BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A benevolent God as the source of morality cannot be logically justified.

"what do the brackets mean/god is goood the biblle says that.it all comes down to what u believe" The brackets [ ] tell the reader to refer to another pair of brackets at the bottom of the page for further explanation of a sentence or definition. And the Christian god may be described as good and the source of morality in the Bible, but that does not necessarily make it true. I am attempting to show logically that this cannot be the case. As to your claim that 'it all comes down to what u(sic) believe', perhaps that is the case for subjective thoughts like what kind of a person seems attractive to you. However I believe there is an objective answer to this question and I plan to show it using logic and reason.
A benevolent God as the source of morality cannot be logically justified.

I assume since my opponent has not mentioned any problems with my definitions, we can accept them for the rest of the debate. I will provide my argument after I respond to my opponent's statements in the first round. "god is real there is no doubt about it." The point of this debate is not whether or not god exists, but whether god be logically justified as the source of morality. "scientist say nothing created something out of nothing.this bascially means there was nothing and then in a bang something was created!!!!!!!!!!yet this same so callled proffesionals dont beleive that God created the nworld out of nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" This debate is also not about the origins of the universe or what scientists claim about it. I don't care to debate this right now as it does not keep with the resolution. In my argument 'P' will stand for premise and 'C' will stand for conclusion. I will begin with two premises from which I will base my argument on. P1-God is benevolent.[1] P2-God is sovereign over the universe. C1-God determines the truth- value of ethical propositions(From P2) C2-God is benevolent prior to his decision as to what truth-values ethical propositions will have(From P1 and C1) C3-Nothing is good or bad, right or wrong, prior to God's decision as to what truth-values ethical propositions will have(From C1) C4-God is good prior to his decision as to what truth-value ethical propositions will have(From P1) C5- Nothing is good or bad, right or wrong, prior to God's decision as to what truth-values ethical propositions will have(From P2 and C1) C6-Something (God) is good prior to God's decision as to what truth-values ethical propositions will have and nothing is good or bad, right or wrong, prior to God's decision as to what truth-values ethical propositions will have(From C4 and C5) Based on logical analysis it has been shown that god canot be the source of morality. I now await my opponent's response. [1]The god I am describing is benevolent in that it is the way I set up this debate in the resolution.
A benevolent God as the source of morality cannot be logically justified.

This subject has come up in the religion forums in the past and I wanted to do a full debate to explore the subject further. Arguments will begin in round 2. God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.[1] Benevolence: disposition to do good[2] Morality: Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct or a system of ideas that fall into those same categories.[3] Logically: Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.[4] Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.[5] Good luck to whoever may accept this challenge. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... [4]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [5]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
A benevolent God as the source of morality cannot be logically justified.

"if god is not the source of morality then what is?" It is not my job to provide an alternative, only to show that god as the source of morality is not logically justified. "where do we get our beliefs from?from our head?no its different for different people and religions." Beliefs and morality are two different things but I think I understand what you mean. Again, I do not have to provide an alternative. To argue that the answer must be god because you cannot come up with a different one is incredibly fallacious. "its good to be honest,respect people etc. these are are god based bleifes proving that god is the source of morality." These views are purely subjective. You have brought no evidence that these are objectively correct. And even if they happened to be, how does that in any way prove that morals come from god? I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments and she did not even attempt to refute mine. Therefore I urge a pro vote.
A benevolent God as the source of morality cannot be logically justified.

"there is even archeliogally(sic) evidence and proof that Jesus lived and did these miracles it is foolhardy not to acknowledge that" I really don't think you understand what the point of this debate is. I am not debating on whether or not Jesus lived or was divine or that god even exists. I am simply arguing that it cannot be logically justified that god is the source of morality. I don't want to debate on whether god exists at the moment. Please respond to my argument in the next round so we can make up for the wasting of Round 3.
Christianity is the most inclusive faith, despite the fact that it is accused of being exclusive.

