BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Whether or not the universe was created, is independent of our knowledge of the universe.

You will be arguing that whether or not the universe was created, is dependent on our knowledge of the universe. 2. There will be equal burden of proof.3. This debate will be primarily based on logical arguments and reasoning. 4. Irrelevant semantics will be kept to a minimum by both sides. Failure to adhere to this rule should be taken into account by voters. 5. You shall begin your arguments immediately in round 1. 6. In round 3 you will not post new arguments but you can post rebuttals and refer to previous arguments. I look forward to an interesting debate. Good luck and may the best argument win. *****Knowing how a creation works and the processes by which it was created does not change whether or not it was created. Therefore, if the universe was created then our knowledge of the universe will not change that fact. If there is a creator, he exists regardless of what you know about him or his creation. And if there is no creator, he doesn't exist regardless of any knowledge or belief you may have. Knowledge of a creation is independent from the creation itself.
The bible and god has no place in a modern civilized society

"Thankfully this nation was NOT founded under god who is 100% pure evil. Proof of that can be found under the 10 commandments." -This is just to demonstrate the effects of large statements. Saying that god is 100% pure evil would indicate of course that everything god did was bad. This would go on to indicate that the commandment Thou shall not kill, which god gave Noah in the bible, is evil. "OK now further onto what you say" "More specifically I would like to focus on not murdering. Overall, I hope we can agree that murdering is bad." Sure it is, but not according to YOUR god with his massive genocides after genocides. Are you serious? So that"s more than a super massive hypocritical contradiction at best." Here you agree that killing is bad, which would imply that the commandment not to kill is good, which would mean that at least a tiny part of god is good. Therefore, god is not 100% evil. Your debate topic is also a broad statement and should be able to be disproved by a small inconstancy. Could you please spend part of your next response disproving this argument. 1. We want good in our modern day society 2. Not killing is good 3. Part of the bible says we should not kill 4. Therefore we should at least incorporate this small part of the bible. Even following what you said with basically the entire bible and god being terrible, you still say that killing is bad which is one of the commandments given to Noah by god. What is wrong with following a good thing if it is part of a larger evil, as long as this evil is completely dismissed and not done. For example your profile says that you are for socialism. Well, Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party, which had connections to socialism. Yet, I am sure you would say that socialism is still good and that society should incorporate it while not incorporating a bunch of Nazi ideas. If we don't want to kill people, then why do we not at least want to incorporate a tiny part of the bible which says to not kill. One good example of a great thing in society that relate to the bible and god are christian hospitals. I would say that Mercy hospital, founded by the sisters of Mercy, and other hospitals like St. Luke's, and Christians are great for society. Unless not killing and hospitals are bad, then why is it bad to just profit from at least a tiny amount of good in the bible. Finally, in just a general response to your arguments supported by bible passages involving god hating and killing everything, there is a reason why not everything is interpreted literally. Throughout the last 2000 ish years people have disagreed on how to interpret the bible. The Catholic Church had its say, then the Lutheran Church, then more Protestant Churches, then more Protestant Churches, ect. Simply saying here are bible passages and this is what they mean does not always work.
The bible and god has no place in a modern civilized society

"The bible and god has no place in a modern civilized society" is a rather large statement. To refute this I would argue that I simply need to show a small part of the bible and god to be good in a modern civilized society. For example I would say that at least parts of the ten commandments are good for today's society. 1.Thou shall have no other gods before Me. 2.You shall not make idols. 3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. 4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 5.Honor your father and your mother. 6.You shall not murder. 7.You shall not commit adultery. 8.You shall not steal. 9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10.You shall not covet. https://lifehopeandtruth.com... More specifically I would like to focus on not murdering. Overall, I hope we can agree that murdering is bad. Therefore, if the bible says that killing is bad, then that part of the bible should be in our modern civilized society. In a perfect world, we would not murder people. Even if you disagree with some of the ten commandments or the bible in general, for example you pointed out that that it is wrong to always obey your parents no matter what, you are in fact agree with some of the ten commandments. I agree with you that following your parents as the rape, torture and beat you is wrong. I feel supported by some of the ten commandment which say that adultery is wrong and that you should treat your neighbor as yourself. Another example you wrote is: "Deuteronomy 13 The entire chapter tells you to kill anyone who does not believe in your god." I see this as disagreeing with the bible because, as you put, it promotes killing. Here you thereby agree with the commandment that Thou shall not murder. At least this commandment has a place in modern civilization, which mean that part of god and the bible have a place in modern civilization. To sum this up: 1. Killing is bad 2. Part of the bible says killing is bad 3. This part of the bible should be in a modern civilized society because it teaches against something bad 4. Therefore, at least part of the bible and god should be in a modern civilized society
art is needed in todays society

