BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

Hello, I will be debating that the existence of a monotheistic Abrahamic God (that is acknowledged by Islam, Judaism and Christianity) is much more likely relative to the existence of Zeus or Thor (mythological pagan gods). I think that in order for this debate two succeed, two questions need to be appropriately answered. 1) Who is God? What are we proving? 2) What is evidence? What is the type of proof we are looking for here? So I'll begin. 1) My opponents arguments stem from a large misunderstanding of who God is. He commits the fallacy of equivocation by making God equal to Zeus or Thor. To demonstrate why this is false, we have to understand who God is. God is defined by monotheistic religion as a being who is all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing. He is the one and only perfect standard. Aristotle regarded God as the uncaused cause. In Greek times, there were good and evil gods. They were enemies of one another. The reason why Aristotle rejected his old notion is because it is contradictory. How can two perfect beings rival one another? This is not possible. This is why it's impossible to relate Zeus to the Abrahamic God - they are not the same. 2) Now that I've defined who God is, I'd like to provide evidence for his existence. My opponent believes that evidence can only be scientific / historic - but this type of evidence can only prove material things. God is immaterial, he exists outside of time & space. He can only be known through reason. Aristotle recognized that God is the first cause or first mover. We recognize in reality that everything is governed by the law of cause & effect. If there is no God, first cause, we fall into an infinite regression - to reason against this logical problem we assign a first cause to the universe- God. Zeus & Thor do not fit this definition because they are not God properly speaking (see #1). In short, God is not the same as Zeus/Thor and has philosophical evidence for his existence while the latt
The Christian God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

My argument is that the God of Judaism and Christianity (Yahweh or Elohim) is as unlikely (or as likely) as any of the commonly accepted mythological gods of antiquity, such as Zeus or Thor or Odin. I am NOT arguing against the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth, however. I AM arguing about the God of the Jews, described in the Old and New testament and the "Father" or perhaps "Holy spirit" aspect of the divinity in Christianity. I contend that there is zero scientific or historical evidence for the existence of Yahweh. I also contend that there is no reasonable reason to believe in the existence of Yahweh, over that of Zeus or Thor. We all consider the mythological Gods of antiquity such as Zeus and Thor and Odin to be just that, mythological beings that do not exist. I argue that we should also, by the same exact logic, see Yahweh as mythological and non-existent being on par with Thor or Odin or Zeus.
The Christian God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

Hi, for the last round, I will clean up the debate and summarize why I have won. 1) The universe formed itself - he said it's ok if it's infinite, however, the universe is finite (it has a beginning and an end) - if the universe was caused by another universe, that means it's caused by another universe - and so an infinite regression (and thus a contradiction to the finite nature of the universe arises). An uncaused cause must set things into motion, I have contested that this cause is God - my opponent has hasn't offered a good argument to replace this so I see this argument is uncontested. God is necessary because he is the uncaused cause. 2) "There are such things as "logical fallacies", and my opponents "cosmological argument" is an example of a logical fallacy. His conclusion does not follow his premises.". My opponent has yet to demonstrate the logical fallacy rather than just calling it that. Yawn. 3) "First, they contradict their definition, gods are supposed to be powerful & perfect." -- Wrong. Not all definitions of "god" include "perfect". In fact, only one definition does (The Christian God). I cited this already." - Great, you cited a vague definition that you didn't construct into an argument. The reason why Greek philosophers rejected the "gods" is because they go against their divine nature. They are supposed to be better than us, but it is cited in myths: "Xenophanes had complained that Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods 'all that is shameful and disgraceful among men; they steal, commit adultery, and deceive one another'" [1]. Ultimately, I have actually fulfilled my burden in trying to say why God is more likely to exist vs. Zeus/Thor. My opponent has done very little to say why the likelihood of the existence of either one is exactly the same. Thus, while I contest that my arguments hold, please recognize my opponent has no arguments. Please vote appropriately [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Christian God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

