BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Believes That Ontology Necessitates God's Existence!

Shalom Aleichem!The idea of this debate started with me contacting Tejretics for a debate. Given a list of topics he believed that the best topic to discuss is the Ontological Argument. I believe I should mention the Spirit of the Motion is whether the study of Being, with relation to the studies of Ideas can make God a necessary conception.There are some rules which both parties must accept:1. The first round for Tejretics is acceptance only, and to share any pleasantries. He accepts the definitions, and rules set herein.2. The onus rests on the Proposition who must show that there is a logically sound Ontological Argument.3. The order of the debate is such that the maximum limit is 10, 000 characters, there fwill be 72 hours given to post an argument. I do ask, of those who vote, to please provide strong reasons for debate explaining the decision on each point. This is of course only a humble request.4. Any and all sources must be linked, and a referencing number should be provided in the argument. Sources must have paginations cited.5. All the respective definitions may be taken from the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or any other well reputed text such as A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume, or A Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant. These definitions of course can be debated.6. No deconstructional semantics, trolling, semi-trolling, pseudo-trolling, patatoes or tomatoes. Here are some of the fundamental definitions:1. God: God is a trasncendental, sentient, creator, diety who goes beyond the limits of empirical cognition. He is distinct from the Universe, and possess the qualities of excellence and greatness. 2. Ontology: Ontology is the study of Being where one tries to prove phenomenon from a completely rational perspective, starting out with nothing but the conceptualization of a Being.3. Necessitates: Makes necessary, when I talk about necessitating God I make it clear that the argument must prove that God exists.
Should food Advertisements be targeted at children and teens

Thanks, Con.I'd like to provide three key voting issues for today's debate.1. EmpiricsLooking at the debate, it's clear which side supports their arguments more effectively. My opponent provides claims of "research" done by "scientists" but then states that it's a personal experience. Not sure how those two line up. If studies were provided, this would've been a valid point, but there weren't any. My opponent doesn't even know his own argument. Neither sex toys, nor tobacco, are allowed to be advertised on TV, so this claim is absurd. Had they used the fact that tobacco can be advertised in magazines that youth read, such as Sports Illustrated, this claim would be valid. But again, they didn't say that, so it's not a legitimate claim. The second problem with my opponent's argument is the fact that alcohol commercials aren't aired during kids' shows on Nick or Cartoon Network. In fact, Nickelodeon has teamed with a group discouraging youth alcohol use. [1] MTV isn't a network designed for youth, so alcohol companies aren't targeting youth when they are airing commercials on MTV. So I'd urge you to ask your son where he learned about whatever explicit content he knows about, because it's not from TV, unless it's alcohol-related and you're allowing him to watch programs not suited for a seven-year old. Essentially, I provided supports for my claims, while my opponent provided claims of studies without actually providing links, along with personal stories, which aren't sufficient evidence for a complex debate such as this one.2. Economic repercussionsThe idea proposed by my opponent is essentially to not allow advertising companies to target young audiences. In my constructive, I showed that this would lead to a large decrease in revenue for fast-food companies, which are a large portion of our economy. it would have a negative externality on the consumer. My opponent dropped this point, so we can presume it true.3. Self-control solvesPull through my argument from my constructive. My opponent conceded it in round one. I pointed this out, and my opponent didn't address the point, so we can assume it's true. Therefore not only does my argument stand, but my opponent agreed, therefore conceding the debate that there should be regulations.For these reasons, please vote Pro.[1] http://www.nick.com...
Should food Advertisements be targeted at children and teens

I am very sorry about last round an incident occurred where I tried deleting the text in the box but it wouldn't let me delete it. But food advertising shouldn't be targeting children. Kids are growing up way too fast. On kids shows like Drake and Josh or Icarly they advertise products that the kids see the actors partaking in and they want to too. The advertisers also have a sneaky card up their sleeve. Background viewing. They will put their product in the background of shows and will show it multiple times. There was research where scientists showed a person a TV show it had a pictures of milk and words that said "Milk" in the background. At the end of the show they asked the person watching the show to finish this sentence "An ice cold glass of _______." There was three choices to choose from. A glass of water, soda, and of course milk. The man choose milk and said that it sounded really good. Then the scientists told that man that they had hidden pictures of milk in the video. The man was very surprised. That man was me watching "Brain Games". Well anyway advertisers will also show adult products on kids shows such as Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and now a new one that kids watch alot now MTV. They show advertisements for sex toys, and Achohol, and cigarettes. They kids will want these products and grow up faster. My 7 year old son comes home from school talking about things that is not appropriate for his age. I will not motion the thing he said one day but I asked him where he learned it and he said that another kid told him he saw this in a commercial. Kids should not be Exposed to these types of commercials or any commercial at all.
Should food Advertisements be targeted at children and teens