why is it? its because society has YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT "our society fast-paced daily lives have made the arts obsolete - WE have forgotten to observe such little things like the arts and devalued it. WE take it for granted and forgotten to appreciate it." I SAID You use "we" implying ALL of us have forgotten art. Which i do not believe. THEN YOU SAID "first off, i never said that "we" should ALL create art" Your argument is that we need to appreciate it, we have forgotten it. is that what you mean by "we take it for granted and forgotten to appreciate it." yes? I am saying that we don't need to appreciate it. We have lives, they are filled with work, or our favorite activities. Throughout life we have been introduced to art, but like you said people don't appreciate it. I see it as you are a used car salesman. You've shown the car, they said no. They want another car and they buy it, live happily ever after. Until you show up at their door saying you should have bought the other car. People don't appreciate it, that the fact, as you stated. It is their choice, its not like they have been hiden from it their whole live and you are enlighting them.They see art. They don't care. "I dont need any evidence to prove my argument." I asked for evidence that lately there is a sudden decline in Arts, and the appreciation of it. If people have never cared, there is a reason. "forgotten to simply stop for a few moments and observe - appreciate. whether it is the appreciation of nature, drawings, sculptures, the people themselves, it is all art." First of all we are here debating if ART IS NEEDED IN TODAYS SOCIETY. Not if we should appreciate it. The answer is NO art is not needed in todays society. :- )
art is needed in todays society

yeah. im bored. have you listened to the cd? but ill throw you a bone, since you want to do this... first off, i never said that "we" should ALL create art. i proposed the appreciation of it. i dont need any evidence to prove my argument. one can see it every day. the rushed, almost desperate, movements pf everyday people, the expressions in peoples' faces, etc. why is it? its because society has forgotten to simply stop for a few moments and observe - appreciate. whether it is the appreciation of nature, drawings, sculptures, the people themselves, it is all art.
art is needed in todays society

First off, our lives ARE fast-paced. But you have provided no evidence that a STEADY DECLINE of art previlence has occured over the years. If it has always been this way, there is no problem. You use "we" implying ALL of us have forgotten art. Which i do not believe. The reason some have "forgotten" about art is that we don't need it. We have lives, and families to worry about. With inflation and rising cost of living, we must spend our time with work and things to pleasure us on off time. If "We" don't do art, than it doesnt matter. We don't gain.
Abortion

Well there are many ways to answer that. My favorite would be te violinist kidnapping. "You wake up in a hospital room. You are then introduced to a world famous violinist and philosopher. You are informed that they are having a vital organ failure and have been placed on a donor list. You are then told that you can be surgically connected for the next nine months without it heavily affecting your normal activities for 6-8 of those months. No one will look down on or blame you if you say no, although the individual will die. You are left to make your choice alone. Assuming that you are their only genetic match possible and no other match would do, what would you do?" I say both options are, as you put it, morally neutral with no climactic problems or benefits to you and conceivably anyone else. Yes no one will ever hear them play in an orchestra again but that will not harm, nor extraordinarily benefit, the world.
Abortion

Yes, we do appear to be on the same page. Or at least when it comes to legal issues. Abortion doesn't have to be stated to be the non-preferential option. It already is by its very nature of being traumatic and scary for those going through it. What I was trying to get out of you as well though is whether or not having an abortion, while we agree it should be legal, is a morally negative act. I don't think so. Like I said, I think it's morally neutral.
Abortion

To further clarify my position. There should be no punishments for having an abortion even though it is a not the most morally favorable option. It should never be the go to option. However, since it is impossible to stop people from doing back alley abortions, in the interest of public safety, we must accept abortion by choice in order to keep the general public safe and healthy. Strangely, we are on the same page of this debate agreeing that it should be allowed, but not as the go to option. If I am understanding you correctly we are on the same page.
Abortion

You might need to clarify your position a bit, given that its a bit open-ended. If I'm reading your opinion right, then you're in favour of legalized abortion in all cases (I'm going to assume up to the third trimester, given that's the general consensus), but that you believe them morally reprehensible. I consider them morally neutral, just as I believe the act of removing a tumour is morally neutral. I don't liken foetuses to tumours, but I use the comparison to illustrate that if there's a living thing attached to you and it will cause you problems to keep it, its best to remove it. It's morally wrong to kill, yes, but zygotes in the womb are not people. If an acorn grows into an oak tree, when you step on an acorn, have you just cut down a tree? It's not a favourable position, just like abortion isn't a favourable option. I'd be very surprised if there was ever a woman who sprang out of bed and was excited to get an abortion. It's an unfavourable option, but its morally neutral.
Abortion

