BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Big Bang Theory" can possibly happen, but it is not enough to debunk God's existence

I find it odd that you are willing to accept the existence of an invisible, unknowable, yet unfalsifiable entity that cannot be explained, but not even consider a universe that utterly encompasses our experience which cannot be explained. And that is assuming it really can't, which is doubtful. We don't know if something cannot come from nothing. As I said, this is what we seem to observe in our experience, but we don't ever see nothing, do we? We have no examples of nothing. Furthermore, our experience is highly subjective. I've already brough these points up, but they seem to be ignored in your favor of the idea that "God did it all." I also already made the point that the Big Bang did not start with "particles," and that it does not suggest that nothing came before it, or that there was no driving force behind it. You claim the bible fits this model of the universe, but it just doesn't. You are shaping the ideas in the bible and molding them around current discovered processes. The Earth did not form a thousand years after the big bang. The Bible in no way suggests that it formed billions of years after "the heavens." It was written by people who had a much more limited understanding of the universe, and this is apparent in the way it is described, e.g. the Earth is described as being suspended by a pillar. The Bible offered no understanding of the universe. People used to think the Earth was flat. Then they found out it wasn't, and thought, "of course, the Bible said it all along!" We discovered the universe is at least 14 billion years old, and now people like you are saying that the Bible doesn't contradict this, and in fact fits with it well. What if we discover that something can indeed come from nothing? Will this not shake your faith at all? My guess is that it won't, as you'll probably claim the biblical God is responsible in some way.
"Big Bang Theory" can possibly happen, but it is not enough to debunk God's existence

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." - 2 Peter 3:8 From another look, we can say that while God created this in one day, the "Big Bang" occur in thousand or even billion years, which for God is one day. Let the verse above support my point. "It is impossible for something to exist out of nothing" Before, no particles had exist. If "Big Bang" has to say that we exist because of particles, because of this "singularity" or "explosion" because of particles, then, where will the other particles come from. So, let's go back to the very beginning, as in nothing exist, even a single particle or single atom does not exist. Without these, it is impossible for creation and for the "Big Bang" to happen. Well, if there is no God, I think, we won't exist, too. The same thing, it is impossible for us to exist if our parents' sperm and cell does not meet. "By chance vs by Creator" Same points with the second argument, without even one atom, these things are impossible to exist. Only a God could create everything like this. "God's existence vs Genesis of the universe" God did exist in the beginning, Something that cannot be explained on how He did exist. With His plan, He created this: Universe.
"Big Bang Theory" can possibly happen, but it is not enough to debunk God's existence

The Big Bang is more accurately described as a singularity expanding. The theory does not make any such assumption that there was nothing before this expansion. There are two prevailing images westerners use to interpret the world. The first is called, by Alan Watts, the Ceramic Model. It is the idea that the universe was somehow made, as a pot out of clay. This isn't the only possibility, so it isn't rational to believe in any God with real conviction (without proof, of course). The second is the Fully-Automatic Model. This is the idea that the universe is a cesspool of particles that respond to a set of rules, and that all things occur purely by chance, rather than there being a creator. The universe does not require a creator. Such a creator would imply that it itself was created, since "something cannot come from nothing." If you think it's possible that such a creator has existed forever, then why is it a necessary component in the genesis of the universe? Couldn't the potentiality of our universe have existed forever as well? There is no imperial evidence that even suggests that something cannot come from nothing. Cause and effect is a law because we observe it, not the other way around. Our observation of the universe is highly subjective. For instance, we are subject to the experience of time. But if you reverse time, the phenomenon of cause and effect is still observable. For all we know, it could be just as likely for something to come from nothing as it is for something to cease to be. This all being said, the God of the Bible is not compatible with the Big Bang Theory. The bible never said anything about God saying "let there be a singularity," and there was a singularity which expanded, and God saw that it was.. you get the point. The Bible explicitly states that God created the heavens and the Earth in one day. The Big Bang would suggest, rather glaringly, that the Earth did not form until billions and billions of years into it. Now I'm not saying this debunks the existence of any God whatsoever; but, it does the biblical God. I have to assume that this is what you meant, since disproving the existence of any God is almost universally considered impossible, as there are many that are unfalsifiable.
An international sanctuary for victims of famine and war should be established in Israel

