BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God Fail

I tried to make the topic statement as self-explanatory as possible. I find cosmological arguments to be incredibly interesting as they are popular (due to the sizable reach of Natural Theology among lay believers) and can involve complex philosophical issues about things like causes, contingency/necessity, time, modality (especially metaphysical and logical possibility), and so on. As an atheist, I believe that all cosmological arguments fail for some reason or another (either they are structurally problematic, the premises are false, or there is no warrant for the premises) and would love to discuss these issues with someone else. I would like for round 1 to be primarily for acceptance, as I am not posting any objections/arguments, and round 2 can be the official beginning of the debate. If one uses sources then they should be cited for ease of reference for myself and others. I'm excited to have this debate! I just wanted to round this off with a few definitions on my end. [1] Cosmological Argument (CA) - CAs are arguments for the existence of God based on an inference from some, usually empirical, phenomena to the existence of an agent. [2] Contingency Cosmological Arguments (CCA) - CCAs make an inference from the existence of contingent (things that could logically fail to exist) things to a necessary (things that can not logically fail to exist) thing agent. This involves a principle of sufficient reason (PSR) that requires at least some contingent facts be explained in virtue of something else. [3] Kalam Cosmological Arguments (KCA) - KCAs use the beginning of the universe as the motivation for accepting the existence of a causal agent. It operates on the inductive inference that because a set x has members that begin to exist via causal relations then the universe also begins to exist in a similar way. [4] Thomist Cosmological Arguments (TCA) - TCAs, taking a page from Aquinas, use Aristotelian metaphysical notions (potency, actuality) to back up the argument for a prime mover. I'm sure there are other arguments in this vein and I'm not tying you to any particular one.
Donald Trump More Like Donald Dump !

here is some reasons and some I will bring back from my first text some might be facts and some I wrote by myself so don't blind your judgment yet and really understand what I am saying. Trump has called for a "complete and total shutdown" of Muslims entering the US until the country "can figure out what the hell is going on".Speaking in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino massacres, he insisted the policy would help tackle the "threat" of "radical Islamic terrorism".The politician has also vowed to crack down on illegal immigration by building a "big, fat beautiful" wall between the US and Mexico.He said: "Mexico's going to pay for the wall. I love the Mexican people, I respect the Mexican leaders. But their leaders are much sharper, much smarter and more cunning than our leader." What is Trump's view on gun control? Trump sees himself as a "really big proponent" of the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.In the wake of the Paris terror attacks, the Republican front-runner said: "If they would have had the guns, they wouldn't have had the carnage they had."And earlier this month he vowed to" unsign" Barack Obama's controversial plans to tighten gun control via executive action. How does Trump plan to tackle unemployment? Trump has vowed to be "the greatest jobs president that God ever created" if he wins the election later this year. He added: "I'll bring back our jobs from China, from Mexico, from Japan, from so many places. I'll bring back our jobs, and I'll bring back our money."Last year he rubbished claims the country's unemployment rate was 5.1 per cent, saying: "If you start adding it up, our real unemployment rate is 42 per cent." What does Trump think about cannabis? Trump is opposed to the legalization of cannabis for recreational use, saying: "I think it's bad, and I feel strong about that."They've got a lot of problems going on right now in Colorado [where the drug is legal], some big problems." Despite this stance, he does not think Americans should be jailed for smoking the drug in states where it remains illegal. And he is in favor of cannabis being used in hospitals, explaining last year that "medical marijuana is another thing". Does Trump support the death penalty? Trump has pledged to issue an executive order mandating capital punishment for "anybody killing a police officer". Addressing the New England Police Benevolent Association, he said: "I want to let you know, the police and law enforcement in this country, I will never ever let them down."The job they do and the job all you in this room do is second to none, and everyone in our country knows that." Here are some of his policies that supposedly will work and as you read on you'll find whoever kills a police officer will go to jail. How about if the police officer is going to kill someone and it the guy killed him first that is self-defense, but I don't think Trump will understand that he is an idiot and what he says is all ludicrous it's not going to happen trump back down from the election. Good Luck
Donald Trump More Like Donald Dump !