I never attempted to demand that my opponent "prove" God, he offered to do that himself through his arguments. All I did was show how his argument was fallacious. Simply offering an "argument" for something does NOT lend credence to its existence if the argument itself is flawed. I refer my opponent to Occam's razor. The simpler explanation that requires less questions and proofs is the better explanation. 1: The universe formed itself (or existed as a seed infinitely in the past before forming itself, or was formed by other universes). or 2: The universe was formed spontaneously, at a certain time in infinity, by an omnipotent, omnipresent, conscious and intelligent being who's origin is a mystery (or who existed infinitely in the past and who's inspiration to make the world when it did is a mystery) The first explanation is clearly better. Why assume "God" in the scenario if he is not necessary? I believe that I have provided a rational, reasonable and legitimate rebuttal to all of my opponents arguments. He claims that I fail to respond to them, but if you read the debate you will see that this is false. My opponent claims that to assume the premises of an argument is to "naturally follow to the conclusion". This shows a lack of understanding of logic. There are such things as "logical fallacies", and my opponents "cosmological argument" is an example of a logical fallacy. His conclusion does not follow his premises. "Zeus/Thor are pagan gods." -- Agree "First, they contradict their definition, gods are supposed to be powerful & perfect." -- Wrong. Not all definitions of "god" include "perfect". In fact, only one definition does (The Christian God). I cited this already. "Yet how can two perfect beings oppose one another? This is a contradiction."-- THis is a straw man. No one said that the Greek Gods or Norse Gods were "perfect". We already clarified this in the first posts. Due to the character count, I wi
The Christian God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

Hello, despite my comments in the comment section, my opponent proceed to misconstrue and digress the argument from comparing the likelihood of the Christian God's existence to Zeus/Thor to proving that the Christian God exists. This is not at all what I was intending to do and I am going to do very little to continue to make the case for why it is 100% true that the Christian God exists. In my final round, I will briefly touch on the Pro's points, and rebuild my arguments. 1) My opponent has done little cite his work, construct an argument and analyze his statements. Numerous times he points to the names of scientific theories & prominent scientists (Hawking being the latest mention) but he has not expanded on their cases and why they are relevant. Why should the universe spontaneously come into being anymore than it should be caused by God? However - I actually provided a constructive case as to why while my partner continues to assert without proving argumentation. 2) My opponent continues to deny my arguments but has no argumentative basis. He continues to ask the question, why? As if it is implied that his argument follows. I've brought this issue up numerous times but he continues to do this. 3) To assume the premises of the syllogism is to naturally follow to the conclusion. He's trying to argue against the syllogism but again - cites numerous assertions with no rational basis. God did it because philosophically - it's reasonable to assert that there is an uncaused cause to being. This uncaused cause is one characteristic of the Christian God. To rebuild my argument. Zeus/Thor are pagan gods. First, they contradict their definition, gods are supposed to be powerful & perfect. Yet how can two perfect beings oppose one another? This is a contradiction. Two, they have no need for their existence. Yet the Christian God is defined by his nature to be the first cause. This leads us to a higher likelihood of His existence vs. Zeus/Thor.
Private education should be the standard form of education .

More problems with private education: harder to monitor as no state control, usually less cost-effective as economies of scale not as widely achieved, and private schools are often church-run, which raises diversity issues. Added to this the aforementioned lack of good teachers, the focus on profit not people, the bully culture, the restrictive costs and the resulting inequality, it seems private schools have little going for them. The only advantage my opponent mentioned is not really an advantage at all due to inflation. My opponent has no comebacks to any of this so he forfeited. Save the schools we need with your con vote!
Private education should be the standard form of education .

1870-92 (not 93), UK education was funded by local ratepayers through the municipal rate, so it was not private education. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) If you destroy public schools, good teachers will leave the profession. Less kids in education=smaller pool of good teachers. Vicious cycle. Teachers also often don't like the focus on money there. Private reputation for bullying is not undeserved, having gone to a private school myself. Returns for ï¿½80 billion is a $2.1 trillion GDP. By removing funding for education you will leave UK children behind. Giving ï¿½470 to 170000000 kids will not bring all of them out of poverty any more than giving them $470 would. Inflation will still increase poverty.
Private education should be the standard form of education .

even if individuals cannot afford a decent private education at the moment , the country cannot provide a decent state education for them . Between 1870 and 1893 there was a private system of education in the UK that did not miss anybody out. The system can still be private yet comprehensive in the coverage. If private education has inferior teachers and provides better results than public schools , imagine what they would do with decent teachers ,including getting rid of an undeserved reputation of bullying. education is an investment , we need to care about returns . sorry my bad , ï¿½80 billion(not $80 billion ) will keep 170 million people out of poverty as defined by the world bank . i give way.
Private education should be the standard form of education .

