BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Doesn't Exist

I don't think you know what being "All Powerful" means. Omnipotence by definition allows you to do evil. So should have God have maintained an existence where it is a perfectly good world as soon as he existed? Because a perfectly good world is where everyone is best off by definition and having it instantly would be a 100% good thing. It would cost NOTHING to make a perfectly good world instantly since he/she/it is "omnipotent". Saying it is impossible is admitting God doesn't exist. "Why would a omnibenevolent being not want free will?" Because it allows people to do bad things, you haven't yet addressed why he doesn't give them good will or God's will since he is all good. "The appearance of evil is an unfortunate outcome" Which shouldn't possible under an "omnipotent", omnibenevolent, and omniscient being by definition. "God is not responsible for the actions of an independent Human" Wrong, he would be since he is an"omnipotent", omniscient, and omnibenevolent being by definition. If I had the power to make the world a place where everyone is best off, I would do it instantly and I would be infinitely more moral than your "God" will ever be. He wouldn't even need to take away "free will" to do it, he would only need to enforce good things to happen and again, and again it would be infinitely more moral to instantly create and maintain an existence where everyone is best off which is a perfectly good world by definition. If what you call God, can't instantly create and maintain a perfectly good existence, why call him God? I think it would make more sense to define God that way. And like I stated, I don't think God exists,I however I want God to exist and believe it is possible to build God through technological progression since it increases and also accelerates. Hence a technological singularity like the big bang, supernova (that created the planets), or Cambrian explosion. As soon as he/she/it exists I envision we will have a perfectly good existence, and that being who creates it will be the one true God. Message me if you want to discuss more in private or public
God Doesn't Exist

What, how were you able to come to that conclusion. God can be both infinitely powerful and totally good. I even gave you the definitions. In no way does the definition omnipotent imply that you are able to do evil, it just means you are all powerful. Of course, a human could abuse this power, but God is not a human. Omnipotent does not state you can do evil Omnibenevolent states all your actions, reasoning, and personality are always good. Yes, there won"t be evil, but bad things is different from evil. No, you didn"t even respond to my example. If you were to fall on your face, we know that"s bad. If you were to put your hand in a campfire, we know that"s bad If you were to drink too much water, we know that"s bad. Bad can be used to refer to evil things, BUT it does not mean evil. Therefore they are different things Rather, Bad is used to determine unfavorable consequence from an action, while evil is towards malignant and damaging actions done on purpose. So, no, you can take out evil, but there can always still be something bad. I admitted that evil and bad are different. Just because you make bad subjective does not prove your argument that evil and bad are the same. Fine, God is being who CAN keep and will make a 100 percent free evil world. He does not do this instantly because of the Devils challenge against his name and rulership. If God would have instantly destroyed the Devil, the question whether God has the right to rule would still stand and taint his omnibenevolence, therefore God needs to respond to this challenge in the form of letting humans and the Devil rule for themselves, to show humans that they need God. If God had not responded, He wouldn"t have been perfectly good since instance destruction could be seen as rash and unreasonable. Therefore, An omnibenevolent being does mean they would keep a 100 percent evil free existence at all times. It just means that the being IS 100 percent evil free at all times. By definition, omnibenevolent beings don"t have to keep a 100 percent evil free exiting universe, because this quality is to the being and not the universe. Wrong. Why would a omnibenevolent being not want free will? It is rightfull decision to want His creation to worship Him. The appearance of evil is an unfortunate outcome, but then again, God is not responsible for the actions of an independent Human. Yet, God is still good. He is permitting evil to occur now, so that all those good can have a chance to serve Him. This also ties in to why God is permitting evil, because of the challenge. Now, when God cleans the Earth, He will destroy any evil that pops up in the paradise afterwards, because the only reason why He is permitting evil now, is to respond to a challenge. What do you mean robot? If we don"t have free will or opinions, we ARE robots because as robots, we wouldn"t be able to decide on our own. God is omnibenevolent, but even the definition states, that that does not mean He is supposed to keep a 100 percent evil free existence at all times, but to BE 100 percent evil free at all times. Therefore, your main argument would be refuted.
God Doesn't Exist

