BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A god exists, as defined by the PRO side.

first, I would like to point out that science is not the only way to reality.we aren't born scientists, we are born humans. We have the ability to think and to use logic. Our own experiences are the basis for everything that we do. how do we find out whether we exist or not? We don't, we simply assume based on personal experience. Unlike most Christians, I will not use the cosmological, ontological,excetera any argument of the sort, seeing how it can be refuted. I take the approach that is based on experience. during the 19th century, people began to question the historical accuracy of the Bible as many events and places as well as people were unsupported by evidence, however it was not until much later that the field of archaeology reaffirmed us of the historical accuracy of the Bible and the ancient world. Many problems were resolved and knowledge was gained. I may or may not use personal testimonies, but if I do, it will not be counted as scientific evidence. I will use it for counters. I believe that many logical arguments against God can be resolved once we have an understanding from God's own Word. while I do use apologetics to an extent, I will most likely be quoting experts in this debate to make my case.
A god exists, as defined by the PRO side.

Thank you very much for responding to my debate. There is nothing I disagree with pertaining to your definitions, so I will now state my position. The Christian God, as explained in the Bible, is supposedly an entity that has created the universe, and that can affect it at will. However, with the exception of: References from the Bible (a book that, by all means, has no evidence behind it and is entirely fictional), Eyewitness accounts with little backing, and Subjective experiences (NDEs, anyone?) that give no reason to think that they are not lies, there is otherwise no evidence for anything remotely resembling the God of the Bible. Furthermore: in Matthew 19:26, among other various Biblical verses (http://www.openbible.info...), God is implied as being omnipotent, and also in Psalms 145-9, he is described as being omnibenevolent. (http://biblehub.com...) This presents various contradictions; the Problem of Evil (if God is all powerful, why is there suffering?) and the Impossible Rock (Could God make a rock that he could not move?) are good, classic examples. Other contradictions are abound in the Bible, with no indication of which verses are allegorical and which are meant literally. Should an all-powerful, perfect being want to write such a book riddled with inconsistencies? Many apologists and theodicists invent excuses, but it does not detract from the sheer, blatant impossibilities that occur when we assume that an all-powerful, perfect being could write such a mess as the Bible. I now hope to hear your position. As previously stated, we may begin rebuttals in round 3. Good luck!
A god exists, as defined by the PRO side.

I will be arguing for the Christian God and because of time purposes, i will only focus on only logically arguing for him and bringing evidence (historical, scientific, archaeological, etc. for the Bible. Your welcome to bring in other religions in your counters, but you have to specify which one. Here are my terms: Reality - state of being real objective - based on external truth not on personal opinions and feelings subjective - influenced by personal opinions, thoughts, etc. Truth - conformity with fact or state Evidence - anything observable that can be used to support a position Absolute Truth - the state of knowing everything about the Truth Know - to perceive with the mind truth Experience - personal encounter or observance with something external Divine experience - Personal encounter with the divine in some way, shape, or form Mind - the consciousness that perceives, thinks, feels, senses, etc. Illusion - something deceiving and leading to a false conclusion of reality Physical - of pertaining to that which is material Spiritual - pertaining to that which is spirit
A god exists, as defined by the PRO side.

In this debate, PRO will attempt to prove the existence of a god, as defined by them. I expect clear, rational arguments and unambiguous definitions. Round 1 will be used for the definition of the word 'god', and of other definitions that may be useful. Round 2 will be for setting one's preliminary stance. Round 3, 4 and 5 will be used for rebuttal of one another's points. Correct English is preferable, but mistakes should not be grammar nazi'd. To make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR; I am an agnostic atheist. I know that many apologists like to ask their opponents about whether they are agnostic or atheist, which I consider to be something of a silly question. I am atheist because I do not believe in a god, and I am agnostic because I am not 100% certain of my stance. However, I can state, within reasonable doubt, that a god does not exist, which is why I am an agnostic atheist. I hope this is clear to you. Empirical evidence and logical reasoning are the two tools that will be used in this debate. When using evidence, please provide sources, lest the claim is absolutely trivial. When using logical reasoning, please describe your deduction clearly. Happy debating!
A god exists, as defined by the PRO side.