PROBLEM: Not all can afford private education. Competitive behavior does not apply to schools because the minimum cost of a decent education is above the cost most are willing to pay (in Britain cost is $5316 per child, in 3rd world it's more). Thus some miss out on education, leading to inequality and lack of workforce productivity. Most smart poor children are not paid for, only a select few. PROBLEM: Private education often has inferior teachers and is more money-focused than student-focused. In particular, bullying is worse there. $80 bil will not bring 170mil kids out of poverty. That's giving them $470 each. Trouble is they'll just spend it on food and shelter, which will cause inflation and make life more unbearable.
Private education should be the standard form of education .

welcome to the debate , firstly , let us consider the cost of our current education system in the uk of ï¿½80 billion pounds . secondly the state education system is more open to manipulations of qualifications than a purely private system . if all education is of one standard then we stop the entrenchment of class. ï¿½80 billion could be used to pay for 171.4 million people to be taken out of poverty . which is the better investment 10 million middle class kids or 170 million third world children barely existing in our world ? private education would be extra-competitive reducing prices and allowing poor children to get an education .the Private education sector already pays for the smart poor children anyways .
voting age should be lowered

If you read that article I attached, in a survey only 46 percent of kids knew who controlled the house and only 57 percent controlled the senate. Only 15 percent knew one of their states senators and 27 percent knew the districts congressmen. Very disturbingly, only 18 percent where aware that the US was 16 trillion dollars in debt. At this point it's 17 trillion. The vast majority of kids have little interest in the political system and will only serve to increase the amount of barely knowledgeable voters. You have claimed that kids can make wise votes because they know whats good and bad. Well isn't it the job of politicians to make things look good. Both sides are firmly convinces of their positions inherit "goodness." In just this year, we have seen both parties try to out do each other at being anti authoritarian. Rand Paul and his libertarian buddies decried the snooping and peeping of the NSA and Rand even made allusions to libertarians being the modern sons of liberty. Dems played the little guy card over and over again calling for minimum wage hikes some as high as 15 dollars. How is a kid supposed to know whats correct? When did he take economics? Pros alternative to kids actually informing themselves is that kids will get all their voter training in history class. In a non biased text book kids shouldn't be receiving political training. Most history books have a brief section on the politics of the early republic but mostly act as a omnipotent narrator not a debater between parties. If history books do contain lots of political ideas, your pretty much giving the votes of a whole age group to textbook writers. Why shouldn't they vote for someone who's ideas were positively talked about in a school book? Until kids grow up they have no business deciding a nations future.
voting age should be lowered

It's been shown that an average voter couldn't pass a basic economics course. Why then, should we put more barely knowledgeable voters into the mix. Most kids would probably just vote for who their parents voted for. Unless they've been watching the news or doing some serious reading, how would they know anything about the issues of the day. Most people can't identify the speaker of the house or tell which party controls which part of congress. Assuming they are allowed to vote, they will become targets of eager politicians taking advantage of their general ignorance. To get a informed voter you have to sway them with arguments. To get a uniformed voter you have to make up some position that relies more on emotion then logic and sounds very supportable or common sense. To get a totally ignorant teenager to vote for you, you just need a good campaign add and a nice slogan. Here's a article about a survey done about some kids political knowledge. The results showed that these kids didn't know crap. What possible benefits are there to gain by allowing teens to vote? http://www.phillyburbs.com...
Raise the minimum wage

The only point I would add about European Socialist countries such as Norway is the abundance of social assistance programs in the form of financial, educational, and medical assistance. As this article in the Encyclopedia of Nations states,"Norway has been a pioneer in the field of social welfare and is often called a welfare state" http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com... I would also like to add that Norway ranks fourth on Business Insiders list of the countries with the highest quality of life, while the US ranked sixth. http://www.businessinsider.com... I would conclude with this statement from Forbes Magazine, "The United States is a nation in decline. Last year the land of the free and the home of the brave came in 10th place in the annual rankings of World"s Happiest Countries. This year the U.S.A. has slipped to 12th." While Norway ranked number one as the most happiest country on Earth. http://www.forbes.com... Thank you for your time as this was a very enjoyable debate.
Raise the minimum wage

As you know, the United States minimum wage is $7.25. Norway has a minimum wage of $16-$24 depending on the age of the person. That is a huge difference. As an example let us look at the price of the McDonalds BigMac with these two countries. http://www.statista.com.... Norway's Bigmac costs $7.76 while the United States Big Mac costs $4.80 on average. That price is higher in Norway simply because workers are paid more. Let us look at the price of gasoline per country. http://www.statista.com.... Once again Norway has a rediculously high price. It is $9.79 per gallon in Norway and at a $3.69 average in the United States. Let us look at the price of milk. http://www.numbeo.com.... Norway has a price of $2.01 per liter while the United States has a price of $1.01 per liter. The list goes on and on. Apartment costs, cars, and even education all is higher in Norway. Why? Because they must pay their workers more.As I have stated in my previous arguments the higher the minimum wage the more unemployment. It creates a chain effect that decreases the amount of jobs for new and inexperienced workers in some cases.Since Norway is such a great example look at the Norwegian currency compared to the United States. http://themoneyconverter.com.... 1 USD = 7.36773 NOK. This is simply because they need more money to pay their workers.To sum up all of my arguments, if the United States continues to raise the minimum wage at such high rates:- The U.S dollar will be worth less- Unemployment will increase- Youth and inexperienced workers will have rapid unemployment- Products and items used in your everyday life will skyrocketThanks for accepting this debate. This has been worth my time.
Raise the minimum wage

