BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nothing suggests there must be a God

God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient because He is existence itself. (By this I am referring to all energy and mass) Having said this, synergy is a fruit of God's power, and dissention is the absence of His power. My proof for this is in the Name of God itself which is in Hebrew YHWH or "He exists." Most do think that He created all things, based upon the normal occurences of cause and effect. Existence in other words has always existed, and it would be incorrect to think that nonexistence could ever have been in existence. Mass and energy cannot be destroyed or created but simply changes form. In reality, God is all energy and mass, fluctuating in harmony as they can change from one form into the other as the well known statement from Einstein goes, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.
Nothing suggests there must be a God

Let the respondent define "God" as they believe in him/her/it. For example, if for you "God" = "an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being of love and creation," then the topic shall be argued as "Nothing suggests there must be an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being of love and creation." Let's keep it clear and accessible, snappy and to the point. To give us some meat to work with right off the bat, I'll address some common arguments for the evidence of God. 1 - "Some day, you'll realize that all of this (gestures to the world, to the universe, and to the order and majesty they display) could not have just happened by itself." Suppose I realize that. Where should I go from there? If I believe that something must have caused the universe, what do I know about the cause? Should I suppose that it still exists today? Why? On what evidence? You see, I can get to this point, and still have all my work ahead of me. 2 - "I have felt God's presence, his influence, his guidance." Here we distinguish observation from inference. You have had powerful spiritual experiences, you have personally observed them. To claim that their origin is supernatural, though, is an inference, not an observation. Not all unusual or powerful human experiences can be supernatural. If I have one, how do I know if it's supernatural or just natural? 3 - "People are healed by God. Prayers are answered, miracles happen, people survive or are healed who wouldn't have otherwise." Say the odds of recovering from a disease are one in a million. Someone recovers anyway, and people claim this as proof of God. Well, if the odds are one in a million, it's bound to happen after a million tries, yah? Even if there is no God, one in a million things still happen every million times or so, just by chance, by statistics. It's a world of seven billion people, and some pretty crazy one out of seven billion coincidences are bound to happen, without any supernatural intervention. These improbable events would only be evidence for God if they happened MORE often than they should, more often than they would by chance alone.
Capitalism is Immoral

A well written reply. Now it has come to closing statement. I will introduce no new evidence as I feel is proper for Round 5. Con is in no way obligated to follow suit. It will be concise and name reasons for to vote Pro. Closing Statement It has been quite a debate however there are numerous reasons on which Pro has carried the day. These are outlined below: Firstly I would like to cite the lack of Con demonstrating the morality of Capitalism. In round 2 I explained in detail that morality is determined via cost benefit analysis. I went on to use data which supports that Capitalism has a greater cost than benefit and therefore must be rendered immoral. Con never introduced a method to determining morality nor did he apply the data he found to an expressed moral system. Even if one assumes Con operates under the cost-benefit model which I articulated, he never once named it or explained how his points can be found as amoral or moral through cost-benefit analysis. Beyond that he claims that all he has to do is show that capitalism is amoral rather than immoral to win the debate. This is true, but Con fails to do so, he introduces data and fails to provide analysis. On these facts alone I believe you, the voters, ought to vote pro. Secondly my opponent dropped my contention on exploitation of workers, while he says he would address it in later rounds he has yet to do so. Therefore in the lack of a rebuttal one ought to vote Pro as I have fielded arguments. Thirdly there is the matter of sources, In the arguments for the resolution academics are frequently cited and reputable sources can be found in at the of my arguments in rounds 2, 3, and 4. Con on the other hand has cited wikipedia, about. com, and slideshare. Thus I urge you to vote pro as you may put more faith in the accuracy of the sources. Fourthly and finally one ought to vote Pro on topicality. Con strayed from the resolution and forwarded arguments in regard to communism. The arguments for Pro always link back to the resolution and only target points actually made by Con. Con on the other hand constructed a few red herrings and on more than one occasion veered from the resolution.
Capitalism is Immoral

Greetings. Here are the rules:~Serious arguments only~1st Round for acceptance~No semantics~Burden of Proof is sharedDefinitions for this debate:Capitalism:Economic system in which most of the means of production are privately owned, and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets. Immoral: Not morally good or right, morally evil or wrong.Good Luck, looking forward ot this!
The USA government should lower the drinking age to 16