"Omnipotent: All powerful; having unlimited power Omnibenevolent: All loving,; infinitely good By definition, what you state kind of doesn"t make sense. But I can still understand what you are asking." I hope you are trolling. How does it not make sense? Being omnibenevolent LIMITS what you can do such as evil or bad things. Being omnipotent ALLOWs you to do evil and bad things. Contradiction by definition. "Now bad is not evil, each have two different meanings." That depends on how you define bad and evil. "Therefore, there will always be good and bad in the world." Then you just admitted that a bad or evil free world is impossible. So I will say, why call him God if he/she/it can't maintain a bad and evil free existence instantly. "He CAN create a universe and world filled only with peace and happiness." Not just CAN, but WILL instantly, by definition: the quality to maintain an existence filled with only peace and happiness "Just because there is present evil does not determine that He is incapable of doing so.", I never defined him/her/it to be incapable of maintaining a perfectly good existence or a universe filled with only peace and happiness. "I already stated my answer as to why God is permitting evil." Please quote me so I know what you are responding to. Assuming you are responding to this- "Does God, under your definition have the quality of maintaining a perfectly good existence or an existence free of evil where everyone is best off and there is no devil?" God would NOT permit evil or bad things BECAUSE it would be an evil and bad thing to do GIVEN the power AND BY DEFINITION assuming you ignore the contradiction with omnipotence and omnibenevolence. You have NOT stated as to whether you agree to the definition, here's my refined one. Do YOU define God to have the quality of maintaining a 100% evil-free and bad-free existence or a universe filled with only peace and happiness like you said, and NOT permitting evil and bad things. "Two, God wants us to have free will, therefore He will not intervene in what we decide, but of course states what we should do if we wish to live forever." A benepotent God would NOT want free will as it allows you to do bad things. He/She/It WOULD instead give people GOOD will or GOD's will. Better be "robots" that do good things for themselves and others as opposed to being "robots" that can do only good or bad things, would even putting in God's will make you a "robot"? Is God a robot? "Yes, a perfectly good world as robots? In order for you enjoy to life, God has allowed us to have opinions. But I already stated why God hasn"t brought instant good into the world, He wants us to excercise our free will, since that"s the point of free will." It is NOT necessary anyone needs to be a "robot" to instantly have a perfectly good existence, JUST as it is NOT necessary to instantly be a "robot" running on free will or God's will. God DOE NOT need everyone to have opinions first BY DEFINITION in order for everyone to enjoy life. IF he/she/it can't have everyone enjoy life without needing to have everyone to have opinions, why call him/her/it God?
God Doesn't Exist

Omnipotent: All powerful; having unlimited power Omnibenevolent: All loving,; infinitely good By definition, what you state kind of doesn"t make sense. But I can still understand what you are asking. Take this into account: In order for us to know what is good, there must be a persception of what is bad. Now bad is not evil, each have two different meanings. Evil involves things such as committing atrocities on purpose or accident, such as murder, rape, corruption, or such things. Bad is based on what is good. We know rape is evil But We know that falling on our face is bad, eating an extremely hot pepper is bad, but this is not evil, right? Therefore, there will always be good and bad in the world. Because the bad is what helps dictate what is good. But bad is not evil Therefore God will eliminate the evil from the world, but the bad will be present. Makes more sense? God is always good and can maintain himself good. He CAN create a universe and world filled only with peace and happiness. Just because there is present evil does not determine that He is incapable of doing so. I already stated my answer as to why God is permitting evil. One, He has to respond to the Devils challenge against His name once and for all. Two, God wants us to have free will, therefore He will not intervene in what we decide, but of course states what we should do if we wish to live forever. Yes, God can make a perfectly good existence free of evil, but in order to maintain His wishes for His creation to have free will, this (The devil and humans disobeying God) happened. Therefore it is not His fault, but it is an outcome of what He has permitted. Yes, a perfectly good world as robots? In order for you enjoy to life, God has allowed us to have opinions. But I already stated why God hasn"t brought instant good into the world, He wants us to excercise our free will, since that"s the point of free will. It may be ideal, but to varying people For your, it may, but what about that one person who is suffering from poverty, with no hope of a better future. It wouldn"t be ideal for them. Rather God does not think in terms of ideal, but of reason and goodness.
God Doesn't Exist

