BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kalam Cosmological Argument is a firm argument for the existence of God

Ok, I think I get it. There are two fundamental points which are wrong here: "The theist is trying to claim that the Universe began to exist, that is, there was a state in which there was God, "and then" there was a state in which there was the Universe" However, many theists adhere to a simultaneous creation; (formulated in the 12-13 century) that is, God and his creation existed simultaneously with each other. Then, in an attempt to discredit this,it says 'The Universe would exist at the same instant that it doesn't exist - a contradiction'. Really? So are they saying simultaneous causal relations are impossible? Why can't the cause and effect exist at the same time in an asymmetric dependency relation? Let me give an analogy from Dr. Craig: For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling! In addition, why couldn't one timeless entity - say, a number - depend timelessly for its existence on another timeless entity. Why is that impossible? Why couldn't God timelessly sustain a number in existence? That would clearly be an asymmetric causal relation. Why is that impossible? There also seems to be a fundamental flaw in this argument - In the end, all causation is simultaneous. Imagine A is the cause, and B is the effect. If A were to vanish before the time at which B is produced, would B nevertheless come into being? Surely not! But if time is continuous, then no matter how close to B's appearance A's disappearance takes place, there will always be an interval of time between A's disappearance and B's appearance. But then why or how B came into being when it does seems utterly mysterious, for there is no cause at that moment to produce it. So as you can see, this is a very bad argument and to assert it would be to assert that NOTHING can cause ANYTHING. Overall I hope I have commicated to you the absurdity of these arguments. Because it is blatantly obvious that no-one in their sane mind can deny premise 1 - that 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'. The fundamental rule in Metaphysics is 'Out of nothing, nothing comes'. And it is equally obvious that no-one can deny premise 2 - that 'the universe began to exist', - an infinite universe is absurd and to assert otherwise would go against both philosophical and scientific laws. So the conclusion logically follows. God Bless
Morality Without God

I see that Freedo has posed a quite simple seeming statement- For us to live by moral principles, we need not believe in God. My argument is quite simple too. If we do not believe in god, and nor His teachings, then who would decide the ‘valid moral principles' as you say? God is someone who is eternal, who does not change with time, who is there, always. He is someone who is always present in our conscience, telling us wrong from right. So, if we eliminate Him from our existence, the person whom we are relying on, is Us- i.e me and the society. And that is a shaky foundation in itself. Also, even if we know (without God telling us) what the moral principles are, what use are they if we don't follow them. Man is inadvertently guided by the force or the basic nature of Karma. i.e we will be punished for all the wrong that we do. There is no scientific basis for the claim, but it is something that we know, or fear. Man is basically a selfish being and if he thinks he can get away with something, there is very little to hold him back, and only a man of infinite patience and calmness can actually follow his moral principles just because it is wrong to do so. If man were not fallen, i.e., not corrupted by sin, we would have limitless potential to create from within ourselves a universal moral code. But, we are a fallen lot, every last one of us, and therefore incapable of fully knowing what is good (Rom. 3:23). We are even incapable of carrying out what we do know to be good (Rom. 7:18-21).
Video games are not a significant factor in mass shootings.

See here's the thing that my opponent fails to realize. Note: not everyone takes everything the same way. Which the studies I pointed out in the first round the Top 25 studies on video game violence. Some teenagers responded with more violent acts of aggression. Some didn't. This suggests that some are more mature and handle it better than others. These men are the ones that are exposed to it and somehow, bam, a massacre happened. Many examples will prove it. Most people in today's era find Opera music boring, but there is a few that see's it as beautiful. It may make some sleepy and confused but to others it gets their adrenaline up. Some music make you feel certain ways, test yourself on that before you decide to vote. See if the music makes you feel certain ways and acts certain ways. If music and other things can influence people on their actions. Why can't video games? Why are video games not a factor in this what so ever? This is completely hearsay that this must not be true via they are still studying this. That would mean it is a factor. If video games were not a factor in mass shootings, than I ask this one very, very simple question. Why mention it to so many cases? This would be trivial to these people's actions yet they investigate it. So how is it even a factor? Why are we even debating on the fact? What does my opponent bring up sources that link video games to the massacres but can't seem to find one that doesn't slightly mention the idea that it is a factor? Which cancels out the point making it's not a factor. If it wasn't there would be a credited source that would not place video games in the matter at all, but simply based upon what ever the person that wrote it his theory alone not even cancelling it out if it was not a factor. Conclusion. 1. If it's not a factor with the massacres, why is it mentioned in so many articles? 2. If it's not a factor then why after 30 years at least of studying it, it's continuing to be studied. 3. Video games: primarily shooting games, shows how to load, aim, shoot, and reload a gun. Find one that doesn't. 4. Other than researching this themselves how to use a weapon which there has been nothing said about what's the other way to gain knowledge how to use a weapon? Shooting games. Which is a genre of video games. 5. Actors have inspired people to become actors. Boxing has inspired people to become boxers. Musicians have inspired people to become musicians. Etc. So why can't shooting games inspire people to shoot other people?
Video games are not a significant factor in mass shootings.