1 Driving Under the influence is illegal anyways. 2 Most of your arguments are opinions. 3 Adults abuse the privilege all the time as well. 4 Obviously the kids shouldn't be drunk when at school or driving, but that goes with adults too. -Look at Europe for instance. Their limit is 16 and driving limit is 18. Maybe we should change that around? -At the age of 18 you can join the military and blow peoples brains out. You can smoke cigarettes (which kill) as well. -USA is a free country. The people in it should be free to do what ever that doesn't involve victims. Making the assumption that 16 years will abuse the alcohol to the point that they will cause harm to others is just an assumption not a fact. My assumption: Maybe if the minors were given the privilege of drinking then maybe they would respect the alcohol instead of abusing it. My conclusion: This was a hard debacle to debate about, I hope you voters will consider that I am on the minority and have an open mind when reading my arguments. Thank you and have a nice day! :)
The USA government should lower the drinking age to 16

The USA government should not lower the drinking age to 16. 16 year old teens are too immature to handle drinking appropriately and responsibly The Institute of Alcohol Studies did a survey and it shows that 43% of the people who got caught drunk by the authorities (police) in the USA in the year 2012 are from ages 15-16 that almost half the people who are drunk. If we let 16 year old teens drink they are going to abuse the privilege and get drunk and make bad decisions such as drinking and driving.
It is impossible to prove either way how the world was created: God or Godless

I probably could not convince YOU how this happened, because you are obviously very headstrong in your beliefs ( I mean this in the nicest way possible ), as am I... and this debate (I can tell) is going to go very similarly to the last one. The debate isn't to say how it happened, this debate, from my side of the argument, was that there is no substantial evidence as to how it happened, meaning that quite possibly that it could have " just happened". I am not saying that the "Big Bang Theory" is more or less plausible than creation via God or some other god-like figure. What I am saying is that I can NOT present accurate proof and neither could YOU, for our respective points. I'm saying that: "it is impossible to prove either way how the world was created: God or Godless". I did not want this debate to become an argument where you say God, and I say Godless. I wanted this to become an argument, in which, we debate evidence, and the presence, or lack of it. Do you have any evidence for your side?
It is impossible to prove either way how the world was created: God or Godless

Prove –verb (used with object) 1.to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument This debate comes down to this definition. Can we prove if there is or is not a God? During the last round, I presented evidence for God. My opponent completely agrees, with one exception. He says that it is valid, BUT, science constantly changes. He gives the example of the Flat Earth theory. There is a problem with this, either way you look at it. Let me explain. -There was no evidence to back this theory. The theory was only based on myth. They had no "proof." -Now, even if you did say that they had proof, then the Flat Earth was in fact proven. Please refer back to the definition I provided. If they had evidence then they could prove a Flat Earth. THIS IS BASED ON CURRENT EVIDENCE. We cannot know what might change in the next century, but only what we know RIGHT NOW. Now, my opponent said that he agreed with my evidence, but said that it could change. He actually concedes the debate right there. In order to "prove" something, one must have evidence. Since he agrees with mine, AND PROVIDES NONE OF HIS OWN TO COUNTER MINE, he concedes. Given this, I would urge a negative ballot. Thank you.
It is impossible to prove either way how the world was created: God or Godless

Thank you for using reliable sources... well at least one was, the non-wikipedia one. Those are very convincing arguments, but I have seen them before. The one thing we know about science though, is that ideas and theorems are always changing, based on other observations of phenomena, and the application of ideas. While you have just proved those theories wrong, you have proved them wrong based on what we know about scientific laws now. An good example of a belief that " everyone KNEW was TRUE" but was easily proved wrong was: The Earth is flat. Now we know that this is completely false. I know that this is a little like comparing apples and oranges, but the idea still applies. The ideas of some supernatural being, inventing the universe don't change based on new observations. Science, on the other hand, is constantly changing to allow for differences in observation. This is a major flaw in the whole "supernatural" idea, as far as I know, a new book hasn't been written in the bible, since Revelation was written by John. Back then they explained floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, and other natural disasters by thinking " WOW! That was so extraordinary, and giant that couldn't have been made by nature or humans, so it must be God! ". We now know that floods are simply a by product of storms, earthquakes and volcanoes are made by the contact of tectonic plates. If you think like someone in biblical times you could see how everything could seem like God's ( or Satan's ) work. Another thing I've wondered, if God created Adam, who made dinosaurs and they're fossils? If they were made at the same time, you would think that, we would have fossils which have human bones in them, from the dinosaurs having a tasty snack... as far as I know there has been no excavations showing humans even in the same million years as dinosaurs or even in the same area. Thank you for the debate, you truly did have very convincing arguments.
It is impossible to prove either way how the world was created: God or Godless

