BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The virgin birth is supported by science

"you're obviously thinking about this logically and naturally" The topic of this debate is that the virgin birth is supported scientifically, you took the side of pro and were supposed to show that it was scientifically supported. "From the natural mind standpoint yes a virgin pregnancy and birth is impossible.. However the circumstances under which this conception occurred were supernatural." This means that you agree with me that the virgin birth is not scientifically supported. " It was on purpose that Jesus be born to a virgin because if not, he would have had those natural (Adamic) sins which would make him unpure." This is not relevant to the debate topic. "God provided a miracle pregnancy for his son to be born in the human world ." This shows once more that you agree with me that the birth is not scientifically supported. "We will never truly know if the birth was even real or if it was a story and that's why to look at it and say that it could happen takes faith in miracles and the power of god." This is not relevant to the debate topic. Pro has been unable to bring up supporting scientific evidence that the virgin birth would be possible. I have brought up that people reproduce by sexual reproduction and that a son would need a Y chromosome, which a woman cannot supply.
The virgin birth is supported by science

Ok you're obviously thinking about this logically and naturally. From the natural mind standpoint yes a virgin pregnancy and birth is impossible. However the circumstances under which this conception occurred were supernatural. It was on purpose that Jesus be born to a virgin because if not, he would have had those natural (Adamic) sins which would make him unpure.So, God provided a miracle pregnancy for his son to be born in the human world . We will never truly know if the birth was even real or if it was a story and that's why to look at it and say that it could happen takes faith in miracles and the power of god.
The virgin birth is supported by science

I am con, therefore I do not think science supports the virgin birth. You also say that there wouldn't need to be a Y chromosome, but the Y chromosome is required in order for a fetus to develop into a male, therefore there needs to be a Y chromosome present in the developing fetus. If there was no Y chromosome then the fetus would only be able to develop into a female. You also say that the debate is abstract and subjective because it is determined on the Christian faith, but that is not true. The question is not whether the virgin birth did happen, but whether the virgin birth is supported scientifically. Since God is not scientifically supported you cannot use God to scientifically support the virgin birth.
When a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make

The example of a gunshot is a good one, but it has a fatal flaw. Just because WE don't hear it, that doesn't mean that nobody hears it. As long as something hear it, it makes a sound. The simple premise of a sound means that it must be observed to exist. You can't have a pretty sight without someone or something to see it, just as you can't have a sound without someone or something to hear it. Without observation, a sound wave is nothing more than a series of vibrating particles no "louder" than than the tree before it fell. Similarly, a massage is just some random person moving their hands without someone to be on the receiving end. The part of a sound that makes it a sound is the sensory organ that picks it up and translates it into a detectable noise. Because we are the ones that define what is loud and what is not, we must be present to determine what is a sound and what is not. Though the vibration undoubtedly exists, it is also undoubtedly not a sound.
When a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make

But just because nothing is around to receive the sound waves does not mean that it does not make a sound. It gives off vibrations in the air, even if nothing living is there to listen to it. There could be gunshots in A different country and we could not be able to hear it, but does it make a sound, yes. Yes it does. It does physically move waves around in the air, so it create some effect in the atmosphere, it affects the air, and thus exists. Not a person, nor living thing needs to listen to a sound for the sound wave to exist.
When a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make

When a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, I will argue that it does not make a sound. Quickly, I would like to define the word "nobody." For this debate, nobody around should be defined as no living animal within the area in which the tree falling can be heard. The reason that it does not make a sound is simply because a sound must be observed/heard for it to really count as a a sound. Without a brain to receive and interpret the vibrating air molecules, a physical reaction of vibrating molecules is all that will ever happen. A sound is not a sound without an observer. Will the tree have an impact on its surroundings? Yes? Will it make a noise? No.
The Christian God Exists