"You have to assume the existence of something..." The existence of reality is an assumption I make because if I did not, I would not be able to function in reality. This assumption is far more reasonable than the assumption that spirits, (I take to mean invisible beings that can nonetheless affect the world) exist. "Therefore God cannot be confined to a lab and is outside Science's reach" If God cannot be observable, how do we expect to know him? Your archaeological evidence proves still nothing. Even if the Bible contains some historical information, it isn't all correct. For example, the story of 6 day creation is impossible. When I mention the 13.75 billion year old universe, I mention it in contrast to the supposed 6000 years old universe that the Bible suggests. "You never address how the problem of evil argument disproves his existence. We are now drifting to his morality." God is described in the Bible as being omnibenevolent, so if he was not omnibenevolent, he would not be the God of the Bible. "The problem with this argument is that it is logically impossible for anyone to harmonize it. If God is powerful enough to cause himself to not be powerful, he's not God. If he's not powerful enough, he's still not God, so this argument is futile." Similarly to the previous argument: God is described in the Bible as being omnipotent, so if he was not omnipotent, he would not be the God of the Bible.
A god exists, as defined by the PRO side.

"I would like to point out that science is not the only way to reality...I take the approach that is based on experience." In this paragraph, you seem to imply that you trust unverified, personal experience over peer-reviewed, scientifically proven fact. I feel that this approach is naive at best, for reasons I hope are obvious. "...the field of archaeology reaffirmed us of the historical accuracy of the Bible..." As I have mentioned earlier: When using evidence, please provide sources, lest the claim is absolutely trivial. "I believe that many logical arguments against God can be resolved once we have an understanding from God's own Word." Please do describe such logical arguments when possible.
Parents should not take items their child/teen bought, that is not dangeorous/illegal.

"By saying within limits, my opponent suggests there are and should be limits to how children should be punished. By saying that he opens the window for me to say, parents should deal with their children in a way that does not show the children that theft is acceptable." My Response: When I said within limits I was implying no physical abuse. Also, taking away something doesn't show theft. That's like saying the government can't take money for compensation, etc. "The fact that it is less wrong does not make it right. The deffinition of abusive is used for almost all physical punishments. Xera, will slap the hand or face, but she can not even be considered abusive, so define abusive." My Response: Abusive - Extreme use of physical force, e.g. beating. "Yes but this debate is about whether the law should be changed, not what the law is." My Response: The resolution never implies legality. You just state the word "should". Therefore, I argue that under law everything bought by a child, essentially belongs to the parent. So, extend this argument. "Any possible item bought by anybody can be dangerous, if an adult buys a set of knives, it COULD be dangerous, so just because something can be dangerous, does not mean that they should not have it. Thus by the time the child had enough money to buy something, the parents should have done their job in teaching the child not to have agressive behavior, thus if the parent cares enough to take he item away as a punishment, then [s]he wont need to, if the child is agressive with the items, and is causing harm, then the parents should be sued." My Response: you are not getting my argument. I am saying that since every item could possibly be dangerous, then the resolution is negated. The resolution states that if something is illegal or DANGEROUS, then the parent should have a right to take it away. Just because a parent may teach a child how to use something doesn't negate it's possible dangerousness. =============================================================================== My opponent has not presented a case of her own, and she has burden of proof.
Parents should not take items their child/teen bought, that is not dangeorous/illegal.

Thank you for taking this debate CiRrO. "A) Parents have a right to teach their child anyway that want (within limits). If taking something away from their child is the way they wish to discipline them, then they have a legal right to do so. Also, isn't it better and more humane for a parent to take a toy away then be abusive? ^^" By saying within limits, my opponent suggests there are and should be limits to how children should be punished. By saying that he opens the window for me to say, parents should deal with their children in a way that does not show the children that theft is acceptable. The fact that it is less wrong does not make it right. The deffinition of abusive is used for almost all physical punishments. Xera, will slap the hand or face, but she can not even be considered abusive, so define abusive. B) According to law, until a child is of age (18), anything that is bought is not the "child's" it is the parents. Therefore, the parent has the right to take it away since by law it is theirs. Yes but this debate is about whether the law should be changed, not what the law is. "Any possible item bought by a kid/teen could be dangerous. Everything can be sued as a possible weapon. If the parent thinks that a specific item is dangerous to the kid or him/herself then they have a right to take it away. According to the resolution it implies dangerous. Therefore, since all items are dangerous then the parent has a right to take it away." Any possible item bought by anybody can be dangerous, if an adult buys a set of knives, it COULD be dangerous, so just because something can be dangerous, does not mean that they should not have it. Thus by the time the child had enough money to buy something, the parents should have done their job in teaching the child not to have agressive behavior, thus if the parent cares enough to take he item away as a punishment, then [s]he wont need to, if the child is agressive with the items, and is causing harm, then the parents should be sued. I await ciRrO's responce.
Parents should not take items their child/teen bought, that is not dangeorous/illegal.

