BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evil proves God does not exist (Part 2)

Pedophile Island I think you are seriusly underestimating the pain that pedophiles cause their victims. Con has explicitly conceeded that evil exists if God exists. For the sake of debate, I will grant that evil cannot exist without God, however, recall that I am using a proof by contradiction, meaning I assume that God does exist and then find a resulting contradiction. IE the existence of evil. Con sais: "Maybe I should of being more clear before, I agree God would want to remove evil, except in the case where there is sufficient moral reason not too." In that case, I will demonstrate how their cannot be sufficient reason for God not to. Evil is by definition bad. The moral thing is by definition the thing that causes the most good. Removing evil removes bad which is equivilent to creating good. God can remove evil without removing any good. | Instead of providing my usual defence of this point, I will simply say that he is omnipotent by definition. As removing evil is equal to creating good, and no good is lost, removing evil will be good. In the context removing evil would be moral. Without loss of generality, this can be applied to any evil no matter how small. Summary 0) Assume God exists 1) God would want their to be no evil. | By definition of morally good 2) God would be able to make their be no evil. | By definition of all powerful 3) Their would be no evil | Follows from 1 and 2 4) Evil does not exists | Follows from 3 5) Evil exists | Conceded by Con 6) Our initial assumption is wrong. | It resulted in a contradiction 7) God does not exist
Evil proves God does not exist (Part 2)

Pedophile island I maintain, that if the pedophile derived more pleasure than the victims sadness, it would be a moral act. My definition of morality is the only one I have heard that can be used meaningfully in this type of conversation. Again, I am willing to consider another definition of morality, good, or any other term. Defending my Arguement An observent reader might note that I mislable my arguement, specificly there are two B6 and B7s. To clarify this, B7.1 refers to the first, while B7.2 refers to the second. Likewise with B6. Con objects to B7.2 "God would remove evil" This was based directly the previus two points B7.1) God would want to remove evil B6.2) God is capable of removing evil I do not see how I have a hidden premise between these two points and B7.2. Remember, any additional property of God that makes him do something perfectly moral, means that he is no longer morally perfect. But as he was defined as morally perfect, he is then internally contradictory. Evil and objective morality As I stated before, Con has already agreed that this debate assumes evil's exsistence. I have brought this up in the previus round without a challenge. In this arguement, pro is saying that evil does not exist. As my arguement is a proof by contradiction, it would need to remain true that evil does not exist even if God exists. Therefore, this arguement does not do anything to show how evil and God can coexist. As I have stated previusly, moral can not be defined in terms of God, because God is defined in terms of moral. That would be like saying foo is goo, and goo is foo. Now you know what foo is. I have also explained my objective moral standard. I admit that it is subjective to bob if my texting makes him sad. However it is an objective fact that my texting makes him said. So, all other things being equal, it would be immoral for me to text. This of course assumes that my texting does not effect my happiness, or that of anyone else, or any other consequence it could have. I admit that quantifing happiness is practicly impossible, however as happiness is a function of the brain, an objective measure does exists, we simply have to way to determine it, making our moral views a best guess, at what the true moral value of an action is. I must admit, I do not understand what con means by evil. I would like a formal defintion in the form of Moral=, or Moral is. Under any definition you give, please provide an example of something that would be moral or imoral, and an explanation of how that is derived from your definition.
Evil proves God does not exist (Part 2)

