BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no god

- https://www. Allaboutphilosophy. Org/proof-that-god-exists-faq. Htm Is there any proof that God exists? Take a good look around. When most people look at the world around them, They see only the trees; they do not see the forest that is there. It should be obvious that God exists because of His creation, Not only us humans, But the world we live in, The galaxy that world is in, And the universe that the galaxy is in. Our universe contains too much order for our existence to have been created out of chaos. We are complex beyond our imaginations and when you look at such a complexity, You see God and His creation. Is there any proof that God exists? Take a good look inside yourself. Most people fail to look inside themselves for God. Instead, They look to their surroundings and conclude that since the world is such a mess, God must not be there, If He ever existed at all. They forget that since God created us, We bear His fingerprints and those fingerprints point to His existence. First, We are all born with an innate knowledge of what is right and wrong. Even a young child knows that when they misbehave they are doing something that goes against their parents" wishes. The knowledge of good and evil comes from God. It was put there to keep us in balance and to allow us to understand why we need to come to God for forgiveness. Second, We have a desire to seek love. Our whole life is spent trying to fill a gap that exists in our souls; a gap that only be filled by the love of God. No matter what we do to try and fill this gap -- money drugs, Alcohol, Sex, Possessions -- the hole will never be filled until we turn back to God and accept His Son as our Savior and Lord. These are only two of the inward feelings that should tell us that we are more than just some random mistake of nature; that we are created, That a real God that created us, And that He is still there watching over us. Is there any proof that God exists? Take a good look at His Son, Jesus Christ. All we need to do is take a good look at the life of Jesus to see that He was a man, But more than a man, He was God. When was the last time you saw a man walk on water, Calm a storm, Or make a man rise from the dead? Even Jesus Himself conquered death and rose again to ascend to Heaven. Think about the impact that Jesus has had on this world from the very moment of His birth; the way His life, Death and resurrection have shaped world history, Changed lives, And healed souls. No mere man could do this so we must say as the Roman soldier did at His crucifixion, "Surely this is the Son of God. " Philosophy says that our existence is based on that which we perceive existence to be. It is even suggested that maybe we do not exist as we think we do here, But on a different plane of reasoning not yet known to us. As God"s creation, We know God is real; all we have to do is take a good look.
There is no god

This is a variation of the Kalam Cosmological argument. I will use William Lane Craig"s version that is a much stronger version of the argument than yours. Thus, Debunking WLC"s argument implies debunking yours plus any improvement one could make to it. >Whatever begins to exist has a cause >The Universe began to exist >Therefore the Universe has a cause >If the universe has a cause, Then an uncaused, Personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, Changeless, Immaterial, Timeless, Spaceless and enormously powerful; (1)Even if I were to grant to you that it is sound, The conclusion only leads to an uncaused cause. The argument is a nonsequitur fallacy(The conclusion does not follow from the premises). The universe has a cause therefore your god is real(not Allah, Shiva, Xenu, Zeus, Any pantheistic god or not just a fully natural force etc") but your particular god is real? You still have a long way to go to prove that the original thing that has always existed is your god. This argument does not prove it in any way. (2) The big bang did happen but we know that no god created it, As I explained in my opening statement. I will paste it here again: "We understand how the big bang works. We know that space and time came to be at the beginning of the Universe(aka Time did not exist before the big bang). Therefore, If there is a god, Then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe. " I am paraphrasing Stephen Hawking, A famous cosmologist(an actual expert on the big bang). You can read a one chapter long explanation of this argument in his book: Brief Answers to the Big Questions. (3) "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" This is the fallacy of composition(when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. For example: "This tire is made of rubber, Therefore the vehicle to which it is a part is also made of rubber. ") Just because everything in the Universe has a cause, It does not mean that the Universe also must have a cause. TO BE CLEAR: I am not saying that there is no cause behind the Universe rather I am pointing out that you fail to make the case that the Universe does indeed have a cause. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. (4)"How does something (The Big Bang/String Theory), Start from nothing? " This is a strawman fallacy(refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent). No serious expert in the field ever said that something came from nothing. Just because we don"t know what was there before the big bang it does not mean that YOUR GOD is the answer. You still fail to meet your burden of proof. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. You have failed to meet your burden of proof. I rest my case.
There is no god