"God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent" That would be contradictory since you are saying he can't do evil things (omnibenevolence) while he can do evil things (omnipotence). "The main issue is WE humans want everything to quickly happen, we want it now." So even if it was a perfectly good existence, it is bad that it happens instantly in the beginning? Because remember, a perfectly good existence is where everyone is best off by definition. Don't you want a perfectly good existence to happen instantly? And you didn't really answer my question. Does God, under your definition have the quality of maintaining a perfectly good existence or an existence free of evil where everyone is best off and there is no devil?
God Doesn't Exist

God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He will keep a world of completely good and has the power to do anything What I detailed in my previous answer is why God is permitting this present evil to exist. As to answer once and for all the challenge that has been brought against His sovereignty. The main issue is WE humans want everything to quickly happen, we want it now. This is both selfish and careless of us, since there are still many in the world that wish to know the truth and have hope, so God is permitting a set amount of time to pass so that He can gather all those willing to follow Him. Those that deliberately avoid Him will be sentenced to death and those that didn"t have a chance, after the time comes, will have an opportunity in the 1000 years after Amargedon. He wants as many followers to help teach all the ones that didn"t have a chance to learn, to finally learn in the 1000 years of peace for the final test.
God Doesn't Exist

So let me ask you some questions. Does God, under your definition have the quality of maintaining a perfectly good existence or an existence free of evil where everyone is best off and there is no devil? If the answer to the question above is no, what is your definition of God, and why call what you would call God, God if he can't maintain an evil free world? You haven't told me whether you agreed to the quality of God I layered out
God Doesn't Exist

The existence of evil does not prove God not existing. One, God made his angels and Jesus first. Therefore, He had servants following his rulership in the beginning. Two, He made humans as a creation that would be able to enjoy what He created, such as the animals and Earth. He gave Humans free will, to decide whether they would willingly follow God"s rulership based on their love fore him. When Adam and Eve proved that they loved themselves more than God, and in turn sinned against Him, they brought imperfection not only to themselves, but to their kin. Therefore, human descendants are born with sin and there is evil in the world when people refuse to follow God"s will and love him. Some angels also left God with the Devil, Satan, because they also wanted something they don"t deserve, Human worship. Satan is the instigator and he and his demons are the ones who instigated the evil that fell onto the world. Why is God permitting evil to stay on Earth? Why not instantly destroy everything and restart? When the Devil had made Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, he had done so by making them question whether God"s rule over humans and angels was justifiable. The Devil questioned whether God had the right to govern people. If God were to have elimated the Devil instantly, it would not have answered this question and brought even more doubt to the remaining angels that served Him.God is permitting evil to exist now to show Humans once and for all how WE NEED God"s rulership in order to live peacefully and happy. Once God comes and destroys this system of things, and lets his followers live on an Earthly paradise, no one would be capable of questioning His authority, because He would have already proven how He should rule over humans and we should worship Him. This is an answer to the Devils question against God.
There Is No Observable Evidence For the Big Bang

You have directly contradicted yourself, and have subsequently conceded the entire point to me when you first agree to use the definition of the big bang that includes:"According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the "big-bang model [is the] widely held theory of the evolution of the universe."Then you directly say:"When talking about the evolution of the universe, an expanding universe, etc., we must agree that this is operational science because we can both observe it."The expansion of the universe, that you conceded we can observe, IS direct observable evidence supporting the big bang. You have agreed that we can observe this, and the debate was formed predicated on the idea that if I could demonstrate that there is at least SOME evidence for the big bang. Therefore, your claim, "there is no evidence for the big bang" has been shown demonstrably false by your own definition. At this point I need not even present any further evidence until I hear your rebuttal.
There Is No Observable Evidence For the Big Bang