While I do not believe abortion is moral, I believe that abortion is morally permissible. This basically goes to say to protect the wide arrange of individuals that would have one we need to make it as safe as possible. Also, it must be understood that just like attaining an illegal firearm or drug, the prohibition of abortion would have little to no effect on the amount and in some cases availability of an abortion. In some cases it may be medically necessary and an individual who would otherwise love to have a child is forced into getting an abortion. Finally, many women with dreams of college who are forced to carry their child to term never achieve their fiscal goals and rely on welfare. In the interest of societal safety, decreasing welfare, and decreasing monetary gains of criminal activity we must accept abortion as morally permissible, but not morally favorable.
Sony Take Responsibility for your Actions

"The Interview" was meant to be a comedy. It was not meant to threaten anyone's life but to provide entertainment for its viewers. It is not an actual threat, but a mindless joke meant to be humorous. If you have ever listened to rap music, plenty of songs have had "body counts" of at least 5 people. Searching for "Barack Obama parodies" leads to a countless amount of videos. Their lives were not threatened in any way. There are a number of books, for example, "Whiny Little Bitch: The Excuse-Filled Presidency of Barack Obama," which is available on amazon with mostly positive reviews. The commenters or the writer of the book were not publicly condemned by the President. If Americans truly believed in freedom of the speech and press, a war would not be started over a piece of film. The populus would be angered but we would not retaliate in the same manner as the North Koreans. If those values previously mentioned were ones America truly believed in, then those rights should be extended by the US internationally. We as Americans have the right to produce a wide variety of media. Sony does not have to apologize for using the rights granted to us as Americans. The North Koreans are already at a a point where "sorry" is invaluable. Randomly apologizing would not be seen as genuine and therefore we would be as useless as not saying anything at all.
Sony Take Responsibility for your Actions

WWII really yes the United States WAS at war with the Japan, This is 2014 the United States is not at war with North Korea so what right did Sony have to make that movie threaten and make fun of Kim Jong-Un So what would happen if Kim Jong- Um made a comedy movie about killing the President Barrack Obama or those police officers in New York , Ferguson Missouri Trevon Martin in Sanford FL that took innocent lives or a famous record artist produced a record promoting violence. would they have that same right. The point is the situation is getting worse day by day even though you think Sony don't owe North Korea or the People Of The United States an apologize what does he have to loose.
Sony Take Responsibility for your Actions

As a private movie company, Sony has the ability to make any movie of its choosing. It is not bound by any government department's decision to produce a movie. It should not have to apologize for how it made others feel. During WWII, Looney Tunes had a string of cartoons directly satirizing and deriding our Japanese enemies. They lightened the mood at a time when Americans were scared. Japan was an enemy that was not easily beat and this was a scary thought for many Americans. Since we could not defeat them, the solution was to make fun of them. This solution is quite immature, but allowed an outlet for powerless Americans. We are not at open war with the North Koreans, but they still pose a great threat to our society and wellbeing. Sony was doing the same thing for us as the Looney Tunes cartoons did for America. In our media, we have derided the Germans and Japanese during WWII, the Russians during the Cold War, and Middle Eastern terrorists. North Koreans are the new enemy we need to deride in order to boost our morale and mentally "defeat" our enemies. Our defiant nature as humans and as citizens of this country create a want for that genre of entertainment. Sony does not need to apologize to America for the threats of the North Koreans. They were doing their job as entertainers by creating a film they knew would be liked by the people. They were trying to help Americans feel better during this time of crisis.
Sony Take Responsibility for your Actions

I don't understand why Sony Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton decided make a movie Threatening the life of North Korea Leader Kim Jong- Un thinking that it would funny. First of all its against the law to threaten the life of another human being especially Kim Jong- Un the leader of another country that the United States does not have a good relationship with. I don't condone the that course of action Kim Jong - Un has taken to retaliate but what would you do if your life was threaten. Sony Entertainment has turned a bad situation into a worse situation. Not only have they damaged their name but lets look at the big picture they have put the lives of the people in the United States and world wide in jeopardy and Lord knows what else. At this point to try to defuse the situation Mr. Michael Lynton I really do think a public apologize is due to people of United States for putting our lives in jeopardy and Kim Jong-Un for making a disrectful movie threatening his life Mr. Michael Lynton stop pointing the finger at all the wrong people and take responsibility for your wrong doing.
Life Comes From Life, Abiogenesis is not Verifiable. So in conclusion an eternal being must exist.

