BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Agnosticism Presupposes That God Does Not Exist

I very much enjoyed following your logic. I will now offer my rebuttal. Review of ClaimsClaim 1: If God exists then he is omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he can do anything logically or metaphysically possible. Agnostics do not claim to know characteristics of a hypothetical God such as omnipotence. However, I will accept this assertion. Claim 2: Proving himself by making himself known to people is logically and metaphysically possible. Since the extent of what is possible is not well-defined, we cannot say for sure that this statement is true. Agnosticism holds that knowning whether this statement is true is impossible, as it is part of the essential nature of things (see your original definition of atheist). Entertaining this idea further. . the extent of possiblity may be limited by any prior committments established during the origin of things, such as a committment to logical soundness of events (i. e. no absolute contradictions allowed). Obviously if contradictions were allowed in the realm of possibility, then knowledge would be irrelevant and undefined, and both our arguments would be moot. Knowing God (defined as the ultimate cause of things in Pro's definition of agnostic), may contradict the essential nature of knowing. This possibility is not ruled out by agnosticism. To shed light on this position, I'll ask: how can God, the ultimate cause of things, be a thing itself? If you suppose the ultimate cause of things is a thing, then you reach a contradiction. Obviously, that thing must also have a cause, which is the true ultimate cause of things. You may conclude by induction that the ultimate cause of things is not a thing itself. Supposing the ultimate cause of things is not a defineable thing, then it cannot be known by rational minds, which require definitions to say where one thing ends and the next begins in order to distinguish and/or know that those things are. In this case, the position of agnosticism is concluded. Claim 3: Therefore, if God exists, it follows logically from omnipotence that he can make known his existence. Let's zoom out for a second. It follows logically from omnipotence that God can make his existence knowable, but it does not imply that God has, as God is equally capable of making his existence unknowable. This fact refutes the next claim. Claim 4: However, if he is able to make known his existence, then this existence is knowable. By my previous point, just because God is able to make his existence knowable, does not mean God has not made his existence unknowable. ConclusionSince Pro's claims 2 and 4 are not necessarily true, the subsequent claims do not necessarily follow to Pro's conclusion. Therefore, by its own definition, agnosticism does not presuppose that God does or does not exist.
Agnosticism Presupposes That God Does Not Exist

IntroductionAgnosticism holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable. I argue, that this presupposes that God does not exist. ArgumentIf God exists then he is omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he can do anything logically or metaphysically possible. Proving himself by making himself known to people is logically and metaphysically possible. Therefore, if God exists, it follows logically from omnipotence that he can make known his existence. However, if he is able to make known his existence, then this existence is knowable. If his existence is knowable, then this is incompatible with Agnosticism. Therefore, the Agnostic position could only be true if God does not exist. This means, that Agnosticism presupposes that God does not exist.ConclusionThe resolution has been affirmed.
Agnosticism Presupposes That God Does Not Exist

I accept the challenge from Pro to refute his conclusion that Agnosticism presupposes that God does not exist. This will be my first debate on Debate. org. Pro defines agnosticism as, a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable. There are other less specific definitions, but for the purpose of this debate I accept this definition. Pro would also like to assume omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence as known characteristics of God, though I hold that such characteristics are obviously not known or defended by agnostics, and suggest that we use the definition already given in his definition of agnosticism: the ultimate cause [of things]. .. I wish us both luck and sound points that benefit others. Good luck!
Agnosticism Presupposes That God Does Not Exist

In this debate, I will argue that Agnosticism presupposes that God does not exist. "ag·nos·tic[ag-nos-tik] noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable" By "God", I mean the tri-omni God (omnipotent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent)First round is for acceptance. Good luck!
The Fellowship could have used eagles to get to Mordor