Every four years us the people get to vote for who we want to become president whether it's Barack Obama or George w. bush we voted for them. Now here we have a new generation of the world filled with many problems and we need a leader who can work under pressure and not CRITIZE people. Here is an example of not who to pick and remember this is my opinion so no hard feelings, Mr. Trump is currently trying to convince people to vote for him, he is either trying to say things that he will probably not do or keep on lying to these people. One of his horrible thing that he stated is" Muslims are TERRORISTS and Mexicans are RAPISTS!' I keep on asking myself how does he know that for sure has he had experience with that has someone from any of these groups say hey trump him a rapist or hey I'm gonna bomb you now. I don't think so. So let's talk reality he is lying to you people and only the dumbest people would think that he is right / just imagine for a second where do we get our things from and what will happen if the people who support out country are kicked out and I can give you an example our oil comes from where to ask oh I know SAUDI ARABIA! That's right the place you are going to kick out the people that let your stupid cars run on. Now I am not trying to force anyone to do anything just think your thoughts through and imagine how America and the world will be once we have Mr.DUMP spilling all his garbage on us! WE DONT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS NO MORE VOTE FOR THE RIGHT PERSON ZAND IMAGINE YOURSELF LIVING IN YOUR COUNTRY AND HOW ITS GOING TO CHANGE IN THE NEXT 4 YEARS OF YOUR LIFE.
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII!!!

Interesting points by my opponent. Before I start I would like to address some of the flaws in my opponents argument. Let me begin with the first. My opponent believes that saving a oil haven city that he generalizes as an "important" has something to do with being the most important battle of WWII. If a country is important to it's people this does not allow us to conclude that it could have been the most important battle in the war. We are examining the chronology of WWII with regards to battles that impacted others as being a focal point of the war. Next, my opponent states that Germany suffered a fair number of casualties in this battle. One cannot conclude just from the fact that since many lives were lost it signifies that an important battle took place. A country could send it's average soldiers to battles and be saving their exemplary soldiers for towards the end. Just because it was a high quantity does not necessarily mean high quality. My points: When a war is being waged the three most important things to consider are personnel, strategy, and timing. Your personnel must be equal in strength to that of your opponent. Your strategy must also be sound and you should attack the weaknesses of your opponents. However, while battles are being commenced for positioning, the most important factor when considering timing is ALWAYS after or before a battle, not during. After a battle can be the most opportune time to strike your opponent. After a battle is over, both sides must regroup, refuel, and restrategize about their next objective and what needs to be done to meet it. Germany lost it's battle to the Soviets at Stalingrad, but they had not been defeated. Harboring one of the most largest and effective armies at 15 million at one point, anything was possible for Germany going into the future. One of the most difficult feats to accomplish during a war is to completely stave off the opponent and will them into submission, because in any scenario or situation that you don't, the opponent still has a fighting chance to reinvent, recommit and grow it's chances. Reasons why D-Day was the most important battle of WWII - It was a surprise attack - it was the largest amphibious invasion in world history - It forced Germany into surrender - It involved 13 nations - It assembled one of the largest naval armies ever and this is just for fun, some food for thought incase you fell for my opponents "numbers" argument. D-Day approx 6,000 - 8,000 casualties Battle of Stalingrad 850,000 / 160 days = 5,312 per day Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII!!!

The Normandy landings, also known as D-Day is usually viewed by the west as one of the most important events of WWII. However what is not understood, is that D-Day took place in 1944 when it was clear that Germany would lose. Germany was heavily outnumbered on all fronts and had no sufficient reserves of planes and armor. During D-Day, 156,000 allied troops assaulted a 10,000 man German front. Germany had relatively few troops in France because most of those soldiers were fighting on other fronts. D-Day enabled the allies to later invade France, however besides shortening the war by perhaps a couple months, the allied invasion of France did nothing. Germany would have lose, sooner or later. [1] The Battle of Stalingrad however can be considered as the most important battle of WWII Reasons that Stalingrad was important: -Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. [2] -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt) -Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties [2] -This was the largest defeat for Germany -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war) -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad -Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis What was more important, a battle that resulted in 20,000 casualties, or a battle that resulted in 2,000,000 dead? At D-Day, Germany suffered some 6,000 casualties. At Stalingrad the axis suffered 850,000 casualties. Before Stalingrad, Germany had a chance to win. After Stalingrad the chances of a Germany victory were almost nonexistent. D-Day shortened the war by a couple months but had no effect on the outcome of WWII. I would like to also state that Con picked a weak battle to support in this debate. The Battles of Moscow,the Battle of Britain, or even the Battle of Kursk might have been debatable in importance to Stalingrad, however D-Day is not. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
In the United States, Marijana Should be Legalized