Christianity has for years been scrutinized for being exclusive, that it leaves out folks. That only "Christians" are going to Heaven and everyone else is going to Hell, so therefore Christians have an us and them mentality which excludes many folks. However, when measured against other faiths (Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, and Buddhism) in which the Heaven or Heaven-like entity is attained through some kind of meritorious way, it is obvious that Christianity is the only one that includes ALL. Most faiths have a credit and debit system. If you do one good deed you are in favor with God. If you do one bad deed you are not. Even the prophet Mohammed did not know the status of his soul. He "hoped" he had been good enough for God. This explains Catholic and Jewish "guilt" because there is always that thing hanging over the heads of those followers which is that you are not being "good enough" for God. In all other faiths if a sin is BAD enough that person is no longer eligible for salvation. Christianity is designed for the worst of us. And because so many of us are bad, it is designed for all of us. It is the only faith that says you can not earn your way into Heaven. It is the only faith that says that no matter HOW much you do, you can never do enough for God. Whereas other faith's followers still try to work their way up the ladder to Heaven one rung at a time, Christians are substituted into Heaven by way of the atoning sacrifice of Christ (for those that believe). In Christianity 6.3 billion people are candidates for salvation. In all other faiths, only the "good people" get in. Because Christians believe that we are all bad (none is righteous, no not one; our righteousness is like dirty rags) it makes no sense to measure one sinner against another in terms of his or her candidacy for salvation. The Buddhists believe that in order to attain enlightenment you must understand everything. This excludes unitelligent people. Other faiths believe that you must be good to get to Heaven. This excludes people with a bad past (like me). Christianity is the only faith whose Heaven is reserved for all people and requires nothing more than a single word: "yes"
How to Stop Women and Men from Joining ISIS

Well thanks for finally posting an argument. Rebuttal (shorter since you agreed with what most i said) Social Media: The government can still look at shut down social media accounts. Theres alot they can do they dont really speak about. Of course this will take more effort however shutting them down will efficiently stop ISIS propaganda for the regular joe. Isis's appeal: Isis is not Islamic. To say ISIS is Islam doesn't make sense. If i bomb a school and say i do it in the name of Jesus almost everyone in the world will say i don't represent Christianity. Sure it says to kill people who don't believe in Allah in the Quran. Says SAME thing in the bible. Proves no point at all. Take the good things and ignore the bad things War and Drawing War Lines: None of the Paris attackers were Syrian refugees. One of them was suspected but the passport was stolen and it was reported he wouldn't have entered the country with those credentials. I don't need to rebut this passage that much because it centered around that misconstrued fact of yours And it doesn't matter how much money it takes to take in refugees.....We created this problem we need to fix it. Conclusion: We need to take on refugees and give them a better life. The vetting process is already firm with the 18-24 month process with interrogations by 4 different intelligence agencies. Social Media can be looked at by the Government at any time, even when sites may be closed. Sources http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.ibtimes.com...
How to Stop Women and Men from Joining ISIS

Well you said this was discussion so I hope this isn't an argument But basically we need to restrict their hold of media Isis basically can create a endless amount of facebook,twitter accounts and can broadcast media The main reason ISIS recruitment is doing better than alqueda or boko haram recruitment is that its having a massive impact on social media Next issue: ISIS's appeal Many Americans and other muslims are being persecuted for actions of extremists groups they don't belong too. By making fun/ disrespecting the relgion of islam is actually doing the oppostite reaction people thinks it does. By making fun of religion your just provoking people to move to an area where that doesn't happen Christianity isn't made fun of to the extent that Islam is and when it happens its really disrespectful. Islam is about respect especially to Muhammed where in Western societies he is ridiculed and called a murderer Next problem: War and Drawing War Lines Pushing away refugees and bombing civilian populated areas in Syria/Iraq actually hurts the fight against ISIS. By doing these things refugees either die or join and bombing civilans EASILY allows ISIS to use the "its us against them" mentality. Well those are my main issues
How to Stop Women and Men from Joining ISIS

Something that must be immediately clarified is this is not intended to be a debate, rather a discussion. I am pretty sure the overwhelming majority of us would agree that what ISIS does is totally savage and evil. But instead of simply getting upset and disgusted at what ISIS does, why not brainstorm ideas on how to prevent ISIS' numbers from growing? There are many interesting articles on how and why men and women want to join the Islamic State. For example, author Thomas Piketty introduced a new theory that could very well be a driving force and motivation for some people to join extremist groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda (http://www.businessinsider.com...). At the end of the debate, I hope not only the person I will be discussing with will gain new insight and acquire new perspectives on this issue, but all commenters and viewers as well. Please people, SHARE YOUR IDEAS on how to educate people (especially young adults) on what ISIS has in store for them upon their arrival in ISIS territory and other preventive measures. If you are up for it, here are a couple articles to get you a little better informed on this issue: - "Thomas Piketty might have the most controversial theory for what"s behind the rise of ISIS": http://www.businessinsider.com... - "The story of a radicalisation: 'I was not thinking my thoughts. I was not myself'": http://www.theguardian.com... - "ISIS cells in America & Europe ready to launch Third World War - terrorism expert": https://www.rt.com... - "What ISIS Really Wants": http://www.theatlantic.com... - "Eric Holder announces plan to prevent Americans from joining ISIS": http://www.msnbc.com...
Religion cause more blood shed than any other reason