http://www.youtube.com... So the video to the right is long, but the part concerning the topic you have brought up is near the beginning so it's not too bad. Please watch it first because it explains pretty well why humans as a whole are unable to understand this topic and what the actual answer is. Have you watched it? If yes than good, if no then I'll try my best to paraphrase it, but then do a much better job than me. You brought up the law of bio genesis and throughout history it has been debated whether that law is true and what it applies to. It is a fact that the law of bio genesis applies to complicated life forms, but whether it applies to bacteria or not is undetermined. In a closed system with organisms could not come from non organisms, but in an open system life can come from seemingly non life. As explained in the video we have to change our definition of nothing because of the advancements of science and because of the different meaning of nothing it is possible for something to come from "nothing" (just not the way we've thought about it before). The video explains the difficulties of accepting this and more of the facts behind it, so I highly recommend that you watch it. If God is a being beyond out imagination and he does not need a creator, why then can't the formation of life be similar. I'm not saying that it was supernatural, but at this time it is impossible, with our level of knowledge, to comprehend how something came from nothing. Whether you call it God or the formation of matter it's almost the same thing depending on what type of god you are arguing for. Could you please clarify what rules govern your God. i.e. does he come from a certain scripture or is he a deistic/pantheistic God? Also, your argument is based solely on the assumption that lack of evidence for thing 1 is evidence for thing 2. Imagine this situation: There is a investigation concerning the murder of a young girl. There are two men who are main suspects: one blond and one brunette. The chief of police pulls DNA from the crime scene and tries to match it to the blonde. It comes up negative. The chief then declares the brunette guilty of the crime because it couldn't be the blonde. Is this the right thing to do? Could the DNA from the brunette not match? Could it be a third option? This is the same problem we run into when you say that there's no evidence for life coming from non-life so it must be god. Just because we don't currently understand it doesn't make it logical or right to turn to a supernatural explanation with just as little evidence.
Life Comes From Life, Abiogenesis is not Verifiable. So in conclusion an eternal being must exist.

My contention is that Life Comes from Life, and should imply when regressing that An eternal living uncaused Life must exist, to begin the existence of life which is caused. Ie God. There is no EVIDENCE, that confirms abiogensis. There are only supporting arguments, with evidence that suggests it's plausibility, Equally there is no evidence for the existence of God. Only supporting arguments that suggest God MUST exist, and is more likely than not. For example, Life comes from Life, The law of Bio genesis. The only evidence we have, of life occurring, is from a pre-existing life, Without question. This must imply with regress, that either, 1, Life arose naturally from in-animate matter Or 2, That an eternal existing uncreated life, exists. Since we only have evidence that life come from life, and no evidence that in-animate matter creates life, then is it more reasonable to accept, that God exists and must be necessarily uncaused. Just like the many sages declare. This my second debate here and hope to do well, many thanks.
Why do people FEAR Death? Death should not be feared.

If no pleasure can come from death but pleasure can come from life, death should be feared as fear is an emotion/sensation felt just as valid/invalid as pleasure and pleasure is a feeling that everyone desires. Therefore, if fear is a subjective variable there to prevent us experiencing pain/lack-of-pleasure and in death no pleasure can be felt but in life pleasure can be felt. Death should be feared.End of discussion, rebut this or lose.
Why do people FEAR Death? Death should not be feared.

Mate just saying your arguing with a person that welcomes the unknown. Other than the comparison of pleasure through your statements (of sex -_-), and the fact that death takes away your capacity to feel pleasure. Simply stating that no "good" can come from it isn't really an answer to my question either (Committing suicide is a choice its not always a need to feel needed or dependable. There are some cases of people taking their lives simply because they were curious about the other side). There's plenty good that comes from death even though the thought of death is very somber. Understanding that you have a limited time on Earth gives it more meaning than anything. All you have to do is recognize and accept that we wont always be around and make sure the time we have counts for something. Or just have a hell of a lot of fun with it. This is through the fact that accepting death and knowing it's around it will never change the fact that your alive today. Fearing death would simply waste more time trying to find ways to prolong your life. I never said to embrace death just accept that it's there. As i refer to my question "WHY should we fear death?" Other than selfish statements saying that you'll lack the capacity to feel pleasure and that core reason of fear is pain. The moment you accept death and that its there, that is when you don't need these thoughts. We are all going to die, many people already have, The good that came from it is what they left behind to the younger generations.