Pedophile island and the rejection of hedonism Even if Pro objects that maybe there is more suffering on pedophile island so their moral frame work says not to allow it, as Pro concedes what about the pedophile island where the pleasure of the pedophiles is greater than the suffering produced ? As I said argued before. .. .moral = good and good = what ever brings the most pleasure happiness is refuted. Pro asks me for a definition, a definition of what ? Countering Pros new argument Pro says "B7) God would remove evil" This has a hidden premise in there. The hidden premise is that God has no reason to allow evil. B7) Should be restated as God has no reason to allow evil to exist, then once that was established Pro could continue on with. .. . B8) Their would be no evil B9) Their is evil B10) Our initial assumption that God exists is false, as it leads to a contradiction. But B7 has not being established, because their is no justification given why God/a moral being would have no reason what so ever to allow evil to exist. Seeing the claim that God has no reason to allow evil is just an assertion, it could be false and thus God could have reason/s to allow evil to exist. On what basis do you claim God has no reason to allow evil ? As such, it has not being proved that the existence of God and evil is logically incompatible. Evil and objective morality When evil is used to prove that God doesn't exist, the evil that is presented must be presented as an transgression against an objective moral standard. This is the case cause if evil was just presented in the argument as being subjective, this makes what is evil based on our own personal preferences. As such it would be arguing that God should get rid of this personal distaste that we call evil, and while he is at it, why doesn't he get rid of carrots since we have a personal distaste for them too. As it has been said. .. .. . 1) If there is no objective moral standard, then there is no transgression of an objective moral standard, 2) If there is no transgression of that objective moral standard, then evil does not exist objectively, 3) If evil does not exist objectively, then what is the objection to it ? Now pro objects that God as defined should not be the objective moral standard for determining what is evil, fair enough. So what is Pro using as the objective moral standard that which he claims God has transgressed ? And thus God as defined does not exist. What is the objective moral standard that Pro is reffering too when they object that this "evil" that exists, proves God does not exist ? I look forward to Pros response.
Evil proves God does not exist (Part 2)

In defense of hedonism. On pedophile island, i suspect that the act of raping the child would create more sadness in the child, then happiness in the pedophile. As sad is defined as negative happy, we can say that the net result of the rape is bad, making it immoral. I will grant that in my definition, if the pedophile gains more happiness than the victim sadness, all else being equal, it would be moral. Having sad that, if con would be willing to provide an alternate definition i would be willing to consider it. Con proposes that we use God as a moral standard. This is a problem, as we used morality to define God, so any definition based on God would make it meaningless. Anyway, from round one it sounds like you grant that evil does exist, and you did not challenge my saying that i need only show that evil is contradictory to God, so what defines evil is not entirely relevant. As my definitions are on hold, I will proceed using what i think are the excepted definitions, which I believe are what i proposed, just not formally defined. B0) Assume God exists B1)Evil is bad B2)A moral being would want to do good B3) The removal of bad is good B4) The removal of evil is good B5) A moral being would want to remove evil B6) God is a moral being B7) God would want to remove evil B6) God is capable of removing evil B7) God would remove evil B8) Their would be no evil B9) Their is evil B10) Our initial assumption that God exists is false, as it leads to a contradiction.
Evil proves God does not exist (Part 2)

According to Con's definition, god is: 1) Morally good 2) all powerful 3) all knowing If I can show that a being with these three properties is incompatible with evil, than it follows that any being with these properties would be incompatible. Before I begin my argument, i feel that a few more words need defining. Happiness = A quantitative measure of a beings pleasure. I admit we have no method of determining happiness in a quantitative manner, however we can determine it in a relative manner (mostly), and a quantitative must exist, as are brains are physical things. Note, happiness can be negative, which would represent sadness Good = an action which results in a net increase in the total happiness of everyone, can be expanded to a number which would allow us to say one action is more good than another. Again this could be negative, meaning bad. Moral = taking the action that results in most good. Evil = bad = negative good I will be arguing for the validity of the following statement: If evil exists then God does not exist. 1) If God were to slice space-time into tiny pieces, and remove those pieces with a net negative good, the net value of good would be greater than it is now 2) God has the ability to do (2) 3) By definition of moral, (2) is morally good. 4) By definition of God, he would do what is morally good. I await your response
It is a proven fact that rape and murder are always evil.