I negate: Parents should not take items their child/teen bought, that is not dangerous/illegal. Contention I: Parental Rights A) Parents have a right to teach their child anyway that want (within limits). If taking something away from their child is the way they wish to discipline them, then they have a legal right to do so. Also, isn't it better and more humane for a parent to take a toy away then be abusive? ^^ B) According to law, until a child is of age (18), anything that is bought is not the "child's" it is the parents. Therefore, the parent has the right to take it away since by law it is theirs. Contention II: Anything is dangerous Any possible item bought by a kid/teen could be dangerous. Everything can be sued as a possible weapon. If the parent thinks that a specific item is dangerous to the kid or him/herself then they have a right to take it away. According to the resolution it implies dangerous. Therefore, since all items are dangerous then the parent has a right to take it away. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. I also look froward to a good debate against you again "I'm Always right"
Parents should not take items their child/teen bought, that is not dangeorous/illegal.

If a child/teen buys an item with his/her money that [s]he bought by working, then the parents should not take the item. We are talking about harmless items i.e. a t-shirt/blue jeans, a CD, an MP3 player/Ipod, or anything else that the parent has not said the child/teen can't have, or the child/teen has not done anything to make the parent believe [s]he should not be allowed to have/use the item. I will now wait for someone to take this up.
Parents should not take items their child/teen bought, that is not dangeorous/illegal.

" When I said within limits I was implying no physical abuse. Also, taking away something doesn't show theft. That's like saying the government can't take money for compensation, etc. " So, you are saying that a parent can teach the child that hitting is not a punishment, BUT if you don't like what someone is doing with their items, they can steal. "Abusive - Extreme use of physical force, e.g. beating." So if a parent holds a child, and uses force on the child, so that the child has difficulty moving for a few minutes, that is wrong, but the law of the US (and a sin in Christianity), of theft is not wrong at all, am I correct? "The resolution never implies legality. You just state the word "should". Therefore, I argue that under law everything bought by a child, essentially belongs to the parent. So, extend this argument." Yes but by using the word should, it also means that every person is equal, if a child buys soda with $2, that [s]he earned, the soda should be theirs. if the parent wants the soda, the parent should buy it from the store, or the child. "you are not getting my argument. I am saying that since every item could possibly be dangerous, then the resolution is negated. The resolution states that if something is illegal or DANGEROUS, then the parent should have a right to take it away. Just because a parent may teach a child how to use something doesn't negate it's possible dangerousness." CiRrO I would like to say this: The resolution says NOTHING about what rights the parent has with dangerous items. All the resolution says is with non-dangerous items, it does not deal with dangerous items at all.
Legalize all drugs

If we were to legalize all drug it would be chaos. A lot of people would OD and died, and just imagine the legalizing of crack. If we legalized all drugs anyone could get pain killers from the pharmacy and get messed up and do something they would regret. the legalizing of all drug is the worst idea in the whole thought process of anybody alive. A lot of people know what the symptoms of drug use are. The children that have to see and be around them think they have to do them to to fit in. This is wrong and this is why we have a control on them and making them illegal if they are a bad drug. we are teaching the children that are younger to use drugs. They would use them because they look up to use. We should not legalize all drugs because of the affect on society and the people and children in it.
Legalize all drugs

Two rules firstly. 1.Quote research 2.Don't use propoganda Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal. 1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay. 2.Many of them are harmless in the short term. 3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users. 4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate. 5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it) 6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power since clean industrial production would be created. I'm not saying let's give needles to every 12 year old. I'm saying educate them about the REAL risks. Educate them on the long term affects. Make it impartial. When americans turn 18 they can... vote. join the army. drive a car. own a gun. drink (at 21) buy cigarettes (which are worse than most drugs most doctors would agree) use a prostitute. (where legal) buy explosives buy fire works and do all other kinds of things... many of these things are MORE dangerous than most drugs and can kill you quicker! yet we don't trust ourselves with some recreational drugs. I invite anyone to disprove me. But when it comes down to it, what people do with their bodies is NO ONE's BUSINESS. I'm not defending meth heads, but I'm following along the principle of personal liberty.
Legalize all drugs