Thank you for continuing the debate. Lets start off with refuting your claims Stating that decriminalization would lead to the US decriminalize all drugs is a logical fallacy as are his more extreme examples - I'm sure we've all read the wiki on slippery slope theory. You say that people would continue to go the illegal route, but why? Legal growing means modern growing process, more yield for less, and the fact that they don't have to hide the crop means that legally grown marijuana will be cheaper and will drive shady inefficient illegal growers out - In addition the quality of the crop can actually be regulated leading to a safer consumer. Which leads me to another one of your arguments, as you said it "Yes, alcohol does lead to numerous deaths, but so does Marijuana." - well, here you go http://drugwarfacts.org..., see that number 2? that's alcohol, and what's that one at the bottom, oh its marijuana. You brought up that the substitution effect is invalid because it used high school students. Well since we're considering the use of alcohol among high school students irrelevant here's another study showing the same effect of adults. (1) You stated the short term effects of marijuana, and yes there are some but the long term affects are less serious than either tobacco or alcohol (2) and can actually reduce the chance of some forms of cancer (3). When legitimate growing and cultivation processes are used to create higher quantity of better quality cannabis for less money, then the product created in hiding will be crushed by the competition. Reduced crime, increased savings and reduction in alcohol consumption can all be obtained from the legalization of marijuana, and I look forward to my opponents next argument. 1)http://blog.mpp.org... 2)http://www.confinizero.it... ( go to discussion and look at the table) 3)http://norml.org...
In the United States, Marijana Should be Legalized

And that's why I added a 4th round. First off the definition of Legalized is a tricky one, however for this debate I will define it the same way tobacco is, available at age 18 but illegal until then. With that I'll move onto my contentions on the high and unnecessary cost, the beneficial effects of legalization and that the current prohibition causes more hard than good. First off we have to look at the current cost of marijuana prohibition. (1) According to Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron we are currently spending roughly 13 billion dollars on the enforcement of marijuana prohibition per year. (1) In addition, if it were legal and taxed comparably to alcohol and tobacco the US would receive an estimated 6.7 billion in additional tax revenue. This means more money for public spending and less money for the drug dealers and international suppliers, something I will expand on in my third contention. Second, the beneficial effects of legalization. (2) John DiNardo, an economist now at the University of Michigan performed a study as states changed the drinking age to 21 that compared use of other drugs as the drinking age was increased. In the study it was shown that among high school seniors there was 4.5 percent decrease in drinking and a 2.4 percent increase in getting high. This experiment suggests that an availability of marijuana could lower alcohol consumption. While another study showed a 30% increase in cannabis use lead to about a 10% decrease in alcohol use. However alcohol use leads to thousands of deaths in the US each year, with barely any from cannabis, so trading one for the other seems like an alright deal. This is in addition to the tax revenue and the benefits from a whole new industry opening up. And third, the current prohibition does not protect this country but in fact aids criminal undergrounds and invites in more gangs and illegal activity. The lack of legitimate marijuana supplies has lead to several problems, its led to massive plantations forming in our own public forests (3), an increased presence of drug cartels in the US and more and more smuggling from foreign countries, especially Mexico. (4) In summation the current prohibition is irresponsible and give us nothing but wasted money and increased crime. We need to reform the current laws to ones that will actually benefit the US. 1) http://www.economics.harvard.edu... 2)http://motherjones.com... 3) http://motherjones.com... 4) http://www.nytimes.com...
In the United States, Marijana Should be Legalized

My opponent has forfeited, he must realizes that it would be much to harmful to legalize the drug in the United States. I said that I would mention another point, my strongest. But I have realized that it would not be fair because my opponent could not attempt to refute it. My opponent has failed to answer my questions, failed to refute my claims, and has forfeited. I thank him for this debate and I thank the audience also. I heavily urge a Con vote for obvious reasons. Thank you.
God is a logical impossibility

Since this is only a presentation of the affirmative case, it will be an unusually brief argument. P1: All things that are logically possible are bound by logic P2: God is not bound by logic C: God is logically impossible Premise 1: This is tautologically self-evident. Premise 2: As defined in Round 1, God is the divine author of all things and creator of the universe. Therefore, logic must be his invention. And by virtue of his omnipotence, he is not bound by it. Given that the definition of God was permanently established in Round 1, the only possible point of contention my opponent has is to attack the notion that God is not bound by logic. However, if God is in fact bound by logic, then he is not all-powerful. If logic is not God’s creation, then he is not the divine author of everything. In short, in order for God to be God he must be capable of modifying or bypassing logic whenever he so pleases…. and insofar as he has those powers, he must be logically impossible.
God is a logical impossibility