It appears my opponent and I both agree that Israel would be capable of becoming a host nation for an international refugee centre but it seems he is concerned about the security of the inhabitants of such an establishment. However, I would like allay those concerns as follows: The democratically-elected representatives of the people of Gaza and the West Bank do not condone acts of terrorism but they do represent people living under illegal occupation. Under international law, all peoples have the right to self-determination [1] and have specifically and consistently ruled in favour of the Palestinians in this regard [2]. Nevertheless, the Israeli government continues to defy the will of the international community and denies the Palestinian people this fundamental, and other, human rights. So, if certain Palestinian citizens take it upon themselves to resist this occupation by targeting the Israeli military then this is no different from the the actions undertaken by the resistance fighters in Nazi-occupied Europe: if the Israelis term these brave men and women as "terrorists" and the pro-Israeli, Right-wing media in the West repeat this slur, it doesn't alter the realities of the situation. However, it is most unlikely that Palestinian activists would target fellow refugees, many of whom are likely to be Muslim brothers and sisters, they would have nothing to gain from it but everything to lose in terms of international public relations. What would be their motive? Why not aim valuable rockets at Israeli military targets instead? Regarding the cost, the majority of funding will come from existing charitable and state aid and any costs to the Israeli government could be covered by existing income from the American taxpayer supplemented by charitable giving from Israeli citizens, Jewish, Christian or Muslim - followers of all these faiths have a religious duty to give to the poor and needy in their midst. Thank you. [1] . http://www.un.org... [2] . http://www.un.org...
An Atheist Should Not be President of the United States

Recently, republican Ben Carson has stated that no Muslim should ever be president. Or he said something like that. I would take it a step further and say that atheists should never be President of the United States. Why? 1. Our country was founded on Christian/religious principles. Example: In the Declaration of Independence. .. it says that all people are created by God with certain rights. So: Atheists can't make an objective claim about people having rights. With atheism. .. rights are all subjective. No rights/privileges really exist. Who wants a person in power that sees rights as subjective? 2. Atheists have no objective reason to be moral. This isn't to say that atheists can't be moral. .. but they have no objective reason to be. All of their reasons to be moral are subjective. And subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview. Example: If an atheist makes the claim that murder is wrong, then why is it really wrong? Opinions do not create ethical standards. Objection 1: Some people claim that they are moral to benefit society. The problem with this objection is the fact that benefiting society is a part of what it means to be moral. Objection 2: Morality is an instinct. Problem with this claim is that morality is actually the thing that decides between which instincts to follow. Example. .. you hear a gun firing and a woman screaming for help. You most likely have two instincts. .. risk your life and help woman or to run away (which seems like the stronger instinct). Morality might push one to help the woman even though the stronger instinct is to save yourself. So: Why have a person in office that has no reason to be moral? That is my argument.
Humans Are Initially Intended To Eat A Plant Based Diet

Second round is your opening argument. Third round is defending your opening argument. Fourth round is your closing argument. - I am on the position that the current human physiology (so please do not use species prior to homo sapiens in your argument) is more adapted to a plant based diet. A plant based diet is one in which the majority of the diet (or the entirety of the diet) is made up of non-animal products (no cheese, no eggs, no meat). Thanks, and happy debating.
A one party system works better for America, instead of a two.

Now, I largely agree with you. However, within one-party states opression and hate seem to always follow. A one-party state is un-American. A one-party state seems to be prohibited by the UN. Also in a one-party stae, a lot of citizens wouldbe unrepresented. Now pro failed in his BoP, mostly because the resolution is ambigious. Not only is a one-party state pretty much impossible, but if it was instituted,a lot of citizens would cause a RIOT.
A one party system works better for America, instead of a two.