Science is the study of natural laws. If you would, recall Newton's Laws, as well those of thermodynamics, and conservation of mass and energy. "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed during the process of a chemical reaction." This is science. Now notice, that you exist. You are here. How did you get here? Well, people have tried to explain this for a long time. The Big Bang? Flash Particles? Creation? Given the above rule, the only way for us to have come about is through a God putting us here. ==BIG BANG== "According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread." OK, so the universe sprang from a dense singularity. Where did this singularity come from? How did it come about? Well, using science, we can only assume that-if the big bang were true-it would have to come from God. There is no other way the singularity could have come about. ==Flash Particles== The same theory applies here. These particles must have come from somewhere. Since they could not have come into existence by themselves, God must have made them. Since they could not exist within science, a Supernatural must have created them. ==Creation== This is in fact how the universe came to be. In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. There is no other option, since according to science, matter, energy, light, and others can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, God must have made the matter, energy, light, and so on. There is no other scientific explanation. That being said, I conclude round two. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...... http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org......
umm it a type of err it like capitalism but it not

It be law for there boss to encourage there inployees to keep the flow good, if you do not do high grad wok hmmm you gate spanked. yeas I now it odd to say that about adult but it not jail and a belt to the a$$ would be low unufe that most would not want to do and if you are still lazy then it time for the nine tails, but so it not abused there must be a job senit that evilurats the pp up for a spanking. So that it dose not punish the pp doing there all. School? The old nun smacking you with a ruler had it right but it no need be a nun.
umm it a type of err it like capitalism but it not

What reason would you give people to work? What reason would you give someone who does minimal work, to excel and do great work? What reason would motivate a high skill level to work as hard as a lower skill level? How would you avoid creating a welfare state with high unemployment and a workforce of only the working poor? You are describing socialism, and it only creates more poor and more inequality. http://www.forbes.com... Creating a state to regulate equality will only destroy freedom. Look at what has happened in the United States of America. http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com... How will your system avoid this?
umm it a type of err it like capitalism but it not

okay you look like fun to ague this with. So I am a pro for socialism that for got what it called okay how would I support my stat? easy trad for good with other country's, instead of bills I we need oil lets say then we give them a sofa or a gun or any thing els they may wont from us $h!t we could even give them cars for stuff that we want. If we can give it away for goods then we do. I also give the people a resin to work if you ant crippled then you a bum all you have is free food and water, other whys you live in the streets, but if you have a job which mean you give the stat something to use to hold the system to gather and keep the people fed and happy, The Negro's wont be stuck in a slum typ area (and just read about Detroit and other places like that it a bloody mess. And I believe the slums were mad for the negro) we gite ride of the higher class and the middle class so we have one class the working class. note negro is not a racist term, go to the 60 an like an you see a lot of black pp using the term. So mah
umm it a type of err it like capitalism but it not

Step one in your system, delicate your people to one language. My guess is English will not be that language. Without proper communication nothing can be accomplished. Second, You say it's "umm it a type of err it like capitalism but it not". What you have developed is Modern Socialism., hurrah that hasn't be tried before. You take it a step further too, you obliterate the monetary system that makes capitalism so evil, but you reestablish it in a digital form. You got rid of Fiat money which retains little value but requires some capital to at least process the notes. You replace it with something that has literally no capital value. You expect a certain group to be given capital goods too. How would you do this? How would you force people with your fake 1's and 0's that can't even afford to make you a police state, enforce your welfare state. You have a plan worse than real world communism.
umm it a type of err it like capitalism but it not

okay I have been thinking for ever on this and I believe I can hold a debit on my ideas here they are you job is to look for any week point in my system and try to exploit it. Now I may do this 2 or 3 other time from now but only to strengthen my ideals and so I can see if I missed any thing in this system. money is a thing of taboo in my mythical economy okay now you may ask how can cash be taboo? well it inceriges pp to live in a ether two or three naberhoods you have the slums no one want to live there, the Wright naberhoods and the middle ground not quit getteo but you ant likely to find a rich well pad guy anywhere nere here unless his doughtier is banging some thug or something. It also hold back medical research and science Know how can I buy stuff with out money you may ask and the ecoimy would fall to peaces right? Wong. You now that id card of yours? Well it has a strip on the back that can hold data not much but some, I think your name, dob and address if memory servers, and it could save weather or not you are a bum, disabled or working.. now a bum has no house but he can get food and drink for free and medical care that it he cant get any thing el's, disabled pp have all the thing the working have. A home medical and schooling. unless there is no job you can do or you must work or you are a bum but if you have a job you can have the same benhifets as say the Dr or the president. now how can the usa support this we need money to tread out side of the usa right? No it common to use money but no. We could trad good for goods, and you can still get forine moneys from a cash debot so you can buy some paint or something from England or something. whoa dame that a lot of type the spell check goanna $hit it self to day
umm it a type of err it like capitalism but it not