Ave!ColumbineEven if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wrote about bullying other people, it says nothing about whether they themselves were bullied or not. People can bully other people and be bullied themselves. TD_Cole gives us no reason to think that this isn't possible. His argumentation is severely flawed.Do video games lead to violence in youth?In this round, TD_Cole brings up reasearch from Iowa State Universit to try and show that video games lead to violence and violent acts in youth. This idea is overtly false.The Boston News published an article by Jim Morrison called ‘’Local law enforcement officials see drop in juvenile crime’’. This article discusses the decline in juvenile crime in Massachusetts, and how the decline correlates with the FBI’s nationwide crime reports. Last year, over two hundred million video games were sold. If video games cause youth violence, then why is youth violence declining, as the number of video games bought increases? [1]Jon Katz lucidly articulates this view in the book ‘’Crime and Criminals’’. He writes, ‘’If Bok’s right, why do FBI statistics show violence among the youth plummeting to its lowest level since Prohibition, while violence imagery in media has indeed been increasing, along with cable programming and usage, movie attendance, and the advent of the net?’’. (2001) [2]70% of U.S. households play video games (Crum 2013). If video games truly lead to violent acts, then we should be expecting some type of apocalypse with such a high number. Instead, youth violence is declining as more people start to play video games every year. Where is the increase in violence among youth? Nowhere, because video games are not a cause. [3]The research discussed in the NY Daily News is also interesting when it comes to youth violence. Consider the fact that millions of teenagers hang out with their friends and play popular games like Halo and Call of Duty. If playing video games with your friends leads to increase cooperativeness and decreased aggression, then video games are actually making youth less likely to be violent. Gun TrainingTD gives us a very weak argument. Video games teach people to use guns because they increase hand-eye coordination? Putting aside the fact that the link between improved H/I coordinaton and video games is not solid, it's a non-sequitur to suggest that this would also teach somebody how to fire a weapon.He also suggets that video games put ideas into people's heads that cause them to perpetrate mass shootings. He doesn't give any evidence for this. Using Hitchen's razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. [4]AxiomExtended.References[1] Morrison, Jim. "Local Law Enforcement Officials See Drop in Juvenile Crime." N.p., n.d. Web.[2] Katz, Jon. Crime and Criminals. San Diego: Greenhouse, 2000. Print[3] Crum, Chris. "WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business." WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. http://www.webpronews.com....[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...Vale!
Video games are not a significant factor in mass shootings.

This is a post from the NY times and I quote, "The young men who opened fire at Columbine High School, at the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and in other massacres had this in common: they were video gamers who seemed to be acting out some dark digital fantasy. It was as if all that exposure to computerized violence gave them the idea to go on a rampage " or at least fueled their urges." http://www.nytimes.com...; Which shows that they have one thing in common, video games. Which means something could have been triggered inside their minds that could of lead to these unfortunate events. Which makes video games a significant factor for even looking at. Axion? Do you mean Axiom? ax"i"om /ˈaksēəm/ Noun A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. A statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based. These studies are the top 25 studies that are one violent video games. http://kotaku.com... Note not every study says the conclusion is that after playing violent video games teens became more aggressive but others have. Which means in fact that it could play a factor in deciding whether or not video games is indeed a factor in massacres. Pointing out the fact that those massacres brought up they all had in common, they were video gamers. "Video games and personality- The American Psychological Association published a press release in 2010 that discussed the current research about video games. It cited research by Dr. Patrick Markey, which ""determined that a certain combination of personality traits can help predict which young people will be more adversely affected by violent video games."" If this research is true, then the role that the player"s personality has on the consequences of video game use cannot be denied. It"s not the violence in the video game that causes mass shootings or violent crime, but it"s the person who plays the game.[2]" So if it triggered something in one whom's personality that led to the massacres themselves then that would make it a starting out point for them to act based on the video game. They were gamers so with that actually being said it's a contradicting statement. It's the person that plays the game but in terms the video game triggered that one personality trait that would make them do that. How does anyone stop someone from becoming more violent? Don't allow them to be around violence. Video games role-play a lot of different things, one of them is violence and in many different ways. Sandy Hook - Your argument is about video games not being a factor everything you just stated about that suggests it was because of playing violent video games, has a disorder, and lived in a basement. Those are the three main things you suggested and by that being said it proved to be said video games are a part of the factor that lead to this tragedy. Keep going though, your disproving your own case.
Famer's story writing debate Round #2 Draferman VS TUF