First I have no idea why my third contention was below my conclusion. It copied bad from word I guesNext she has not addressed any contention I have brought up other than saying what she defines murder asMurder is defined as A : To put an end to; destroyB: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...This means even people whom accidentally kill someone can be tried for murder. Which is why the key word is "especially". Most murder is premeditated, but I have even given examples of premeditated and planned murder in my contentions as well. You could argue that someone whom is insane does not commit murder under those circumstances. Due to the fact it is not premeditated malice towards the person they killed. When we look at it, it is all in how we perceive murder. Murder is the act of ending a life in most cases, and which is what most people are put on trial by. Even people whom did not mean to commit the act can still be tried and found guilty. Often if it is found to be an accident, they will be found not guilty. The question is defining if it was in fact an accident. Which is why people often play that card and use it to try and get away scotch free. http://www.kansas.com...http://www.journalnow.com...Again even consider the scenario I brought up with different cultures openly killing each other and being okay with it. By them, this is not an evil act. Therefore you are judging them with your perspective on what is evil. This is wrong because it is not taking into consideration their perspective. They could see this as a positive impact toward the society. Openly murdering someone because they hate them, but not being harmful to the society itself. There are hundreds of ways in which the act of murder can be committed, and be deemed acceptable. In ClosingI have shown why it is impossible to uphold her resolution.
It is a proven fact that rape and murder are always evil.

This is not really a contention or an argument from Pro but I will present a case either wayContention 1Her PerspectiveShe is saying rape and murder are evil because of her own personal worldview. She is applying what she knows as wrong and using it objectively to judge other people. Example : She could have said " In America rape and murder are considered evil"That would have been a more plausible stance. That is not the case, she is taking two acts that she views as evil and labeling it as objectivity evil. This is not considering all the factors at playContention 2Time, Culture, and Location can determine morality or in this case what is evil.In different cultures, murder could be accepted as a normal within the society. They could kill people for fun, or just not see anything wrong with it. In this case, it does not fit her definition of evil. It is causing no harm and is accepted. For murder to be an evil or immoral act, it would have to be accepted as that within the society. Some societies do not share the same beliefs we do, so often consider murder normal.In ClosingShe is taking how we are raised in America and more modern cultures, and applying it objectively throughout time and to every culture that exists or has existed. To say murder and rape is objectively evil which is the stance she is taken, and then to say it is a proven fact does not take into consideration all the variables at play.She has not considered different cultures whom accept these acts, and even at points in history where they were justified. Contention 3Murder - The act of taking a human lifeShe is not even considering cases where murder can be used in self defense, or accidental murder. Both of these types of murder are not evil even by her definition. Final Point:We view murder as evil, but all people do not have the same worldview or perspective as usSo her resolution should have been "Murder and rape can be evil", not "are always evil". She has taken an impossible resolution.
Christians are NOT able to determine fairly if Jesus is really the True messiah

This is what it is, unless someone is neutral and examine the "prophecies" of Jesus before you become a christian, you cannot be neutral. "The L-rd our G-d the L-rd is ONE" Deuteronomy 6:4. And G-d ask us to reject any other gods, including Jesus. But giving your allegiance to a god before knowing if he is really god is foolishness. He that giveth answer before he heareth, It is folly and confusion unto him. Proverbs 18:13.
Christians are NOT able to determine fairly if Jesus is really the True messiah