I accept. This should be interesting, because I actually personally agree with my opponent's position, and I'm passionate on the subject to the point where I wrote a term paper on the topic. I just thought it would be fun to play devil's advocate. I will be offering two major points here. 1. The companies need revenue. 2. Self-control solves the issue. Back to my first point, companies need revenue. As my opponent stated, these companies draw customers in for life when the customers are at a young age. I'll provide some empirical proof [1] for this claim, which I agree with. Now, obviously a customer that has a habit of returning is going to be helping the profit margins of these "junk-food" companies and continue to support the business. This is actually going to flow to my side of the debate, however, because keeping these companies in business is a vital part of economic stimulus. Without the fast-food industry, many jobs would be lost, and customers would be forced to choose between low-quality food at middle-of-the-road prices or high quality, high priced food. It would the pockets of the consumer [2]. Now for the second key point, self-control solves. As my opponent admits, "All you have to do is ignore the ads so you and your children don"t get overweight." Thereby admitting the advertisements aren't too powerful that they overpower our own free will. This means that parents can deny these products to their children and effectively deter the negative health effects that they come with. Thank you. [1] http://www.medicaldaily.com... [2] http://www.qsrmagazine.com...
bible=buy bull

"the bible is no good without your senses, the bible argues against your senses, the bible is no good" This is a very interesting statement, especially because there is no evidence to back it up. If you could please demonstrate your literacy by giving me an example of when the bible "argues against your senses", or why you even need senses for the Bible to be any good, that would be appreciated. Hey, doing so might even get you a vote for your side this debate, except for the fact that that is not happening. Prepare to get destroyed.
ocean are better to swim than in swimming pool

Firstly, I would like to state that the opposition's argument is a simple copy and paste, therefore I cannot respond with absolute legitimacy as it would not be an argument with my opponent, but rather a debate with the poster of the article. http://www.google.co.uk... Nevertheless, I will continue with my argument. Swimming Pool Benefits Swimming in a pool for fitness has numerous benefits. In comparison to ocean swimming, there is greater control which results in more focus on your swimming rather than your surroundings. Ideally, it will be a safe environment supervised by trained lifeguards in case of emergency. Additionally, you have the option of taking a break on the side if you feel too tired. The water temperature is regulated and generally maintain at a tolerable level conducive to swimming. Moreover, you can easily keep track of the distance you swim based on the measurement of the pool to ensure you are meeting your fitness goals. Ocean Swimming Drawbacks Many of the benefits of ocean swimming have contrasting drawbacks. The ever changing surroundings that provide for a more interesting swim can also be dangerous. Rip currents and waves can increase the change of drowning. Additionally, waves that break on the shore called shorebreaks can result in neck and spine injuries. When you are swimming in the ocean, you are in a natural environment with little control of your surroundings. Weather and wildlife can greatly impact your swim through adverse conditions and possible injury. Although most marine life will stay away from people, it is important to be vigilant for predators like sharks and even smaller creatures such as rays, crabs and jellyfish. Supervision is mandatory for ocean swimming due to its unpredictability. However, many oceans do not have lifeguards.
Nuclear weapons are a necessary evil, and disarmament will only bring worse problems.

I think that nuclear weapons are the main force keeping world peace among the superpowers. If widespread nuclear disarmament were to take place, it would seem good in the long run, but let's say that some nuclear nation decided to cheat and keep several hundred warheads and bombs hidden in a secret arsenal. Then, once other countries have dismantled their arsenals, that country that kept a secret arsenal could suddenly reveal their arsenal and invade other countries and demand territory. No other country could stand up to them, since no other country has a nuclear arsenal. Conventional weapons are no match for nuclear weapons, and the world would fall to the cheater's feet.
Homosexuality defies the laws of nature.