I shall now counter my opponents arguments 1. They ruin the idea of stealth.Im not sure what Pro is really trying to say, but let me explain why that wouldn't work in the first place. The armies of the free people during the 3rd age was greatly weakened. Men, Elves and dwarfs weren't on good terms. Gondor's armies had greatly weakened, and they needed men to defend its cities from Sauron. Most elves, were fleeing to the Grey Havens, and Elrond himself, said that the time of the Elves were coming to an end. Finally for the dwarfs, most of their clans were scattered and divided. 2. There still could have been 3 books and or movies. Con says, "the Eagles belong to Manwe the second book could have been the Fellowship somehow contacting Manwe and take on some kind of challenge to get the Eagles." This would be impossible, because Valar's are not allowed to directly help. Even if they asked for help, they wouldn't get help. Manwe lives in Valinor, and if they wanted to meet his they would need to leave Middle-Earth. "The third book would have been the Fellowship and their army of all races with Eagles fighting straight into the heart of Middle Earth". I explained that in earlier paragraph, so hopefully you understand.3. The Eagles would be fighting the Nazguls.The eagles coming in to fight the nazgul was only epic because they weren't expected. Also in the books, that part of the battle wasn't as epic, because the chapter ended as soon as Pippin said "the eagles are coming". Also, if the eagles were fighting the Nazgul, what happened to the fellowship? Did they simply drop them as soon as they saw the Nazgul? Even if that happened, Sauron's other servants would attack them.
The Fellowship could have used eagles to get to Mordor

Ok, well I thought you were debating that they could have used the eagles to get to mordor and my opinion is that they couldn't have. But I still like a challenge so I shall try this. There was much adventure in the Fellowship not using the eagles to get to Mordor but there also could have still been a story if they did. 1. They ruin the idea of stealth. This means they try to use brute force to break through the lines of Sauron and that means they would have needed to form a legion with the elves the men the dwarfs etc and that would have been an epic battle, bigger than the Battle of the Five Armies. 2. There still could have been 3 books and or movies. The first one could still have been mostly the same but the meeting in Rivendelle concluded that they would need the Eagles to get to Mordor. Since the Eagles belong to Manwe the second book could have been the Fellowship somehow contacting Manwe and take on some kind of challenge to get the Eagles. The third book would have been the Fellowship and their army of all races with Eagles fighting straight into the heart of Middle Earth. 3. The Eagles would be fighting the Nazguls. The Eagles coming in to save the day at the Black Gate was definitely one of the most exciting events in the LOTR trilogy. In this situation, the Fellowship would have been fighting the orcs and the Eagles would have been fighting the Nazguls and that would have just been exciting and a great battle.
The Fellowship could have used eagles to get to Mordor

I will now state some reasons why the Eagles could not have been used.1. Eagles are giant!Had the fellowship have chosen to use eagles, it seriously would have compromised their idea of stealth. With Sauron and Saruman sending spies everywhere, it would be only a matter of time before they are located. The eagles easily could have been shot down by arrows and that would have been the end of the fellowship.2. They would need to restGoing from Rivendell to Mordor is certainly not easy. It requires the Eagles to rest, and large amounts of nourishment will be needed. The fellowship would spend too much time looking for food to sustain these animals. 3. Legions of OrcsSay hypothetically they make their way to Mordor, they would still have to face hundreds of thousands of Orcs. It is very unlikely they would have been able to withstand the brute force of Mordor orcs from annihilating them.4.ManweBecause eagles are the creation of Manwe, they would have been instructed to not interfere directly with the situtation, as it is a Valar policy.
Justin Bieber looks like a little boy

You begin by defining 'little boy' as 'short male', but then conclude by drawing comparisons, such as facial features, to a male toddler, which has no relevance to the definition that you have set out. I therefore discount your concluding comments.Secondly, I refute your claim that Justin Bieber is not showing any signs of further growth. Show me the evidence that he has stopped growing? Men can continue to grow up until 25, especially in cases where puberty began later than usual. Justin Bieber is currently 19-years-old and started puberty significantly later than the average male population.Finally, I would like to point out that Justin Bieber is a Canadian that travels around the entire world; I therefore find it appropriate to compare his stature on a global scale, instead of the arbitrarily choosing the USA.Average male height: 5'6" [1]Justin Bieber's height: 5'7' (according to my adversary)As you can see, the figures show that Justin Bieber is actually considered a 'tall man' by the majority of the world, as opposed to a little boy. [1] - http://www.averagemaleheight.com...
Justin Bieber looks like a little boy

i would like to define little as small in size,and boy as in male.Thank you so much for accepting this debateAccording to the National Center for Health Statistics, the average height for an adult male in the United States is:69.2 inches, or 5 feet 9.2 inches.Justin Bieber is currently 5' 7' and does not show any signs of further growth. Therefore he is considered "little" compared to the current male population All we have to look at are facts,He is short(little) and he is male(boy)Justin Bieber looks like a little boy Also he has skinny arms and a baby face- which are the same characteristics as a 10 year old boyfurther proving He looks like a little boynow it's time for NEGGood luck homie GGGG
Ron Paul is the only fiscal conservative running for president on a major-party ticket