"Nothing I said was invalidated, because Christians don't need to look neutrally at anything if they are right." If you are right,... well that true. But if Jesus is not the messiah and not god, then you have good reason in the Hebrew Bible to be worry. You are committing idolatry. You shall not have other gods (AKA Jesus) before Me. Exodus 20 That's why you should first look at the fact and then take your decision. But for Christians, it's the opposite, they accept Jesus first, then try to prove it from the "old" testament. "We don't find the basis of all of Christian doctrine in the OT, so it is not the only way to exploring Christianity." Christianity can only be proven true in the light of the Hebrew Bible. You may explore a false belief all your life. Only if Jesus fulfilled the prophecies that Christian can know that Jesus was really the messiah. If not, then you are believing a lie. "If i find evidences to believe that Jesus lived" If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) (JESUS)"and let us worship them," you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. "You can be a sceptic, or a believer," You should be a sceptic. Why don't you believe in everything everybody is telling you? The NT asks you to be septic about doctrines and people. The only problem, it does not go as far as asking you to check if Jesus was really the messiah. The NT only wants you to blindly believe Jesus. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "but why be neutral when we can have an opinion?" I am not neutral. I believe that Jesus was a false messiah, a false prophet and a false god. The Hebrew G-d is the true G-d.
Christians are NOT able to determine fairly if Jesus is really the True messiah

Well if you hold a particular interpretation, it is hard to be convinced. Nothing I said was invalidated, because Christians don't need to look neutrally at anything if they are right. The real question is are we??? So it indeed is difficult for a Christian to suddenly stop believing in Jesus if they did their HW and are convinced. That doesn't mean they can't be neutral, but it doesn't make sense to. We don't find the basis of all of Christian doctrine in the OT, so it is not the only way to exploring Christianity. If i find evidences to believe that Jesus lived, and wasn't lying, and the ancient manuscripts his followers wrote were true, then I will believe in Jesus regardless of the OT. You can be a skeptic, or a believer, but why be neutral when we can have an opinion? That's like signing up for Debate.org and never debating. Ironically....
Pinapatunayan ng Bibliya ang PAPACY

Maraming salamat po sa sagot.Dahil nandito na po tayo sa conclusion, ibibigay ko po ang buod ng ating debate kung saan makikita natin kung sino ang nakapagpatunay ng kanilang ipinaglalaban.Dalawa po ang pinakatinalakay natin sa debate na ito:1.) Tungkol sa susi ng kaharian ng langit, napatunayan ko po na ang nasabing susi na ibinigay ni Jesus kay Pedro sa Mateo 16:19. Tanging sa kaniya lamang ibinigay ang nasabing susi (napatunayan sa pamamagitan ng pagsusuri ng salitang Griyego). Ang mga nasabing susi ay kahalintulad ng pagbibigay ng susi ng sambahayan ni David na matatagpuan sa Isaias 22:22, kung saan ibinibigay ang kapamahalaan ng kaharian sa isang Punong Ministro habang ang hari ay wala, sa kahalintulad na paraan ganito din ang paraan na ipinagkaloob ni Cristo kay Pedro ang kapamahalaan sa lupa, maging sa mga tagapagmana ng kaniyang tungkulin. Napatunayan ko din na kahit na ipinagkaloob ang kapangyarihan na magkalag at magtali sa ibang apostol sa Mateo 18:18, hindi ito nagaalis sa katotohanan na kay Pedro lamang ibinigay ang mga susi. 2.) Tungkol sa bato sa Mateo 16:18, napatunayan ko po na ang bato na tinutukoy dito ay si Pedro. Tinalakay ko kung ano ba talaga ang sinasabi ni Jesus dito, at ipinaliwanag ko kung bakit magkaiba ang Petro (Pedro) at Petra (bato), at kung bakit sa kabila ng pagkakaibang ito sa nakasulat na Griyego ay nananatili pa din ang kahulugan na si Pedro ay ang bato. Napatunayan ko din sa mga ibinigay na talata ni JesusNazarene na si Cristo di-umano ang bato, hindi inilagay sa konteksto ang nasabing talata sa Mateo 16:18. Tandaan po natin, may mga pagkakataon na ang Diyos Ama ang tinawag na Bato, at maging si Abraham din naman ay tinawag na Bato. Ibig sabihin, dapat manatili tayo sa konteksto ng talata upang malaman kung sino ang bato. Sa mga puntong ito sana po ay maintindihan po ng ating mga tagasubaybay, maging ikaw, na sa mga patunay na sinabi ko ay makikita natin na ang Papacy ay isang biblical na konsepto.Maraming salamat at sana makadebate ko po kayong muli.
Human extinction can not be caused by humans