Point one wars Do you now how many wars event is mentioned in encyclopaedism of war? More than 1300 war event....even you are right about American evolution and the crusader....is will not make the amount of war caused by religion exceed 10% of it... Point two terrorism Okay you can count how many terrorism event which cause by religion happen in the last...say....10 years....then you can divide it to number of crime happen in the same period...I guarantee you it will not exceed 50% either you counting by the number of victim or by number of event.... Point three genocide You say that hitler mass murdering the jews because their religion!!!! And you said it is common knowledge....no....Hitler mass murdering the jews because their race not because their religion....you got it wrong maybe because you think that jews only a religion name instead it is also race name....remember hittler doing mass murdering to realiaze his idea of the superiority of aryan race....
Religion cause more blood shed than any other reason

However, there are a lot of other things involving bloodshed that are not wars. Point One: WarsAmerican RevolutionThe revolution was caused by a conflict between the Anglican Church and the Colonists (History. com)The CrusadesIn the Crusades, invaders fought over a "holy" city and many people died from wounds or diseasesAccording to the Huffington Post, 74% of all historical/recorded wars are caused by religionVoters: Huffington post vs. Encyclopedia of WarPoint Two: TerrorismAl quada-Due to a twisting of the muslim religionIsis-Also due to a twisting of the muslim religion9/11Boston MarathonThese are all events that killed many people, and they were brought about due to religionPoint Three: GenocidesThe Holocaust-Hitler was mass-killing Jews because of their religion. (Common Knowledge)The Rwandan Genocide was also due to religion (Nytimes)According to Statista, 95% of Genocides are caused by religionSource TallyMe: 4 sourcesCon: 1 sourceLogical FallacyCon has claimed that "So if anyone think that religion is the root of evil they already been brainwashed". That is a Strawman logical fallacy because that is not what I was arguing. Conduct PointsFor same reason aboveThank you, and I await more Con arguments.
Religion cause more blood shed than any other reason

Point One: Wars Okay so you admit that the majority of war not caused by religion? (lets forget about terrorism and genocide in this section because i will refute it in the following section) Point Two : Terrorism By definition terrorism is the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective (https://www.britannica.com...). So if we use this definition, terrorism is not necessarily caused by religion.... I agree with you if you say war not the only means to cause bloodshed....but terrorism, genocide, and homicide can cause bloodshed too... Now let we see some data from http://www.start.umd.edu... about the global terrorism event from 2004 - 2014....the amount of terrorism event is 65.932 incident.....now lets compare it to US homicide event (only in US not the whole world) in http://www.murderdata.org..., at the same periode of 2004 - 2014 the amount of homicide event is 168.573 incident. Even if we assume that all terrorism incident is caused by religion it is still huge difference... Point Three : Genocide Your take your source from history tv channel website and i don't know where exactly the related information that you based on is located, furthermore i don't think it is a reliable source but let assume it is reliable..... Like i said in the previous round The Holocaust which is did by Nazis not based on the religion but on race....Holocaust is carried on by applying Nuremberg Laws after Hittler seize power....the intention behind Nuremberg Law is to protect German Blood and Honour, you can read it in https://en.wikipedia.org... and https://en.wikipedia.org...
Religion cause more blood shed than any other reason

Hello and I thank con for responding.Counter rebuttsIn defense of: WarsWars are a substantial portion of bloodshed caused by religion. While the majority of wars may not be caused by religion, the substantial amount that are combined with terrorism and genocide make it.In defense of: terrorismVoters, there have been more terrorism events then just those in the past 10 years.In defense of: genocideI have a source now: (history.com) Voters, we cannot take this refutation into account, because I have a source and my opponent does notSource tallyMe: 5 sourcesCon: 1 sourceAll of Con's arguments are still refuted.My arguments still standTherefore voters, please vote for me
Marriage is a relic from another era. It needs to be replaced.

Thank you for your arguments relating to polygamy, RationalMadman.But really, if there are a few alpha males that all women are attracted to, why shouldn't all those women have access to said males? It seems unfair to have laws to prevent the happiness of so many women, as well as that of the alphamales of course. After all, women and alphamales combined do outnumber less dominant "geniuses".You have failed to prove that marriage does indeed force monogamy. When they get married, couples promise to be faithful, but unmarried couples also promise to be faithful to each other. Faithfulness is a private matter. It's easy to cheat in secret, and so faithfulness really only depends on private intentions. The government has no business getting involved.You have also failed to prove that monogamy is a good thing for society. Quite the opposite. You have stated that there are some "less dominant" males who are using the institution of marriage to force women (who you assume would actually prefer other men) to bear their children. Ugh.But actually, I think you are wrong. Even without marriage, women would prefer "less dominant" males for starting a family. Lower testosterone is associated with being an attentive father (1).You haven't addressed my arguments from round one at all. Therefore, I assume that you accept them as sound. In past times, marriage was an device to protect mothers, help raise children, and to help men identify their own offspring. It is no longer the best means of addressing those aims, and should be replaced.1. http://www.nytimes.com...
Marriage is a relic from another era. It needs to be replaced.