In general the more dominate the species the longer the life span. This is seen throughout nature. This is contrary to your argument that a shorter life spans is population control for dominate species. The argument you made about the rats shows how shorter life spans counter balance rapid reproduction not not species domination. You have yet to prove how homosexuality would be beneficial to the human race. Controlling the human population might be beneficial to other organisms, but not to humans themselves. If your argument were true, and it was population control that normally laid dormant until it was needed, we would see more homosexuality in those areas where resources were scarce and population control was needed. Instead homosexuality tends to be more prevalent in more affluent areas; not exclusive to, but far more prevalent. You completely missed my point on psych/soc. Sociology can not take place without psychology. When I am saying this I am not referring to the study of, or getting a pre req out of the way, I am saying you can not have group thought without having individual thought. Just like you can not have species evolution or survival unless it starts on the individual level. The fact that homosexuality presents itself in these less superior and some endangered species feeds my argument that homosexuality is not a part of the process, but a defect. It would not be in the best interest of the species to have homosexuality present.
Homosexuality defies the laws of nature.

"If homosexuality is a form of population control introduced to dominate species like life span, name an organism that does not have a life span." I don't quite follow your argument. So I'll elaborate on my point until you explain in the next round. There is scientific evidence that shows the telomeres at either end of our DNA chains, essentially non-coding regions, protect the genetic material within. When DNA is copied, the mechanism that copies it drops off *near* the end of the chain, so in essence, the copy is short. If this process continues, actual coding regions will be clipped. Fortunately, there is protection for this as well. An enzyme, the name of which escapes me at this moment, extends the telomeres of the newly coded DNA chain to the former length. Curiously, this enzyme shuts off at some point in our lives. It is believed that at this point, we begin to show the symptoms of aging. "Or explain how there are maybe three species with higher life expectancies than humans, the dominate species." Because lifespan isn't the key factor in evolutionary superiority. Vermin reproduce rapidly but tend to have short lifespans. This is a good example of how lifespan may be a natural "population control" trait. "Maybe one of the fatal flaws in the theory of evolution. To have a change in a species you must start somewhere. To have sociology you have to have psychology." And prior to psychology you have to have organized learning, and prior to that, communication, etc. Homosexuality carries over. Certain apes engage in homosexual activity, so do countless other species like, dolphins. The benefit does not necessarily have to be immediately within an individual. Most mutations are benign or inactive and propagates throughout a population without affecting the overall fitness of the individual OR the group. In fact, most traits are the result of several compounded mutations that may have developed from different corners of the globe. "More than anything I would like to thank you for feeding into my argument that homosexuality, if in fact it is natural, it would contradict evolution's goal of survival. Evolution by its very nature can not be self destructive." Survival of the species, not survival of the individual. Thus, this begs the question.
Homosexuality defies the laws of nature.

"It can be argued that homosexuality introduced in a dominant species is a form of population control, JUST LIKE LIFESPAN." (emphasis added by me) If homosexuality is a form of population control introduced to dominate species like life span, name an organism that does not have a life span. Or explain how there are maybe three species with higher life expectancies than humans, the dominate species. "Evolution is not a series of changes within an individual, it is a series of changes within a species." Maybe one of the fatal flaws in the theory of evolution. To have a change in a species you must start somewhere. To have sociology you have to have psychology. More than anything I would like to thank you for feeding into my argument that homosexuality, if in fact it is natural, it would contradict evolution's goal of survival. Evolution by its very nature can not be self destructive.
Homosexuality defies the laws of nature.

If you believe in evolution or "survival of the fittest" it is impossible to justify a belief in homosexuality by nature. Biologically, homosexuality serves no purpose and is actually detrimental to the survival of the species. If homosexuality is genetic, it is a defect and we should research methods to treat it. Furthermore, it is well documented that people of the homosexual persuasion are far more susceptible to certain diseases; from AIDS to more recently MRSA. This is natures way of eliminating the defect.
God is Cruel

You have claimed that God is not self-sufficient. I do not know enough about the Bible to be able to agree with you that this is evident from the Bible. You may be right about this. Let's now assume that God is not self-sufficient. Admittedly, this destroys my original argument because it is dependent on God being self-sufficient and having absolutely no needs. However, your admission that God has needs, and needed to create humankind raises many other problems, and still does not prove that he is not cruel. In fact, it makes him seem more cruel. Suppose you wanted to show your children that you loved them, but in order to do that you had to make them suffer. This would make you a very selfish and cruel person because you made sentient beings suffer just so that your needs could be fulfilled. You are basically admitting that God caused women to be raped, children to die from diseases and hunger, and wiped out entire nations through floods, earthquakes and other calamities, just so he could fulfil his need for love. This is an undeniably cruel thing to do in my humble opinion. Furthermore, a deity that cannot even prevent and protect its own creation from any kind of suffering because his needs will not be fulfilled is not even close to all-powerful and this exposes flaws and contradictions in the biblical description of god. I dare say such a feeble and needy god - a god who had to create such a terrible, sorrow and pain-filled world to fulfil his needs - is not worthy of love and worship. This is because he is not just put us through pain for our benefit, but primarily to fulfil his own selfish needs. You would never love a person who caused you to be raped and get diagnosed with cancer just because he needed things from you. You would consider such a person, selfish, apathetic and cruel. It does not make sense to excuse God for his acts, but not another human being.
God is Cruel