Thanks for accepting This round, I will be presenting three points that effectively disprove God's existence. 1. The logical problem of evil: (From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1]): 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 5. Evil exists. 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. 7. Therefore, God doesn't exist. This proposition shows that it is logically impossible for God to exist. 2. The evidential problem of evil [2] This argument attempts to show that, even if the logical problem of evil did not disprove God's existence (however unlikely), it would be extremely unlikely that God exists, even if somehow it is possible. This is because due to the prodigious amount of evil in the world, it is highly unlikely it was created by a morally perfect and infinity benevolent God. Additionally, the evidential problem of evil can be posed to any potential defense, theodicy or refutation for the logical problem of evil to invalidate it. 3. Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor [3] Occam's Razor states that of two competing theories, it is more likely that the simplest one is true. In other words, the theory that makes the least assumptions is most likely to be true. In this case, the two theories are: 1. God exists 2. God does not exist The universe works perfectly without the existence of God, so assuming God exists is just making the universe more complicated. Occam's Razor states that the simplest theory is more likely to be true, so God not existing is more likely to be true than God existing. In conclusion, my three points present sufficient evidence to prove that God does not exist. The logical problem of evil shows that it is logically impossible for God to exist and both the evidential problem of evil and Occam's Razor show that it is tremendously unlikely for God to exist. I will be presenting two additional arguments next round. Thank you for reading. Sources: [1] https://plato.stanford.edu... [2] https://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] https://www.britannica.com...
God is most likely not real and we should live our lives as if he does not exist

Your first point seems to be heading towards the Anthropic principle which suggests that the universe is perfectly fine tuned for us and if an electron was even 0.001 larger than a proton life on earth would be very different if existent at all. Well you saying there is plenty of evidence for a divine creator would suggest you are privy to such, I'd like to see you present this evidence because to date there is none. Its just speculation and I could speculate in the sense using the multiverse theory that there are many universes and in fact are existence isn't so improbable and that actually for a divine creator to be the source of the world would actually be much more improbable. I am aware that we have the choice to abide by these morals but even if we do not live by these restrictions or morals they still affect us. Christianity is rife in government and impacts many decisions which ultimately affect us. Of course anybody has this right but when it starts to encroach on non-believers or believers something different it is not fair in anyway. The world would be a better place without Christianity, there are many secular charities and humans have their own morals they do not need to abide by what is said in a book. We have developed them over time they always existed so believing in a God that kills 2000 children each day in Africa just because and never mind the vast wars and crusades Christians have been involved in plus the discrimination towards the LGBT community and other issues as such. The thing is there is empirical evidence that shows God is 'most likely' not real never did I say that empirical evidence proves God is not real, rather it strongly suggests he is not. Lets all take a minute and 'observe' God lets see him lets use experiments to gain understanding oh wait we cannot but of course we cant prove if he is real or not but we can't actually get evidence to say he is definitely not real which just brings us to a stale mate due to the horrific delusional grip Christianity has on many that faith and belief is proof. I live as if there is no God but i do not claim there is no God if someone was to give me empirical evidence in which i could OBSERVE i would believe but still not follow or become a Christian.
God is most likely not real and we should live our lives as if he does not exist

You argue that there is no evidence that God exists. However, one could state that all things denote there is a God. From the start of the universe to the way that every living being is specifically and perfectly coded, there is plenty of evidence of a divine creator. You also state that we should not, "be limited by the restrictions Christianity brings into our lives." Christianity is a choice. You, along with everyone else, has the choice to live the morals expected by these churches. No person is forcing you to live this way. Saying that "we" should live as if there is no God would be like a vegan telling me I couldn't eat bacon because he didn't believe it was right. It doesn't make sense and is downright stupid for them to say that. Anybody should have the right to believe in God, and it can't be taken away based on the claim that believing a God is silly. And another thing, you state more than once that the evidence against God is empirical, and you even put emphasis on the word. The definition of empirical is originating in or based on observation or experience (From Merriam-Webster.com). No person has empirical evidence that God is not real, because one cannot "observe" or tell from experience that God does not exist. Rather, they would have to have solid facts that denote there is no God.
God is most likely not real and we should live our lives as if he does not exist

There is no empirical evidence of Gods existence, in this case Yahweh the Christian God. We should live our lives as if there is no such God and not be limited by the restrictions Christianity brings to our lives. Why blindly obey rules out of a book that has so many fallacies and mistakes with eternal punishment as a result of not obeying these rules. Its time to get rid of this silly belief, science is slowly uncovering more and more EMPIRICAL evidence that is making Gods existence less likely.
Religion is detrimental to human development