According to this article in the economy section of Time Magazine, States with higher minimum wage, actually have faster job growth. http://time.com... The New York Times states, "Minimum-wage workers are older than they used to be. Their average age is 35, and 88 percent are at least 20 years old. Half are older than 30, and about a third are at least 40." http://www.nytimes.com... After thirty-years of stagnant wages, we have to start somewhere.
Raise the minimum wage

"You have conceded that raising the minimum wage in "very small increments will not destroy our economy".What I have stated previously is yes, raising the minimum wage overtime is not bad. What people are proposing today is outrageous."The Federal Minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60, adjusted for inflation would amount to $10.90 per hour."Using the federal minimum wage from 1968 is out of the question. Me saying that we have to raise the minimum wage very slowly to keep up with inflation means that I do not want workers being paid $1.00 or $2.00 an hour with today's economy. I did not state anywhere that I wanted to base our economy off of the year 1968. Half of your argument has been based off of inflation. You did not once try to denounce the fact that higher minimum wages actually increase unemployment, increase product costs, and put more people into poverty. I stated earlier that states with higher minimum wages compared to states with lower minimum wages have one percent more unemployment. To put that into numbers look at the United States population. http://www.census.gov.... One percent of the over 319 million United States citizens is 3,190,000 people. If the states with lower minimum wages raised them to the states that already had higher minimum wages, this will be the hopeless result. To add to my argument, raising the minimum wage decreases jobs for teenagers. It greatly affects teenagers because of their job inexperience. http://www.forbes.com.... This states that " In June 2006, before the 40% increase in the minimum wage, 42.1% of teens age 16 to 19 were employed. By June 2010, after the economic meltdown and the 40% minimum wage increase, only 28.6% of teens age 16 to 19 were employed. A very weak economy and a policy that substantially raised the cost of inexperienced labor decreased teen employment by about one third in just four years.". Raising the minimum wage hurts the inexperienced workers.
Raise the minimum wage

You have conceded that raising the minimum wage in "very small increments will not destroy our economy". You stated that the minimum wage in your state is raising from $8 to $8.75 in one year. If this raise in minimum wage was voted on by the voters of your state, then it would go outside your state's constitution to not raise the minimum wage. I do not know what state you reside in, but $8.75/hr in rural Mississippi, may provide a basic living for one individual working full-time, however, in Manhattan, NY, you'll likely not survive on $8.75. The current Federal minimum wage is $7.25 and has not been adjusted since 2009. According to http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com... , the Federal Minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60, adjusted for inflation would amount to $10.90 per hour. So according to your statement, "we must raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation", Obama is shorting those federal employees and your state has made a nice first step. America $7.25, China $2.02/hr, China is communist, the US has a regulated free market. In china the government provides many rations such as food, housing, transportation, healthcare, this all varies depending your status. In America subsidies are minimal and many subsidies are under constant attack by politicians. According to http://livingwage.mit.edu... , 2 working adults, with 2 children (with a poverty line of $23,283) would need to earn $51,224 a year to meet the US median living wage. The MIT website states that, " A typical family of four (two working adults, two children) needs to work more than 3 full-time minimum-wage jobs (a 68-hour work week per working adult) to earn a living wage." The answer to China is not to compete with them on who can keep their wages the lowest. The solution is to place tariffs on China's goods so that we can afford to pay a living wage in this country. China understands that the relationship between us and them is mutually beneficial and China is currently investing heavily in America and our future. As stated in this article, http://nationalinterest.org..., and by "the Census Bureau, median household income peaked in 1999 and has steadily declined with only a slight reprieve before the housing bubble burst. Adjusted for inflation, the 2012 US median income was below the 1989 level." Also, https://marketrealist.com..., States that "The current environment " just enough economic growth and suppressed wages " has allowed corporate America to churn out record profits, a factor helping to support this year"s big rally in stocks." I will go so far as to say we should increase minimum wage to $10.10 by next year, but as evidenced by the current protest at fast food chains and big box stores that many families and individuals are finding it difficult enough to survive that they are just like the Doobie Brothers and they're taking it to the streets. I would argue any employer unable raise the minimum wage given to their employees by 75 cents every five years, was not a financially viable business to begin with.