I accept your challenge, on the basis that we both have an understanding of the word "observation": "something you notice by watching and listening"(1), and an understanding of the "Big Bang": According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the "big-bang model [is the] widely held theory of the evolution of the universe. Its essential feature is the emergence of the universe from a state of extremely high temperature and density"the so-called big bang that occurred 13.8 billion years ago"(2). When talking about the Big Bang that, apparently, occurred 13.8 billion years ago, we must agree that this is historical (origins) science, not operational science. When talking about the evolution of the universe, an expanding universe, etc., we must agree that this is operational science because we can both observe it. (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2)http://www.britannica.com...
There Is No Observable Evidence For the Big Bang

In the comments of a prior debate, logicaldebator made the following claim:"Believing in a Creator is, based on observations made, much more scientific than believing in a "big bang" which has no observable evidence to back it up, whereas believing in an orderly and logical Creator makes much more since because we live in an orderly and logical universe."I will be arguing that there is in fact substantial evidence that the big bang occured, but all I will require to refute his claim that there is no evience is to provide SOME evidence.The big bang is defined here as the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe. (1)The first round is for acceptance only and no arguments are allowed to be made. We will both present our arguments in round 2.(1) http://lmgtfy.com...;
Getting a driver license at 16 is to early.

Whether or not the brain is "fully developed" is irrelevant. An alien with 1000 IQ could have a brain which is not "fully developed" until it is 50. Should we not allow it to drive cars at age 45 just because it hasn't hit its peak of 1000 IQ? Of-course not. The age is set at 16 because there should be a minimum level of maturity for drivers, Not because those under 16 suffer poor spacial awareness, Poor sight, Poor reaction speeds or any other factor which would directly affect driving ability. Driving is a basic task that humans are amply mentally equipped to undertake, And don't need to be near 'peak performance' to be able to do so safely and effectively. What's more, Multiple studies show that the brain starts to atrophy at age 30. What should we do, Ban everyone between 25 and 30 because they aren't in this arbitrary peak which hasn't been shown necessary to be a safe driver? There is already a lock safety lock on who can drive - the test. You must be a competent driver to pass the test, And so once we can assume a person is reasonably mature, Ie at 16, Then they can show their competency with a test and then there is no reason to deny them a license.
Morality is overall a good thing.

Before I begin, I would like to provide a brief roadmap. I will begin by defending my own case, then I will turn to my opponent's contentions. My opponent says that since there is no action that is always deemed "right" or "wrong", the problem will arise of conflicting morals, and as a result, morality is bad. However, this logic is flawed, because morals guide people in the right direction based on what is right or wrong for themselves, not necessarily for others. Nothing is perfect. There is no ultimate solution to determining whether or not something is guaranteed to be right or guaranteed to be wrong, because, as my opponent pointed out, "right" and "wrong" are very subjective terms. However, if we were to eliminate morals and fundamental principles altogether, what we would be left with is no basis for deciding which choices to make. Morals give people the ability to determine what they should do based on what they believe in. If people do not do what they believe in and don't show morality, they are fundamentally diminishing the quality of life because they are giving up the autonomy to select choices that are appropriate for themselves given any set of circumstances. Though there may be conflicting morals, when you weigh that against the quality of life gained from morality, morality does more good then harm, and therefore is a overall a good thing. I would like to move on to my opponent's arguments. He states that since someone can do something that seems morally good and someone else sees it as morally bad, violence occurs. He uses the example of Timothy McVeigh, an example of where a person believed their morality to be good and the government viewed it as bad. He states that actions should not be judged on a moral scale. However, this debate is not questioning whether or not actions should be judged on a moral scale, we are questioning whether or not morality is overall good or bad. In the case of Timothy McVeigh, the justice system used their own morals in order to determine whether or not Timothy was guilty of crime. My opponent only points out examples in which morality is bad. However, in a majority of cases, morality turns out to be good. Morality is what preserves our own honesty, and our own integrity. He suggests that humans are "good" because of our evolutionary pathway by valuing first what is in his or her best interest and then what is next best for the civilization. However, valuing what is best in your interest and your society's interest is, in fact, a moral, since a moral is defined as any principle of right conduct. Therefore, what my opponent says is a cause of good behavior is, in fact, morality. Therefore, since morality once again is behind the good that we do, and it outweighs the bad that is done in society, morality is overall a good thing, and I urge you to vote for the affirmation of this round.