I think the source of your spacebar issue operator related. So they would throw a party? How would they gain the stuff for a party? How would anyone be motivated? Mind games, you mean propaganda? I don't understand you. This is ridiculous and I am done debate this topic. The point of debate has been invalidated by you, by choosing not to debate the topic. This is sad given it's your topic.
umm it a type of err it like capitalism but it not

OkayMySpacBarIsBrokenFuGK ThatIsSoMuchBetterThenAbetingThanks IgussIHaveToUseMIndGamesAndStuffLikeThat OrIfYouDoGoodTheBossIsINcourigdToThourApartyForTheWorkForce,ThingsLikeTHisMighthelp PsIfYouHaveAnyIdeaWhyICanrSpacePleesTellMeThisIsRetardid
umm it a type of err it like capitalism but it not

Who would regulate theses spankings? Have you heard of a Non-Aggression Principle? http://en.wikipedia.org... Going off of non-aggression, your state wouldn't use it. I think you should read up on it. Allow me to clarify. Your welfare state which as stated above cannot work, of which you've yet to refute. The state will only operate on the idea of doing your best or force, or fear of force will motivate you? Does this sound like a pleasant place to live? What would prevent bureaucrats from becoming corrupt? Would you institute more bureaucrats? I can't see this as practical. You keep making statements but you've yet to answer any questions and you've yet to refute any of my points.
Non-humans animals should have equal rights to humans

I will be arguing that humans have a moral responsibility towards non-human animals. This responsibility finds its grounding in a utilitarian moral framework. I will argue that animals should be included on an equal basis to humans when making moral decisions and that animals have equal rights to humans. These rights are based on natural and not societal reasons. Equal rights should be extended to non-human animals where practical (this may not be practical in some instances such as in the right to vote). Definitions. Utilitarianism: the doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness and minimises pain, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct. Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.
jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence

Linate you clearly don not understand the difference between not meaning anything because it is irrelevant and supporting something. Jesus was, is, and never will be for violence, ever. He always stood for peace, He was saying that if it WAS it could be possibly destroyed and let the truth be abolished. But again as I have said before it is not so it does not simply matter. Some men can find claims with the gospels somewhat contradicting themselves if you look at it by an extreme skeptical standpoint. But Jesus never contradicted himself on anything including violence. Jesus was an amazing man. He was the perfect human, never to be conceived with sin. Contradicting your self makes you a hypocrite and hypocrisy is a sin. So even if He did He would of lost favor from his father. Which means He would of never been raised from the dead so on and so forth the story becomes just a simple life of a Jew. Jesus was perfect and would never contradict any of His teachings including violence because well He is the Messiah and Messiahs do not contradict themselves, ever. Thanks for the debate and I hope you see clearly on this subject, stay good my friend and always peace be with you through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence

Thanks for the verse in the comments, sadly it contradicts your notion. "Jacques Ellul and John Howard Yoder do not believe Luke 22:36 overturns the many times Jesus urged his followers to practice turning the other cheek and not resist evil when confronted by violence during his Sermon on the Mount and years of ministry. They show when the passage is taken in context (Luke 22:36-38), Jesus is also aware of fulfilling prophecy and makes a surprising statement that two swords are "enough". More commonly, the phrase is understood to mean Jesus has had enough of the topic[1]" Still that is the whole point, he cannot contradicts himself because His kingdom will never be of this world. Until the New Earth of course but I am getting off subject. Your link disagrees with you and if anyone wants to look further here is the link again in the actual debate floor. http://en.wikipedia.org... My proof still stands firm until you can show me an actual verse of Jesus saying something to promote violence that contradicted himself regarding the use of violence.
jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence

jesus said not to fight back when they were arresting him. he then told pilate that if his kingdom was of this world, he'd be fighting back. the most straightforward interpretation is that Jesus wascontradicting himsef. he could have just been saying if he wasnt allowing himself to be sacrified as would be the case if this was his world, he wouldn't fight back but given this isn't his world, he is allowing himself to be sacrified. the sword verse is inthe comments section.