I do appolagize to my opponent if he lost interest in this. I may have derailed the interest from where he was originally going with this. Nonetheless, I have had lots of fun, and I thank my opponent for starting this debate and putting so much creative time and effort into this debate. It was fun while it lasted! Thanks to all the viewers who have kept up with this! -TUF
Christianity is a shallow belief

1) What? 2) "the only belief they are going off of is a story. and that many people have that view ( so they are just fallowing the crowed )" If you knew anything about Christianity you would know it is more "Just a story." There have been first hand witnesses, and many key ideas that lead us to believe that Jesus existed, and created our universe. As for the "following the crowd" statement, thats just silly, we don't hold faith because of others, they may get into it because of others but how else are you going to get introduced to something new, it is what they choose to do afterward that counts. If there wasn't sufficient evidence for Christianity, you would not have some of the brightest minds, philosophers, scientists, etc constantly researching it, and believing it. There are so many that it is commonly known as the quiet revolution. As for "Only Christians go to heaven" He created us, came down to our earth and allowed us to kill him for our own sins, because he wanted us to know he was there. We have profuse amounts of first hand witnesses and Gospels that prove he existed. He did so much, it is only fair that those who accept him get to go to heaven, it's not a hard choice. And if you had read the bible, revolations in particular you would find it not so shallow afterall. 3) You may have experiences you believe are guiding you away from God, but again if you knew anything about the Bible you would know that it is Satan, he does those things intentionally in an attempt to guide us away from Christ. But the thing is, you have the billions of people who have felt Christs presence with them, so you better start talking to them one by one. 4) I will argue this point regardless of it's irrelevancy. What proof do you have of evolution? Christianity has had to kill many people to come "into power"? do explain. In detail preferably. "if god really made it there would of never been a war." Really now...Again, you know nothing of Christianity. Our own sin and OUR OWN DECISIONS are what bring the bad things upon our world. We want to fight, no matter the size, school fights, wrestling matches, ultimate fighting, country wars, world wars. You expect him to jump in the middle and stop our actions when he can simply take those who accept him? 5) Nobody knows exactly how that works, because it's not something he needed to tell us, the idea of the rewards is sufficient don't you think? There is no suffering or pain because there is none needed, there is no temptation etc...
Christianity is a shallow belief

1.)Christianity is shallow because Christianity beliefs are burdened my mans view of the world. So its how they describe god is pretty much what they see in themselves. 2) the only belief they are going off of is a story. and that many people have that view ( so they are just fallowing the crowed ) most Christians only fallow the parts they believe in so there also hypocrites at the same time. if a christen was born into a Jewish family guess what they be, not Christen "its a hand me down religion " most Christians have no proof beside when u ask them, they say " I read it in a book " I've read many fantasies about dragons and unicorns there's no proof of them ever not existing but yet no one believes in them. but I believe that just because its not helping them cope with death why believe in it. Only christens go to heaven is pretty shallow to me and there always stating, there trying to save me. that is impossible seeing how that's not my issue with life in fact Christians are one of my issues (they thank they know everything) why cant they just admit there just as clueless as I when it comes to death. 3) I've seen many weird things and none of them point to Christianity's god In my life I have seen many random weird things I have looked into what it could be and it rarely point's to a chrisanity belief. 4) The proof I have is that there is no Christian god here now. and evolution is a real thang argue about it or not, there are many religions all in a fight with one another and, each one claims there right, christen had to kill many people to become into power, if god really made it there would of never been a war. 5) heaven is fictional, how does god take away all your pain and suffering and not control you. in odor for that to work you'd have to have a really large test to get into heaven if not there be the same mistakes there are here as for there 6) my belief is its still being built it may never be finished, that's why its broad. my belief vrs. your finished belief. Christanitys claim about the devil and the apple of knowledge doesn't that mean your supposed to be clueless, But somehow Christians know everything when you die sorry con if this post sounds evil in any way religion gets a rise outa me
Christianity is a shallow belief

yes its not "shallow" but its not thanking for yourself so i consider it shallow. nothing you did upset me beside i have not learned anythang new off you. your just like anyone esle who belives in a religion. you just beleve in it. no evidence beside your one book, and your faith. I wish i could have faith but im not blind and all faith today has no end, and is just a story. Maybe one day you'll see a fact to humanity, its not a good one but its a fact to us. and it hurts day after day.
Christianity is a shallow belief