Thank you for this very inspiring debate, I have learned some things, lost some values, and gained many more. We are great liberal minds that think somewhat alike. The bottom issue is if we want a one party dominated (Hopefully a liberal-democratic party) we must do it the American way. We first must wake up out of the stupid Reaganomics and out of date conservative ideas. We must then take action to get the true better leaders into office. I am always stuck on this. People like Gandhi and Jesus and M.L.K. and other great equal rights activist that support equality and acceptance for all are stuck under the same umbrella as Stalin and Hitler. If a person like one the first great men got into power of a similar type government ruled like Stalin or Hitler what would it be like? I think the country would prosper with Socialistic ideas and nationalization. A more stronger welfare system and environment protection system. A more logical immigration policy. A administration that brings job programs back like F.D.R. Civil rights fighter and minority protector like L.B.J. The country would be amazing and a outstanding look upon the earth. This could only be achieved with little to none optimal force. You would need a strong one party system to get these goal. Or have a country that is somewhat like minded and doesn't have Mississippi, or any other radical state. The sad issue is that these opportunists have been seized by evil Authoritarian men that persecute and kill those opposed. A libertarian liberal would not persecute or compromise but do what is really better for the lesser even if they don't agree at that time. We have a democracy and you really can't go wrong but it truly sucks...
A one party system works better for America, instead of a two.

Well I just want to put forth a few thoughts" “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”George WashingtonGeorge Washington seems to have been larely wrong. I'd say on balance we are more free(especially minorities). What have we gained since Washington's time/Slavery AbolitionVoting rights for allJob rightsVacation rightsGeorge Washington had just had an encounter with a tyrannical state, so he was a tad paranoid. The bottom line is on any foreign or domestic issue "X" , one might have a differen't opinion than you. What if you're view is contrary to the one-state party? Well your view is irrelevant, and that's not right. All views are supposed to be heard, that's why democracy is so great.
A one party system works better for America, instead of a two.

Now, I am a liberal, but lots of citizens are not. Conservatives 38%Liberals 23% Now I agree with everything you are saying. I'd love to have a fully liberal government, but via the ToM( the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.) People are allowed to think differently. The liberal population is growing, however it will never become extinct. And these people(who's views are ridiculous) deserve to be represented. You're proposing a liberal totalitarianism, which I guess would be cool for liberals, but really not cool for others.Now I'm gonna throw a curve-ball? What if by some miracle the tea-party get's really popular and there's and becomes the only party? That would really really suck. So the resolution isn't specific to liberals. So I think our current two-party or even add a 3rd party like in the time of the framers, but a single party always leads to problems. http://www.gallup.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
A one party system works better for America, instead of a two.

You talk of polarization and moderate separations of parties. The current conservative-republican party is dying, breaking into smaller parties, they cannot ever win presidency by the way the election is ran. You then have to be soon a democratic supreme court that will surly sway to a harsh left political decisions than a constitutional one. Soon a one party system will become of America with the new more liberal generation. Our country has become more easy on marijuana, gay rights, sex discrimination and very less religious. All things the right fear and hate. If the party that has sole power upon a country that is very supportive of all people, like a new modern liberal or socialist party. Many if not all will benefit. No more struggle between state and federal governments. No chance for a civil clash or war. Like I said a one party can be so much better than a two party system if the party is correct. Legislation will be passed more and with ease. I totally understand the point of Democracy and an one party cannot exist. You may be right, but I beg to differ that soon this country shall no longer be a two party but a multiparty system under one umbrella of a more liberal-democratic side. Those countries I stated earlier are socialist dominated government that do well with redistribution, health care for all and amazing beneficial welfare systems. Also the best education systems as prison and so on..
A one party system works better for America, instead of a two.

"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws."Well given that everyone in America obviously doesn't have the same thoughts, I don't see how democracy and a one party state can coincide.Also Denamrk, Norway and like countries are not socialist in any traditional sense. They are social democracies. America is becoming increasingly polarized. So if you have increasing polarization, but only one political party, a lot of citizens are getting cut of the loop, which the declaration of human rights prohibits. Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office.So the point is that a one party state seems to be prohibited by the UN. Also the population would be in a FRENZY because of the increasing polarization. This would result in a some of the population not being represented. Once again this would negate participation in government. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://voteview.com... http://www.addictinginfo.org...
A one party system works better for America, instead of a two.