This is a one-round debate. Rudy Giuliani had (more than) his share of negatives. However, he was the only candidate -- other than Ron Paul -- who was even remotely fiscally conservative. The nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union issued the following press release on January 29, the day Rudy called it quits. http://www.ntu.org... In it, the NTU says Rudy would cut government spending by $1.5 billion. That's chump change, for sure, but it's a lot better than the other frontrunners. On the Democratic side, Obama and Hillary are calling for proposals to expand government by $287 billion and $218.2 billion, respectively. But the Republicans aren't much better. The Christian Socialist Huckabee calls for an increase by $54.2 billion, and the industrial fascist Romney wants to expand government by $19.5 billion. John "interest rates should be 0%" McCain wants to expand by "only" $6.9 billion. How about Ron Paul? He calls for spending cuts of $150.1 billion. Every dollar of government spending has to be paid for. It can be paid for through taxation, debt, or inflation. Taxes are the most honest way of paying for government spending. Debt passes the burden on to future generations. Inflation robs savers and wage earners in a way they don't even see it. No matter how spending is paid for, it IS paid for by a "tax" -- direct tax, grandchildren tax, or inflation tax. Therefore, you CANNOT CUT "TAXES" WITHOUT CUTTING SPENDING, and of course, the government CANNOT BE RESTRAINED from spending so long as the Federal Reserve System continues to exist. Ron Paul is the only person still in the running that would cut government spending. Giuliani's puny $1.5 billion is outdone by a magnitude of 100 by Ron Paul. If you do not vote for Ron Paul, you are voting for a fiscal liberal socialist/fascist -- the data don't lie.
The National Anthem does not represent what Americans stand for.

Our national anthem is said to represent freedom, and the things for which we as a nation have fought. This national anthem states that we are proud , and that we hold our flag high. It speaks of the courage, the intensity, and the resilience we show in battle. Yet, is this what we fought for? We do not fight merely to preserve the nation, we fight to preserve that which is good about the nation. We fight to preserve and to keep the benefits of our nation. When the veterans return home and they hear a new national anthem, will they wonder what they have fought for? Will they wonder if preserving our nation was worth doing, despite the change of the national anthem which we stand under? They will not: they did not fight to preserve the war and the strength of which "The Star-Spangled Banner" talks, they fought to keep our great nation. They did not fight for the explosions and resilience in our national anthem. They fought with the explosions, persistence, and resilience to retain the beauty and greatness of America. A national anthem should unite its people, it should represent what a nation stands by and fights to keep. We do not support war for the sake of war; we support war for the sake of the union. Yet not for the union do we fight, but we fight for the values and the beauty embodied in the union. Our national anthem should display this proudly to the world, so that we might become more unified under the common cause that we share, and more proudly lift our voices in song. I propose "America the Beautiful" as a substitute for "The Star-Spangled Banner." Instead of speaking merely of our pride and strength in war, it speaks of the beauty of America (hence the title "America the Beuatiful"). This is what we work for. This is what brings us to unite together. This is a song that does what a suitable national anthem should do.
Love does not exist

Unfortunately this debate has been fruitless. We've both been arguing the same points back and forth since this debate began. Simply, love is an emotion because it fits the definition of an emotion. My opponent disagrees. I'll leave it up to the voters to decide. Love is "an" emotion meaning " a type of" of or "a subset of" emotion. I'm not saying the terms love and emotion are interchangeable. So by giving the lynching example and having someone feel an emotion of pity I'm not sure why you say that any kind of emotion = love. It seems as though you are still arguing that all people who get married are in love. What about gold diggers? ( women who marry men because they are rich, not because they are in love) which destroys your whole argument about all people who get married are in love. Love exists and love is an emotion.
Love does not exist