Well, My very short simple argument. While yes, The Big Bang expanded into our universe there is one question. What started the Big Bang? String Theory? And what caused that? As every smart Greek Philosopher knew, Something cannot come out of nothing. Therefore there must be something that has always forever existed, And will continue to live forever. I believe this something is God. Please explain to me, How does something (The Big Bang/String Theory), Start from nothing?
There is no god

We understand how the big bang works. We know that space and time came to be at the beginning of the Universe. Therefore, If there is a god, Then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe. We know how planets are formed from stars exploding into supernovae, We understand how light is created from the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms and how these sustain life on Earth(Photosynthesis etc. . . ). Every explanation is completely natural. There have been plenty of cases(Flat Earth, Creationism, . . . ) where a religious explanation had to be let go for a better scientific one. Yet there has not been a single event in history where we had to let go of a scientific explanation for a better religious explanation. God has always been used to fill the knowledge gap whenever we did not know something about the universe. "What created the Earth? We don't know therefore God did it" "Oh a supernova created the planets. Well, What created the stars then. We don't know therefore god. Oh the big bang. Well what created the big bang? Dunno so it must be god". Every time a secret of the universe has been uncovered, The answer has never been "God did it" We came to be through the process of evolution, Consciousness/mind is a product of the brain, When we die, Our body decays and we cease to be. No god is required at any step. This thus leads to two possibilities: Either there is no god or there is a god but that god is useless, It does nothing. At most it might had a part in the starting process of the universe but then did nothing since. It has been so inactive that there is no noticeable difference between that god and a god that does not exist. So out of these possibilities, The simplest explanation is that there is no god.
The whole world should be vegan

I have had little time to do this round ,so I will possibly extend these points further in the later rounds. But here are my main arguments: 1. It costs far more resources to produce meat than other food, so it would therefore mean less strain on the worlds resources over all. 2. To keep up with the demand for meat, the industry must force grow its product. This always results in less than decent standards of welfare for the animals. 3. Animal husbandry accounts for more pollution than ALL transport. So that is every single car, train, bus, plane, ship that transports things every day all over the world. - http://www.un.org... 4. Livestock use 30% of the earths surface. - http://www.un.org... 5. Killing animals isn't nice. I know this sounds rather unsophisticated and infantile, but it is true. It's not fair to raise animals for slaughter, if we killed them like we used too then it would be oaky, but we kill them in far less honerable ways. The fact that we kill these animals shows that the bar of our honerablity is set low, however if children where brought up In a world where the killing of animals was considered a bad thing, then the bar is set higher. Possibly resulting in more compassion towards one another as well. A mentality of compassion to animals, spreads to our human friends, 6. Meat causes many types of cancer, dairy products also cause cancer. Fruit and veg actuslly decrease the growth of cancer. This would result in less strain on medical industry, not to mention the better health of the population. I apologise for this argument I am falling asleep and rushing to get in done in time.
The whole world should be vegan

Everyone being vegan is not going to create a better society, it would just exacarbate a food shortage that is killing people around the world. 7 billion people need to be fed, and more are being created every day. Being vegan is a luxury and wouldn't solve any problems at all. I don't understand why you say that "the world would a much more loving place" when, really, being vegan is not going to make people more loving. In my opinion, you aren't thinking about experiences beyond your own, where eating meat is how people survive.
The Belief in atheist Dogma is a Mental Disorder

Someone wrote: "Deviancy is not always corresponding to a mental disorder. " I did not make such a claim anyway, so your above statement is, at best, a straw man logical fallacy. "Pro"s claim seems to be that the atheist cannot account for objective morals so he/she has a mental disorder." Nope, I never made that claim either -- again, straw man on your part. All you managed to do was posit a few wild and unsupported claims and commit at least three straw man logical fallacies. You're very new to debate, aren't you? LOL SMH "Contra, I shall argue that the question of morality is the question of ought, which therefore is tied to a state of affairs being better off." Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between better and worse. "Which I shall argue is invariably a function of the pain-pleasure dichotomy." No it isn't. "Additionally, I shall argue that objective does not entail transcendence." I didn't make such a claim either, so again, straw man on your part. You just lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
The Belief in atheist Dogma is a Mental Disorder