Because in polygamy a very unfair 'status' system will form where only the offspring of the alpha male of the previous generation will be able to compete for the next because all women will think "OOH! THEY ARE THE BIG MAN'S SONS!" and any offspring of other men will seem inherently inferior with the family of soffspring formign a brotherhood/mafia of some sort.Marriage forces monogamy because it is extreme social pressure not to create an unfair dynamic in who can get laid and raise their own children allowing less 'dominant' geniuses to pass their genes on to the next generation.
Marriage is a relic from another era. It needs to be replaced.

Oh. Hello Rats. Actually, marriage does not apply any legal force to make someone be faithful. That's still a personal choice. In any case, if people want to cheat, why should there be a legal, government-issued institution to stop them? Perhaps in the olden days it would have meant something for a woman to be sleeping with half the village and still expecting her husband to pay for her assorted children's education. But nowadays, a man knows who his children are.Are you really arguing that the government should, via the institution of marriage, try and force faithful monogomy onto its population? To what purpose?
Marriage is a relic from another era. It needs to be replaced.

Marriage is a relic from another era. It needs to be replaced with contracts relating directly to care of children.Divorce is so common now, it needs to be planned for. If you're married and not accepting the possibility of divorce, it is for private reasons relating to your knowledge of your spouse or perhaps the particular (sub)culture that you live in. Which makes marriage for life a private matter.In the olden days, before reliable contraception, marriage existed to provide for any children of the relationship. Quite suddenly, we live in times where women can control their own fertility and where we can be certain of paternity through DNA testing. Marriage is no longer necessary in these respects.In fact, marriage is no protection for mothers. There is nothing to stop a man leaving a marriage when his wife is pregnant or with small children, it's quite common, and the laws to force him to provide child support are so weak as to be ridiculous.Instead of marriage, there should be contracts relating directly to the support of children. When couples decide to have children together, they need to set out the responsibilities of both parties for the coming 18 years. If, as often happens, the mother agrees to take time off work to raise the child, she needs to be compensated adequately as part of the contract.
The Bible is a terrible starting point

The Bible needs to be the starting point of Christianity. It has been the self-regulated canon and contains the oldest and best records of Israel and Judah's religion, as well as the stories of Jesus. If you don't start with the Bible, you lose all the stories on which Christianity is based, and then Christianity doesn't exist at all!The Bible isn't the ONLY point though. As my opponent said, two points make a line, and there are many other lines. Historically, the creeds, liturgy, tradition, Scripture, reason, and orthopraxy all work together to provide Christianity with its framework. It's the starting point, but it doesn't stand alone. Obviously we have to use other things to interpret the Bible, but that still means we start with it.
You cannot provide a philosophic argument for the existence of god that I cannot rebuff

I know that"s what think you believe. The world is just the world. However, in reality, we might just say that justice is an idea created by man, and has no fundamental importance. But, we would all agree that what the NAZI"s did to the Jews was fundamentally wrong or that a man raping a baby is fundamentally wrong and that it deserves punishment. The implications of your first sentence is nothing is really wrong and if it were wrong there is no necessary reason to do justice. Actually, your first sentence is actually how the lawyers defending the NAZI"s defended them. 1) That is not what the title is about. 2) He is not bound by laws of existence, he is above existence (check round 3). One thing can be in two places at once, quantum mechanics, (not important). 3) He is, He didn"t get anywhere. He is. 4) 5) not in question. You are losing ground. You are accepting he can exist. Thus, I have provided a philosophical argument for His existence you can't rebuff.
You cannot provide a philosophic argument for the existence of god that I cannot rebuff

The wold is quite simply the world, Justice is an lofty idea nature has no justice. If god is an multidimensional being 1. why dose he care 2, him existing at all still means he is bound by the laws of existence, If he is matter and thus exists then he cannot be in more than one place simultaneously 3, if he is a being of another dimension how did he get there? 4, if he is a being then he is bound by the age old maxim that power corrupts thus the almighty is alcorrupt and evil this claim is logically supported by the world, look at all the crime, poverty, war and corruption and tell me this is gods plan. I say if god is real then he should be destroyed. 5, also look at the effects of religion, it acts like a relaxant of the people against injustice, or it excites them to kill, rape and pillage.