my opponent is right about one thing, 'diverse definition or explanation of a single term' but to many, a bit self righteous.. REBUTTALS MY opponent said: . Love is an emotion because it fits the description of an emotion.I could go back and give more evidence based on my previous argument but my opponent chose to ignore them, such as using the term "...feeling" used to describe love. But then, if my opponent claim all this, what is his evidence? Now if we are to go by what you said, it then means that love is feeling plus emotion. That is practically absurd. Love is never emotion. Emotion can come out from pity. Let me ask my opponent this question again since I have asked in my preceding argument but he failed to answer it. ' if you see where negroes are been lynched. And you feel pity or your subconcious feels emotion about the maltreating, will you call it love? Certainly no because you only felt emotional but not love. My opponent also asked: If these marriages have failed, how do you know they were in love in the first place? You're assuming that everyone who gets married is in love. I will be logical here. I Will answer this question by asking my opponent his own question. Why did your mum marry your dad? Is it not because they claim they love each other? I even thank my opponent for supporting me when he said that most of the marriages that broke up are not in love. FULL EXPLANATION. One of the reasons why people marry is because of what they 'love'. And based on the definition of love, I don't think we should have broken homes since my opponent said, that love is feelings and emotions. What am saying is this, there is nothing like love. A situation where one will like to marry a beautiful person or handsome and yet my opponent is saying that it does exist. If love does exist, then my opponent should rebutt all my arguments. 'IN CONCLUSION' I gave reasons why love does not exist, I addressed issues, I rebutted all my opponents weak arguments without facts, and I bore the burden of proof and properly addressed the motion well. MY OPPONENTS WEAKNESS: MY Opponent have failed to prove that love exists, my opponent have not rebutted all my argument, my opponent did not challenge my definition and my stand, my opponent depends on one argument which is his first presentation, my opponent even agreed with some of my arguments which shows am ahead of this debate.... LOVE DOES NOT EXIST!!!
Love does not exist

I've already explained my arguments and my opponent doesn't accept them despite the evidence. settled argument #1Pro says: "I Gave definition of love and emotion then I compared the two and gave reasons why emotions and love are not the same. I don't know why my opponent is still repeating his argument which I have earlier rebutted"in the previous round I've already stated: Unfortunately, you don't decide what definitions meet a specific concept. Love is an emotion because it fits the description of an emotion. I could go back and give more evidence based on my previous argument but my opponent chose to ignore them, such as using the term "...feeling" used to describe love.settled argument #2 Pro: " ...I gave reasons why emotions and love are not the same." I've already contented this. Re-read the debate.Pro: "have come to the conclusion that love does not exist. I say this because if you look at the fail rate of marriage and every other relationship it is huge. >50% of all marriages fail."If these marriages have failed, how do you know they were in love in the first place? You're assuming that everyone who gets married is in love. I've already rebutted this argument also.Pro: How can something that exists be interpreted differently by different people? Surely, if it does exist, it should have one objective definition. Just because something can be interpreted in more than one way doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I could watch a movie and have one interpretation of what it meant and my friend could have a totally different interpretation. That doesn't mean the movie itself doesn't exist. Also I don't know what you mean by "...'should' have one objective definition".
Love does not exist

My simple rebuttal to your argument of unwanted pregnancy and abortion is this: how do you prove that the mothers who aborted their baby or gave them away had love for their baby? You can't. If these mothers didn't have love for their babies then this argument is null and void and that's something you would need to prove."I defined emotions and love stating that they are different but my opponent continently choose to ignore that fact. NO WOUNDER!!!..."Unfortunately, you don't decide what definitions meet a specific concept. Love is an emotion because it fits the description of an emotion. I could call a car a boat, but either I would be changing the definition of what a car is, or I would not be accurately describing what a car actually is.In this case, love is an emotion. Don't rely on just what I say, look at what the definition of an emotion is and see if love fits the description.I will reiterate what I've said in my previous post "...ultimately love is subjective to the person experiencing it so nobody can definitively say that someone else isn't experiencing love."Maybe somebody loves a sexy girl, but you might consider it lust. You have no say in what the other person feels to be true because you don't feel the same feelings that they do.It's obvious that my opponent is trying to change a standard definition to meet his own criteria for what love is or isn't. Unfortunately, it's already been defined by him, and under his own definitions, "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection.." just by using the word "feeling" in the definiton, you prove that love is an emotion. Love is therefore an emotion. Attempting to change this well-known fact is just an exercise in semantics.