to legalize all drugs would be the end of life as we know it. it would put a lot of creeps back on the streets. crime rates will go up to probly 4 times what they are now. the reason we have a law against them is to keep the citizens safe. most accident either vehicular or not are caused by drug related things. also the reason that we have laws against drugs is because it cause people to do goofy and dangerous things. PCP or angel dust cause you to get butt naked and climb to high heights. meth makes you smell like cat pee and will make you look like crap in the end. cocaine makes you tweak a lot and can make you do something without anything being remembered. drugs cause people do do certain thing that is a threat to society. so I end this debate with drugs being all legalized would jeopardize the safety of all people and other thing around the person doing them. I think they should not be legalized at all unless for a medical reason like pot is.
Legalize all drugs

children learn from looking up to the adults on how to do stuff. so lets say you are sitting in your living room shooting up, your kid walks in and what to you do. they have seen it now and later in life when they can get it they will more then likely start using and become an addict. I stand my ground that all drugs should not be legalized because of the effects of some. take for instance meth. it is like taking acid and swolling it or taking a lighter and burning the underside of your nose. it is a nasty and horrible drug that kills quicker ten any. also cocaine is extremely addictive and it burns around the bottom of your nose. if we legalized drugs crime will go higher then it is now and the world will generally go to hell. I stand behind that drugs should not be legalized due to the dangers and the death rate.
Legalize all drugs

I want to establish a few premises. You can't stop people from using something you can make out of plant material and OTC medicine. It's unrealistic to expect it. The government has no right to tell me what to do with my body. Most drugs don't make you act as erratically as you make it out to be. Also, "get messed up and do something they regret" There are plenty of LEGAL drugs that do that...such as...alcohol? There can't be a double standard and this argument is officially debunked. Now then... "A lot of people would OD and die" Actually not...Marijuana, Shrooms, and the other soft drugs, it's hard to OD on them... Next....let's examine WHY people OD. Heroin addicts die because they think the purity of their heroin is lower than it may actually be, and then they use more than they need. Thus they die. Kids don't do drugs because older people do drugs, kids do drugs because they are fun. For the last 60 years we have been telling them to not do drugs. News flash IT HAS NOT WORKED. Yes there are ramifications to letting our society have drugs, but let's look at the drug war... Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted Millions of non-violent offenders being put into over crowded jails drugs are now cheaper and more availible than has ever been ever in history. Instead of making drugs illegal...why don't we regulate them...tax them....and educate our populace about the real facts of drugs.
Nazi Germany lost World War II because they invaded Russia.

I agree with the "Invaded" definition, but not with the "lost."Here's my definition of "lost."Lost: "ending in or attended with defeat." [1] (6th definition)If we would work with that definition instead, please do so. If we can't please tell me. Arguments:The Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact [2]The pact was very simple. Because the Nazi's were growing stronger and stronger, Stalin basically got worried. Also, due to the fact Nazi Germany was already fighting France, Britain, and the other western allies, they would not have to worry about the Soviets from the east. Seems like a good idea. The terms of the pact were as follows:1. The two countries agreed not to attack each other, either independently or with other powers.2. To remain in consulation with each upon questions touching their common interests. (consulation definition, 2nd one: http://dictionary.reference.com...)3. Not to join any powers directly or indirectly threatening the two parties. Now, everything was set up and ready! I don't understand why Nazi Germany would just toss this pact aside and invade Russia, when they simply did not want to get involved, and more importantly, did not even interfere with Hitler's plan of domination. If they kept the pact, they would focus on their western front.. and as quoted "not worry about the Soviets from the east."The amount of troops coming from the USSRGermany had about 10 million troops in WW2. Their main allies (Japan, Italy, etc.) came up to about 10 million more. So they have about 20 million manpower. [3] The USA and Britain combined have 16 million, France did have 5 million but were taking over (not including them), and India had 2 million coming. It is about 20 million axis versus 18 million allies. When Germany invaded Russia, Russia added 12 million MORE to the Allies stack, which means about 20 million axis versus 30 million allies. It makes absolutely no sense to invade Russia.Conclusion:Nazi Germany as foolish to invade the USSR, because the USSR had more troops than the USA, and just added more troops to the allies, and because they already had a good pact in place, and it makes no sense to break it.Over to you, Con. Cites:[1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]- http://www.britannica.com...[3]- http://www.nationalww2museum.org...
Nazi Germany lost World War II because they invaded Russia.

I acceptResolutionThe burden of proof is on pro, as pro needs to prove that the Nazi Germany lost World War II because the Nazi invaded Russia. Pro's claim: ¨Nazi Germany lost World War II because they invaded Russia.¨ pro's claim cannot be altered in any shape or form.DefinitionsLost: denoting something that has been taken away or cannot be recovered.Invaded: enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect. I will await upon pro's opening argument. Alt+M Alt+N