Hello, Thank you for proposing this fascinating debate. It doesn’t appear that pro has offered a serious argument in R1, so I shall merely accept and offer some opening remarks. Insanity has fallen out of the clinical psychological and psychiatric nomenclature. What pro refers to by conduct outside of the bell-curve is deviancy. Deviancy is not always corresponding to a mental disorder. It’s deviant to have a genius IQ, but this does not correspond to a mental disorder. Pro’s claim seems to be that the atheist cannot account for objective morals so he/she has a mental disorder. I need for pro to expound on whether this per se is sufficient for a mental disorder, or is it the asserted slippery slope into unethical behavior that is the culprit. So, I shall need pro to detail what is the atheist dogma, why the position cannot account for objective morality, and how this translates into a mental disorder. Contra, I shall argue that the question of morality is the question of ought, which therefore is tied to a state of affairs being better off. Which I shall argue is invariably a function of the pain-pleasure dichotomy. Additionally, I shall argue that objective does not entail transcendence. ps: I'm not an atheist; this is just an untennable resolution. Good luck.
The Belief in atheist Dogma is a Mental Disorder

Only a believer in atheist Dogma would be so demonic as to deny the existence of objective moral values. The atheist's position is clearly an irrational one: The atheist may as well make the claim, without evidence, that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist because of lack of evidence, and be rightfully considered a lunatic. In reality, the belief in atheist Dogma is a mental disorder that should be treated with a good dose of competent psychological help. Because it fails as a worldview to provide the basis for objective moral values, the belief in atheist Dogma inevitably leads to corruption of moral character, which naturally leads to such horrible activities as murder, rape, racism, war, poverty, genocide, and all other sorts of man-made calamities. If they can't be helped by psychological treatment, then they should be deported. In fact, most psychologists define "insanity" as displaying behaviors and beliefs that fall outside the standard range of normalcy, and that is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma is " a collection of beliefs and behaviors that fall outside the standard range of normalcy:
Life is useless without a religious purpose

My opponent is using faulty logic here, by claiming that without being religious you can not serve humanity, this claim is not only incredulous, it is simply without merit, Pro has given no solid argument to believe this stance and simply fails to acknowledge how many people without a religion, can and do indeed serve humanity and thus have a purpose without religion. There are many service men and women without a religion that serve society in a number of ways, Fire fighters who save lives on a daily basis, Medical nurses and doctors help aid people in discomfort on a daily basis, Police and army personal who risk their own lives protecting civilians and maintaining peace on a daily basis. This is just a few examples from many that establish the fact that people who are without a religion can and do indeed serve humanity, and thus proves they have useful qualities which are good and purposeful. My opponent also argues that belief in an afterlife somehow makes ones life useful and purposeful, as this is only an assertion and contains no actual merit, it can also be dismissed by the examples I have set out above, showing that people with no belief in an afterlife, can and do serve humanity and have useful qualities which are of immense practical good. The resolution has been negated and Pro has failed to establish their BoP, and has not shown how being religious gives one a useful purpose that serves humanity an advantage over someone with no religion. http://www.livescience.com...
Life is useless without a religious purpose

The bop is on me? I didnt know that. But anyways, let's see what I have to proof. 1) life is useless. The conditions are that a person isn't religious. I think I did give an explanation of this theory. But I'll explain it a bit further. A person, doesn't believe in god. And we all know that religion tells a person to serve humanity and others and to believe in life after death. These all things make a person selfless and a person starts caring more about the society than his own self. Now considering this person doesn't have a religion. This person doesn't have any real motive to serve society. Or to believe in life after death. Thus, this person becomes selfish because according to him, he could die any moment. And he would be gone forever. Now, this makes him live this life to its extremes and many people might argue that he does so to serve society too and its not just for himself. That person lives for himself. If you ask him 'do you want to die today?' He is obviously going to say 'no'. Because he has to live more. He has more desires he has to fulfill. That's all for now. Thanks..
Life is useless without a religious purpose

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for instigating this debate and hope to have a fruitful and meaningful exchange. My opponent argues that without a religious purpose that life is useless, I will provide arguements against the resolution and BoP lies with Pro. Definitions, Life, the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Useless, without useful qualities; of no practical good Religious, pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order. Purpose, an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal. My opponent argues that a person without a religious purpose only has personal purposes, which result in having only personal selfish purposes, my opponent fails to show how a this is true and furthermore deviates from fulfilling their BoP. It is clear that many non-religious people have useful qualities, and offer their services to help benefit the advancement of humanity, far from selfish I would say. many non-religious people on a daily basis are helping each other, and I wouldn't call that useless. The resolution has been negated and Pro has not met his BoP.
Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