I will begin by giving my points on why religions are NOT detrimental to human development. Besides that, even though Pro started the debate but I will not follow the rules stated by pro due to the fact that there's no rules stating that I would have to follow. I would merely debate based on the topic settled by pro. First of all, based on the Internet, there are six basic pillars of human development, which are equity, sustainability, productivity, empowerment, cooperation and security. Religions can benefit human development in these various aspects. (1) Equity- Most religions teaches us to be fair to each other and because of religions, most of us, which are under these certain religions, was taught to be fair and treat others equal. For example, in this modern civilization, women and men can now finally receive education together. (2) Sustainability- Most religions teaches us that freeloading is not the right way and to earn a living, we must work hard to sustain ourselves and our families. -'No pain, no gain' (3) Productivity-Most religions teaches us that we're all under god's will and we must work together, poor or rich. We can make a living if we unite to earn a living. (4) Empowerment- Most religions teaches us positive things and provide a free positive education for all. We humans can make better choices and decisions for our future. (5) Cooperation- Most religions brings us hope and unites us when we face difficulties. (6) Security- Most religions gives us a sense of security even in the most darkest times. In conclusion, religions were used as guides to go through life, brings various hope to us all, teaches us the meaning of life, always stay positive, and keep the world safe and sound.
Religion is detrimental to human development

This is the first debate I have participated in I would like to set some rules before we proceed 1. we will only focus on the effects of religion and not on the causes 2. we will focus on if the effects are more detrimental to society and humanity as a whole or if they are more positive to society, humanity, and progress 3. no ad hominems or opinions only facts that can be backed up with citations if requested.
Objectivism is not sound

Resolved: Objectivism is not soundFinally, I have the time to begin this debate. I personally think that whilst Objectivism has some truth to it, there are elements which do not allign with reality.I hope my opponent, Shabshoral, will still have the time to accept this. If you my opponent wishes to change the rules, he should let me know before we begin (I am open to suggestions).Debate structure:4 round of 10,000 characters. For both sides, summarising only in the last round. Voting period of 1 week.No pre-defined definitions. I think that it would be best if definitions were up for debate so that the true meaning espoused by Rand in Objectivism is debated, rather than by something winning based on semantics that do not necessarily reflect the intentions of her philosophy. Pro has the burden of proof. Pro has the burden of proof to affirm one of the three contentions, of which would affirm the resolution. In the event that Pro fails to affirm the resolution, or in the event that Con sufficiently negates all three contentions, Con will win.Only Pro constructs a positive case. I, as Pro, will construct three lines of arguments against Objectivism, of which will be the focus of this debate. This is to prevent tangential, verbose digressions, of which are great for discussion but not for debate.No new arguments after the first round of arguments. Pro may not construct new arguments after the opening round of arguments (in round 2). This is to prevent shotgun argumentation.First round is for acceptance/brief statement of stance. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate.Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.I hope your counter-arguments will be strong, Mr Shabshoral =)**For voters**This will be a debate about the soundness of some aspects of Objectivism, of which will be integral to the philosophy. What soundness means is whether the argument is valid (i.e. in logical form) AND has its premises as true. So, when voting, you should be looking both of these aspects. If the parts of Objectivism I criticise do not meet both of these requirements, then I have shown Objectivism not to be sound and I (Pro) will win the debate.Min voting Elo is 3000; method is Select Winner
Mandatory In Utero Gene Therapy to Cure Disease

I don't think that we have the same understanding of what mandatory in utero gene therapy entails. You are speaking of EXTREME genetic disorders only, whereby it would be natural for a parent to want their child to have a greater life quality and thus would cure them. What I am speaking of is the cases of perhaps their child having a 'mental' 'disease' or any disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific symptoms or that affects a specific location (as I defined disease in round 1). I was suggesting that perhaps we should not make it mandatory to alter any 'disorder' such as Asperger's Syndrome (Mozart showed severe signs of this) a milder form of Autism (which Albert Einstein showed severe signs of), ADHD (many stuntmen and sportsmen are diagnosed with this), dyslexia (which both Albert Einstein and Winston Churchill showed severe signs of) Down's Syndrome (successful actors have had down's syndrome). I'm just saying that not EVERY disorder or 'genetic defect', which match up to my definition of disease, should be made mandatory for a parent to supposedly 'cure' when in fact they are prohibiting the real person to be born.
Mandatory In Utero Gene Therapy to Cure Disease