Alright Con thank you for debating me on such a close subject to my heart. I am not arguing that democracy is wrong. So let that be clear I am not saying democracy is bad, actually it is the greatest form of government to this day. Especially in America the two party system does the opposite of what it should do. Compromise, no stalemate is given. How? Look: In 2008 Obama (D), House (D), Senate (D), took action, G.I. Bill expanded, Cash for Clunkers, Student Loan reform, partial immigration reform, Repealed Don't Ask, Don't tell system in our Army. They also finished S.T.A.R.T. between US and Russia with nuclear arms. Also they followed through with Stimulus helping the middle class. After the House became (R), not one piece of significant legislation has been passed, why? Because the president and Senate is democrat. Our supreme court now acts more politically than following the constitution. Our 'invisible government' like C.I.A. and N.S.A. have become stronger with each shift of party power. Two party causes finger-pointing and nothing really to be done. I am a strong left winged minded individual. I hate conservatism for all it stands for. But I much rather see a conservative one party government than a two liberal-conservative one. With two parties a country is divided, a house divided cannot stand. Mr. Washington warned of the evils of a party system at all. Our 1st president said so. Look I understand history is not one my side, but wait. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pot were not just liberals, they were AUTHORITARIAN LIBERALS. If I was in charge or had my way I would love to see a libertarian liberal take over the one party system. Like Jesus, or Gandhi, or MLK. These men were bad men and you can still have a democracy with a two party system and they don't have to be communist, take socialism for example. Ask how Denmark, and Sweden are doing. They're doing just fine, and have some of the highest Atheist population, a lot of people here should start to think about moving there ;) Thanks Con back to you!
A one party system works better for America, instead of a two.

Well first, BoP is on pro, because he is holding a positive assertion. I shall just offer a few thoughts in this first round." A single-party state, one-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a type of state in which a single political partyhas the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution. All other parties are either outlawed or allowed to take only a limited and controlled participation in elections."Well what's wrong with this system. It sounds like totalitarianism to me. Well how has totalitarianism done in the past?Well let's ask the survivors of the USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Nazi Germany. The death toll of these states are over 100 million.Well what does the UN's declaration of human right's say regarding totalitarianism? ^ Top Article 21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. If there's a one party system, not everyone can participate and be freely chosen.The one party system also negates clause 3. Consequential Moral Argument Against One Party-states:P1) We should behave morallyP2) That which promotes well being is moral,P3) One party states don't promote well-beingP4) One party states are not moralC1) We should not institute a one party system.P2: Throughout history one party states oppress the citizens. The state arbitrarily starves and kills citizens. I suppose my main point is that historically a one-party state does not work.I shall offer more arguments next round. I shall remind my opponent that he has the BoP to show that a one-party system will work better than the two party system. The point of the debate is not to bash the two-party system. http://www.mekong.net... https://www.hawaii.edu... http://www.un.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Changing the drinking age

Thanks to Pro or this debate. Pro has failed to provide adequate reasons to change the status quo. It is his burden of proof. So far, all his arguments have been refuted and dropped. Pro did not try to rebute that drinking alcohol below 21 causes brain development problems in the final round. Pro lasts contends that drinking and driving eliminates a huge portion of fatal accidents. He does not dispute my claims, but the methodology of the study. I can assure you that: (a) Michigan is a big enough state to provide a good sample size (b) There is no reason to believe that Michigan is different enough from the other states (c) There is no reason to believe that the behavior of those between 18-21 have changed much after Vietnam War As a final source, here is another study that shows the minimum drink age laws has made the roads safer.[4] I have provided scientific evidence for my claims. PRO only cites opinions and rhetoric. Thank you and vote con. http://tinyurl.com...[4]
Changing the drinking age

CON states only one state that reported an increase in the deaths resulting from drunk driving. That's one state out of 50, there is clearly not enough evidence to support that the results from the state of Michigan would be the same as the other states. Not only is it one state, but it is also in a different era. People have changed since the Vietnam War therefore that statement is irrelevant. CON is only giving one state that reported an increase, and the increase was also in a completely different era. Also setting the age at 21 does not mean that the accidents between the ages 16 and 24 will not happen because the legal age to drink is now 21 and the accidents are still happening. So just by setting the age high does not mean that the accidents will be eliminated, and there is not relevant proof that if the drinking age as lowered these accidents would increase.