Intelligent Design - "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Disproven - "proven to be false or wrong" http://www.merriam-webster.com... My opponent will carry the burden of proof, as implied by the resolution. My opponent can do one of two things: 1) He/she will try to use a mixture of logic and science to show how Intelligent Design cannot be true. 2) He/she will show how an experiment is possible that would disprove Intelligent Design, should Intelligent Design not be true. I await my opponent's arguments and/or experiment. Good luck.
Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

Ok, I'll wrap it up. This is why I am the victor of this debate. Saying intelligent design 'cannot be disproven' is like saying it is concrete, undeniable, or impossible to disprove. At first you agreed with me and later on you suddenly switched your stance. You showed no evidence whatsoever why intelligent design was so concrete in the first place. Even so, you keep saying intelligent doesn't have to be science to be correct. If you didn't want it to be science you should have used a term like 'creationism' instead. Intelligent design doesn't stop with your claims; your argument must be affiliated with all of the claims that define intelligent design. One of them is that intelligent design is science, another is that complex things need a more complex designer. I showed you with evidence how intelligent design is not a science and how ALL complex things don't need a more complex designer. You even admitted it yourself that intelligent design would have to stop at some level, which right there disproves it. Also, if intelligent design is claiming that it is a scientific theory and I show you how it is not science, it also disproves it. If it is not science there is no way you can disprove it by experiment. Your right, there are no observations and there is no left evidence. You disprove it by pointing out the logical paradoxes which I did. It's pretty sad that you want people to fight a negative proof. Intelligent design has been disproven and I just did it. The resolution is negated. Thank you :) P.S.: All of my sources were relevant to this debate. I don't know how the wiki for intelligent design, science, and negative proof are irrelevant. And besides you do that all the time. But no matter, voters will decide.
Intelligent Design cannot be disproven.

Ok, let me try this again. I'll make this short. You agreed that the resolution is the same as stating intelligent design is undeniable. I don't see an intelligent designer. There is no math, evidence, or reason why I should think that an intelligent designer exists. I have just denied intelligent design. Then, you come up with all of these 'could have' arguments. There's no evidence or proof supporting any of this, so it cannot be considered fact. Now, as far as me showing you how intelligent design isn't valid science, that right there ought to successfully disprove it. It claims that as a science intelligent design is valid, and I showed how it didn't even follow the scientific method and it lies invalid. It doesn't matter if you don't consider it science: it by definition is supposed to be considered a science. Read my sources. You're whole hypothetical metaphyisical example would be perfectly valid truth if it actually would have happened. But unfortunately it has not. Also, some dude popping up like that or even someone creating the universe in itself violates the law of conservation of matter. Energy can't be created or destroyed. Also, once again intelligent design is disproven because under that logic there has to be an intelligent designer for every intelligent thing, including the designer, creating an infinite regress of designers. Atleast one designer wasn't designed, making it invalid. You can't play the 'Intelligent design could have stopped at some level card,' because that would also make the theory invalid because every intelligent thing wouldn't need a more intelligent designer. That ought to be enough. The resolution is negated Thank you :) P.S.: Stop copying me. Only 5 year olds are supposed to do that. You ought to lose conduct points for that
The Meaning of Life is to enjoy life regardless of contributions to society.

Thank you for debating with me. ---------------------------------------- Humans are selfish by nature. Helping others may make someone feel good, but if that isn't what makes the individual happy it is ultimately pointless. Deep down most people get enjoyment out of helping others because they know that they are most likely to recieve help in return and will be viewed by the community as a better person, thus they are more likely to recieve benefits from the community. I doubt that someone would readily give aid to another human being, if there were certainty that they themselves would never recieve help in exchange. To be clear, I am saying that if you never recieved help in your entire life, it would be safe to say you would realize giving help has no benefits other than false satisfaction. Making others' lives meaningful is not my responsibility. It is the other individual that must make their life meaningful. Since it is impossible to know with 100% certainty what makes another person happy 100% of the time, it is only possible to make myself happy. "Helping out in society is meaningful because you are helping yourself AND others for a greater good." If there were a reason for contributing to society it would be because you are helping yourself. If it has an impact on another person then that would be an added, but unnecessary, bonus if you found it morally pleasing. Helping others doesn't benefit you in any physical way unless the favor is returned. There is a good chance the favor won't be returned. I would agree that the meaning of life is relevant to whoever is contemplating it. Because of this it makes the most logical sense to stick to personal benefits.