As we've had many clashes on this subject in the forums, I greatly anticipate the exchange of ideas that will be generated by a formal debate. Note that the debate is not about the likelihood of Gods existence, but rather if such a being existing is logically possible. I like how wikipedia put it[1], logical impossibilities are: "propositions which could not possibly be true under any circumstances in any universe because they are formal contradictions. While it is logically possible for the sky to be green, it is not logically possible for a square to be circular in shape. " As we both seemingly agree on the rules of logic, the only debate lies on the interpretation of such laws when it comes to a being such as God. With that, I turn the debate over to my opponent. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
the sky is blue

I consider that to be a forfeit. another point is that we are not able to tell if one person's color is the same color as another. this argument may sound weak and stupid, but if you think about it, you are not able to get into another person's mind and see what they see. for example, my blue may be someone else's red, but because they have grown up knowing that color is red, they believe it. just like there is no way to tell what side of the world is the up side, it is all relative.
Sodom and Gomorra were neither Judged by God as wicked nor destroyed because of homosexuality

Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve all heard of the story of Sodom and Gomorra. We’re told grand tales of a city so ‘wicked’ that the entire male population is gay! Gasp! And God, not liking gay people, or gay sex, decided that He had had enough with such evil, and wiped Sodom and Gomorra off the map. Our pastors, families, and neighbors, repeatedly tell us that both cities were annihilated because of homosexuality, which shows God’s aversion to it. But is this true? Was Sodom and Gomorra judged as wicked by God because of homosexuality? Was Sodom and Gomorra destroyed by God because of homosexuality? Based on the biblical references, I'd say no. Firstly, I think it’s important to define what exactly homosexuality is. Meriam-Webster dictionary defines homosexuality as: “1: Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. 2: Of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.” The first definition describes the sexual orientation of homosexuality. However, I want to remove the word ‘direct’, because in order to direct something one must have ‘control’ over that said something, which implies a choice. According to the American Psychological Association (APA), people cannot choose their sexual orientation (http://www.apa.org..., paragraph 7). The second definition describes same gender sexual behavior. However, I want to add the word ‘consensual’ because anything less than both (or all) parties agreeing to sex, is rape. Rape is a complete and separate entity from sexual orientation, and cannot logically be applied to the characteristics of a specific sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, etc), since there have been documented cases of rape committed by individuals of all sexual orientations. Rape also tends to be about power instead of sex or sexual desire (http://kidshealth.org..., paragraph 2) So within this debate homosexuality is defined as: “The tendency to have sexual desires toward another person of the same sex, as well as an act relating to, or involving the consensual sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex”. To make this debate more interesting, my opponent is allowed to challenge my definition of homosexuality, provided that they give rational reasoning for their claims.This debate will NOT be about whether or not there really was a Sodom and Gomorra, or whether God really destroyed them or not.My opponent may use only the Bible as a reference guide to why God judged Sodom and Gomorra as wicked, and ultimately, worthy of destruction.1st round -Terms/acceptance2nd round- Opening arguments3rd round- Rebuttals4th round- Rebuttals5th round- Closing statements.
Should Socrates have drank the Hemlock

Socrates was put into a tough situation, being accused of corruption because people did not like his ideas. Becoming such a well known person who went against the government, or did not believe what they were doing, or saying back in his days were killed or exiled very easily. Socrates questioned the ideas and beliefs of the Greek people making him public enemy number one. Socrates could have escaped and contented to spread his ideas and believes throughout the rest of the world.
Should Socrates have drank the Hemlock

Socrates spent his time in front of many students discussing his thoughts on how laws are important, to think for yourself, and how one should not fear death. He had built quite a following, but in doing so, he had also developed many people who hated his ways. The fact that anybody could listen to what Socrates had to say did put him in a dilemma at his time of death. He had spoken so firmly on how laws are necessary, and that no man should fear death. By backing out of death and fleeing Athens, he would be questioning his own Philosophy, leaving doubt in the minds of any of his remaining followers.
Should Socrates have drank the Hemlock

The Oracle did in fact state that Socrates was the "Wisest of Greeks" but in the response Socrates says"One thing only I know and that is that I know nothing" Now from reading Socrates you can tell that he did know quite a lot of information. He knew though that he did not know everything, but from what he did know he used and went after the others who were said to have wisdom. if he was not trying to corrupt the youth like you said, then did he really break any laws? The Greek government just wanted him out to stop him from causing "in their eyes" more chaos.