My opponent would have poor infants born with Tay Sachs suffer and die because their parents felt like "letting things be the way they were 'meant to be' ". He would allow parents to let their children be born with serious diseases like hemophilia, and cystic fibrosis even if a cure is possible before birth. He then goes out of his way to exaggerate and say that what I want is for everyone to be "perfect" when all I said was that parents should have to use gene therapy to cure "disease". I said nothing about "designer babies" or about everyone having the same IQ, skills, and rate of growth, just curing "disease". Although I do not recommend making things "perfect" his line of argumentation "Well if everyone is built to be a physics genius who will pave our roads?!" why is it not conceivable that everyone could simply be born "flexible", able to become a physics genius or a road-making genius or any kind of genius that person wants just as long as they are directed in that direction. Why must it be "Fixed at birth"? Wouldn't it be better for the environment to determine it because that gives the individual more autonomy and direction if they are given a nurturing environment?
Mandatory In Utero Gene Therapy to Cure Disease

The issue I have is that my opponent has this idea that we can tell a person who they are meant to be and what their DNA should be coded as before they even had a chance to prove that in their short life (due to the disease) they would be so driven and focused to achieve what normal humans could not. It is like taking the madness out of Einstein, the fat out of Winston Churchill, the cockiness and shortness out of Napoleon Bonaparte (who shaped the entire Europe to make it as lovely as it is today) and the thing which makes any person feel disadvantaged out of them, for the sake of making a 'perfect' society where everyone is the same and anyone whose DNA doesn't match that of the norm's MUST BE 'CORRECTED'. This sounds like a Neo-Nazi regime to make a new race of humans where we have designer babies, everyone has the same IQ, same skills and same rate of growth... Well if everyone is built to be a physics genius who will pave our roads?! Who will make our music?! Who will make the movies?! You can't just say to change the DNA of someone because YOU seem to think it's WRONG for them to be their true form of genes.Don't play god, there will always be a devil. (I made this saying up but if you think about it, it's actually true)
Mandatory In Utero Gene Therapy to Cure Disease

Con has dropped the point about "nature". Con states "Einstein had autism and dyslexia, but he'd never have been the amazing man he was if he hadn't had them." Wrong. By definition "autism" and "dyslexia" do not encompass what ever "benefits" might tend to go along with them. Before using gene therapy it must be as I said "tested and safe" that process alone will show us how to preserve anything good and only get rid of the bad. Just because some genes tend to go together doesn't mean that they must, especially if we can alter them in the womb.
Mandatory In Utero Gene Therapy to Cure Disease

Why shoudl it be amandatory though?I can understand fully advisable but why impede the righ tof a parent to allow their child to be who they should be not who society deems it acceptable to be. Einstein had autism and dyslexia, but he'd never have been the amazing man he was if he hadn't had them. you can't jsut say that because someone has a disease, they are better off without it, it's different when it's a part of who they are as opposed to pathogenic.
Religion should not be taken out of schools

I am going to keep this short at simple due to a lack of a response from my adversary. Religion being taught does not negate empirical evidenceI shall concede this point right off the start because I agree entirely with the stance, that religion has no place in the science room and some other class rooms. Creationism and other beliefs should not be taught as alternative beliefs in school. I concede this because it does not effect my my contentions. SchoolKeep in Mine we are also talking about school. School can include elementary, highschool, and colleges. [1]Alternative ways to teach and educate children about religionWhile we need to separate children from the notion that creationism and other such beliefs are valid and empirical forms of evidence, we should not separate them from learning about different cultures and their beliefs. Learning about how the world operates is not just based in math, and science, but can be way broader. Teaching them about how different cultures interact with each other and what the believe goes beyond the scope of a history class and be taught in a course about religion. This is no different than some college classes, and can even be offered as an elective in high school. A majority of colleges already have this in place. [2]Taking religion out of school is a violation of freedom of religion Freedom of religion is a constitutional right that is guaranteed to us in the United States of America[3][4][5]. I am keep this within that scope of location so that this argument holds sound. 1st Amendment"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [6]ConclusionWe can teach religion as an elective in school and help educate students about the world around them. It serves no harm and is not forcing them to take the class, but offers it as a valid credit for those wanting to learn about different world religions. This does not effect any empirical evidence being taught in other classes, and is a class all by itself. My adversary kept his argument so short, that I do not feel the need to go more in depth than this. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.umass.edu...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[5] http://www.usconstitution.net...[6] http://www.pbs.org...