... shows that the price of an EV only becomes cheaper at $3.50/gal of gas US. Currently much of the US sees costs below $3.00/gal. Of course this varies by the local costs of energy as well.