Before i begin, i must point out that we are not debating on the fact of whether Jesus actually existed, we are debating over whether or not Christianity is shallow. "yeah if you didn't also know 90% or more of the scientific community believe in evolution it makes more since then 7 day creation or whatever, seeing how if you were to carbon date an object it gets pretty old. Around 6 Billion years old . The oldest human bones are not the same age. and there's not a 3 day age difference either so goodbye creation." The percentage does not matter, take a look at one of my favorite quotes. "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual" Because there are theologists out there, with sufficient reasoning and evidence for the existence of God, that is enough for one to have faith. About the 7 days of creation, for one it is actually 6 days of creation and one day of rest. However that is not the point, you are taking that part of the Bible literally when it is not intended to be taken so. Times have changed, time has not always been consistent, and still is not throughout the universe. Carbon dating suggests the earth to be several billion years old, and rightfully so. Because it is, but that does not suggest the non existence of God, it simply means he created it that long ago, or in the image of time long ago. "Trust me I have data was insufficient to make anything off of. I can feel Barney's presence if I believed it was Barney." You can believe it is the presence of barney if you'd like, however i would not call it shallow if you did. ________________________________________________________________________________________ "You really believe you aren't following a crowed. this is sadder then I thought. I hate ego Enplane this: Why are most Jewish family's Jewish and most Christen family's Christen so on and so on. hmm lets see here one reason "followers" ( here's the answer they watch there family members participate in the religious rituals, then adopt as there own) people who follow faith are cowards they all need something to believe cause death is a comen, and life wasn't sufficient enough for them, so why not, you get everything handed to you when you die for doing nothing. makes since to me" Families follow their traditions for good reason, because that is what they are taught to believe. However, they believe because there is sufficient reason to do so. But, many families have not followed their parents, like people I personally know, that come from Atheist families that have accepted Christ, why? Because they see the sufficiency of doing so. They believe that Christ died for us, and that is fair enough. You have yet to tell me why it is shallow for people to accept who they believe their savior is into their heart.
Certain Books Should be Banned

The American Library Association have tried to remove certain content from libraries since 1990, and obviously, there's a reason behind it. Parents should have the rights to decide what their children are exposed to and what they should be getting their noses into. Having books with adult topics available in libraries limits parents' ability to choose when their children are mature enough to read specific material. "Literary works containing explicit sex, oral sex, explicit & violent descriptions of rape, masturbation, vulgar and obscene language" were on the approved reading list for grades 7-12. If books with inappropriate material are available in libraries, children or teens can be exposed to books their parents wouldn't approve of before the parents even find out what their children are reading
Animal Rights

The Proposition side hasn't actually specified the "definition" of 'Animal Rights', therefore, I myself will define what 'Animal Rights' mean in this term of debate. Definition of 'Animal Rights': Rights 'believed' to belong to animals to be free from human care, scientific research involving them, hunting, and many other kinds of services to human. The definition I mentioned above basically involves different kinds of rights of what humans have. Now I would like to start with my rebuttals. The Proposition side mentioned: Equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Yes, that is, in fact, true, however, this fact varies a lot, and you cannot just admit the fact that it requires equal consideration because some are, while some aren't. Also, the Proposition side mentioned: "Can animals reason?" the question to ask is "Can animals suffer?" "Are animals suffering?" Again, this varies for each and one of the animal variant. While it is true animals cannot reason to human, this also states that they cannot have the rights of having to ask humans or in other words, express their feelings. Moreover, you have to consider the fact that they are not exactly "Rational" which is another term you need to earn or show in order to obtain rights. Also, some animals are actually receiving amazing treatment that they cannot ever get if they were to have rights to stay away from humans as they wish. I would like to state that equal consideration is totally different from what this topic is about, and yes, I believe that is off-topic in this debate. I would like to ask the Proposition side to clarify the definition of "Equal Consideration" on the next round, and I hope the Proposition side will begin to actually send out proper reasons to support their details. Good luck!