Is God all-powerful?Let's examine this. Of course, we think of God as being the Sovereign Lord of all heaven and earth, able to do infinitely more than we could ask or imagine, through his mighty power (see Ephesians 3:20). But does the Bible ever explain if there is things that God doesn't do? Perhaps there may be an exception or limit to what God can do? Numbers 23:9 gives us the following clarification..."God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?" This confirms what I stated earlier, that "God cannot lie". This also supports my main argument in round 1, that suffering and death exist because God himself warned it would happen. So when man disobeyed, then God himself declared it, true to his word. That our flesh and blood return to the dust (Genesis 3:19), is of course completely what we observe happening today. Interestingly, "dust" may also be thought of as atoms.So any form or suffering or death, whether caused by God or man or something else, is logical and necessary because it is a fulfilment of God's warning and word.Although it is reasonable to say that God is all-powerful, we can also say that God's power is limited in that He cannot break His own word. Not even God Himself is exempt from His own word. The curse of returning to the dust (i.e. death of our physical body) applied even to Jesus, whose death by crucifixion was a public spectacle. Does God have needs? I initially only lightly touched on this topic by saying that God may have needs, but as you have raised this issue I will consider it in more depth for you...Based upon the above, we could say that God has a need to always remain faithful to His word and His character, as He does not change.And this also supports what I suggested previously: that because God is love (1 John 4:8), God therefore needs someone other than Himself, toward whom this love can be expressed. Furthermore, as we are made in God's image (Genesis 1:26), and we know that we experience needs, wants and desires, these may be a reflection of God's needs. Jesus, whom we believe to be God incarnate (see John 1:14), certainly experienced emotions and needs not unlike ours.So did God need to create anything in the first place?Consider it this way: 1. To be self-sufficient means you do not need others. 2. Love needs others to whom it can be expressed. 3. God = love. (1 John 4:8) 4. Therefore, God is not self-sufficient and God needed to create mankind in His image, as an expression of His love.
God is Cruel

Thank you for your response. I am glad that you agree with the statement that God causes suffering. You say that the statement that "God has no needs" is "questionable". If this statement is not categorically true, I am not sure that we are talking about God any more. God is supposed to be All-Powerful. An All-Powerful being should be self-sufficient and have no needs. If God has needs, God cannot be All-Powerful. Perhaps you missed my point. Even though it may be necessary for God to cause suffering in order to achieve certain ends, God did not need to create anything in the first place. This is because an All-Powerful being should be Self-Sufficient.
God is Cruel

1. Causing unnecessary suffering is an act of cruelty 2. God has no needs 3. God is the cause primary cause of everything that has ever happened 4. God did not need to cause suffering 5. God caused unnecessary suffering 6. Therefore, God is cruel ------------------------------------------------------------ It does not matter if some good can come through suffering. It is still unnecessary and therefore cruel. There may not be other ways to bring about this good. The suffering is still not necessary. Also, even if some good can come through a terrible diseases, hunger, rape and murder, it is not worth it. If a mother says that she let a rabid dog maul her child in order to make the child a stronger person, she is deemed insane. God should be held to the same or higher standards since God is supposedly more loving than mothers.
Companies should have the power to restrict gun sales to people based on age.

Following the recent tragedy in Florida, companies such as Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods have enacted policies that restrict the sale of firearms to those under the age of 21. I firmly believe that not only are the policies unjust, but they are in fact illegal in some states. I ask for a challenger that believes these policies should stand, and that restricting guns to those under 21 is fair and necessary. I do however wish to keep this debate organized and set the following rules: 1) We must follow all guidelines and rules set by Debate. org. 2) We must follow the following format of for the debate's rounds: Round 1 is for accepting the debate. You may state a general opinion on the topic of you wish and explain why you believe it is true, but you may not post any facts or data at this time. Rounds 2, 3, and 4 will all consist of the argument. We post why our stance the topic is correct. Data and links are not required, but are highly recommend. Round 5 will be our closing arguments. We will reaffirm our stance on the topic and agree not to argue why the other person is wrong. 3) We will remain civil at all times. This is a debate and not a lunch table argument.