As the Con position I will be arguing that humans can cause their own extinction. As part of the clarification of this round, I'd like to introduce a framework for weighing the round. This framework will be a means of deciding who has won the round and what types of arguments are most legitimate and which types are not. 1. Arguments should demonstrate probability rather than objectivity. Seeing as humans are not currently extinct, we are obviously debating an event that has not yet occurred and that might or might not happen in the future. Because we are dealing with the future (a realm of uncertainty) no claims can be made in an objective sense. Because objectivity is not possible in this debate, we must resort to probability and likelihood. What most logically will happen? What can we reasonably assume? 2. The following definitions will be presented. It's important to have definitions in all debate rounds, as it promotes clarity. Human: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) Can: to be able to do, make, or accomplish Able: having sufficient power, skill, or resources to accomplish a task Cause: to compel by command, force, or authority Extinction: "no more humans, also known as homo-sapiens, in existence any where" All definitions were taken from Merriam-Webster, a respected and reliable dictionary barring the last definition, which was from the Pro in R1 Pro. This framework promoting logical, intelligent arguments and the definitions I have provided should sum up the clarification needed here. I do have one request, however. This is just a request, and should only be accepted if the opponent chooses to do so. Rather than: Round 1: acceptance and clarification Round 2: posting of arguments (only) Round 3: arguments towards opponents case Round 4: defending case Round 5: final remarks (saying why you should win or get certain points) This might be better: Round 1: Acceptance and Clarification Round 2(Pro): Post affirmative argument ;; (Con): Post negative argument/Argue against Pro's case Round 3(Pro): Defend case/Argue against Neg's case ;; (Con) Defend case/Argue against Pro's case more Round 4(Pro): Defend case/Argue against Neg's case (new arguments ok) ;; (Con) Defend/Argue (no new arguments) Round 5: Closing Statements/Defenses/Voters This new round rules will allow for a deeper discussion, allowing us to hit more areas of the issue. This makes for a deeper, more competitive debate. However, I've accepted the current round rules, and if the opponent wishes to stick with them, that is completely acceptable to me. I look forward to this debate.
The US ought to establish an independently viable colony on Mars by 2070

If Lannan would like to add any definitions or change rules or structure, he can PM/comment on the debate and I will update it to reflect his requests. I will be arguing against the resolution. Lannan will be arguing the case for the affirmative. Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Constructive (No rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Case Defense/Closing Arguments An INDEPENDENTLY VIABLE COLONY shall be defined as a self-sustaining population of humans on the planet Mars with the express intent of establishing a permanent settlement on behalf of and in allegiance to the the constitution, government, and institutions of the United States of America Rules: 1. No new arguments in the final round. 2. No kritiks of the resolution. 3. No counterplans. 4. No trolling. 5. No semantics. 6. No forfeits. 7. BoP is shared. If any of these rules are violated the offender loses the debate. My thanks for in advance to Lannan for participating. I look forward to his arguments in the affirmative.
Resolve: Cyberbullying should be a criminal offense

Since my opponent has not posted an argument, I will let my last statements from R2 act as my closing statements. For this round, I will end the debate by giving my opinion of a vote breakdown. Agree Before - That is a matter of opinion, and your choice. Agree After - That is also a matter of opinion, and your choice. Better Conduct - Me because my opponent made a new argument late in the debate, and they forfeited their final round. Spelling and Grammar - Me, I used word and my opponent has 4 errors whereas I have only one. Convincing Arguments - Me, my opponent didn't refute a single argument of mine, and even went so far as to post new ones in place, which I swiftly dismantled Better sources - Me, my opponent didn't use any sources. Just remember, this is my opinion. The choice is always yours. Thank you for reading this debate. Vote Pro to stop the abuse. Vote Con for death and despair.