BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Logic Proves the God of the Bible

==Refutations== My other self contests that the laws of logic require the existence of God. This statement contradicts itself. My other self has conceded my Paradox of the Stone argument, so logic and God cannot co-exist. My other self's unwarranted statement, "without God these Laws [of logic] cannot be accounted for" is self-contradictory. Either the laws of logic exist, or God exists. Therefore, the existence of God cannot validate the existence of the laws of logic. My other self's case is nonsensical. I am not required to prove the laws of logic. My other self has burden of proof. Further, the resolution assumes their existence, and without logic, no argument can be made. So, if God cannot exist with logic, as my other self has conceded, logic cannot prove the God of the Bible. ==The CON Case: Solipsism== I, as an individual, can only confirm that my mind exists and that it perceives something. What my mind is perceiving is called "the universe". There is no way to affirm the validity of my perception without circular reasoning, for any conclusion about the validity of the existence of the universe must originate from my perceptions of the universe. I'd have to assume that the universe exists to prove that it exists. Therefore, the existence of the universe can not be proven. There exist plenty of cases in which my mind can confirm the non-validity of my perceptions. Perceptions confirmed to be invalid are called "dreams". There is no way to affirm the existence of the universe. I can manufacture no evidence. The universe is not required to exist. The law of parsimony then declares that the universe, a non-zero entity, probably does not exist. My dreams are simulated in my consciousness. The consciousness is the part of my mind referred to as "I". If the univserse does not exist, then it is a dream. As a dream, it must be, at the very least, simulated. Simulation follows the law of parsimony, as it does not assume the existence of any non-zero entity, while still explaining phenomenon. I can not manipulate the actions of the universe, so they are simulated outside of my consciousness. Assuming no other non-zero entities, the simulation of the universe occurs within my mind, but outside of my consciousness. Simulated consciousnesses are colloquially referred to as "you"; however, a more proper terming for these consciousnesses would be "my other selves", because they are simulated within my own mind. The conclusion is that all that exists is my own mind that simulates the universe. Within that mind is my consciousness. ==Conclusion== This explanation of the universe assumes far less than my other self, as it only assumes the existence of my mind. My other self's case assumes a self-contradictory statement that the laws of logic cannot exist without God. This statement is further unwarranted and invalid within the context of this debate, for my other self must prove the God of the Bible with logic.
Logic Proves the God of the Bible

Recognizing that both debater hold presuppositions, one must realize that "proof" can be interpreted in different ways depending on the presupposition of the person who is interpreting. Therefore, I use Transcendental Proof to support my argument. I am suggesting that we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. Without God it is impossible to prove anything. Laws of Logic cannot be accounted for outside of the existence of God (The God of the Bible). It is clear that my opponent accepts the Laws of Logic, yet without God these Laws cannot be accounted for. Again I suggest that this is so by the impossibility of the contrary. He/she can give no logical argument that is internally coherent for the existence of these laws.
Logic Proves the God of the Bible

I negate, that "Logic Proves the God of the Bible". Other laws of logic that follow from those aforementioned: 4. Modus Ponens http://changingminds.org... 5. Modus Tullens http://changingminds.org... 6. Tautological Dichotemy (A or ~A) Another one used here is: 7. Law of Parsimony (Occam's Razor) http://www.2think.org... Definitions: Christian God: Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Omnipresent, Omniscient http://www.experiencefestival.com... Omnipotence- Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... My opponent has burden of proof. I will present my case after he presents his, but before then, here is a pre-emptive argument: 1. Paradox of the Stone God either can or can not create a stone he cannot lift. (Tautological Dichotemy) If God can create such a stone, then he cannot lift it and is not omnipotent. (Definition of omnipotent) If God can not create such a stone, then he is not omnipotent. (Definition of omnipotent) Therefore, God can not be omnipotent. If God exists, then he is omnipotent. (Defiinition of God) Therefore, God can not exist. (Modus Tullens) I will now wait for my opponent's case.
Logic Proves the God of the Bible

The basic question is this: Where do the fundamental "Laws of Logic" come from? I will argue that the fundamental laws of logic can only be accounted for if the God of the Bible is true; it is essentially impossible for the contrary to be true. In saying this, I am stating that any other "Worldview" that is inconsistent with the Christian "Worldview" is false because no other "Worldview" is logically coherent and can account for the "Laws of Logic". The Christian's explanation to these laws is that they come from God. Logic is the way God thinks; because He created us in His image, we are, therefore, by nature logical creatures that live by the laws of logic. I have a firm belief that no other "Worldview" whether Atheism, Relativism, Naturalism, Evolution or even another religion can account for the fundamental Laws of Logic. If your "Worldview" can explain these laws feel free to state your point. I am highly confident that if you are on a debate website, you believe in the laws of Logic because without them debates would be impossible. If you are not familiar with these Laws of Logic here are some, you may want to focus on the law of Non-Contradiction which is the best known (How does your "Worldview" account for these?): Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature. Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense. Law of Excluded Middle: a statement is either true or false. Thus, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.
Halo is better than CoD.

Yeah I did not know about Spartan strike, and Spartan Assault But I did know about combat evolved anniversary I said that in round 4. But I only have Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary, Halo2, Halo3, Halo4,and Halo Reach. They are all combat shooters. Yet I still need to buy an X-Box One and get Halo Ce and also Halo5 The Guardians.
Halo is better than CoD.

Yes, but CoD has a more known franchise, featuring Call of Duty (The classic that I own and was announced in 2003) Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (Which brought a tear to my eyes) Call of Duty: Black Ops 1 and 2 (Featuring the Zombie Modes!) And finally, Call of Duty: Ghosts, as well as Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare coming out soon, while Halo does not have all games known, like Halo: Spartan Strike.
Collaboration is better than competition

While pro concludes that he has in fact stated and supported his resolution, which started simply with collaboration vs competition, which moved to collaboration and competition in business, and finishes with a global economy based on collaboration vs one based on competition. The latter being a ridiculous stance to argue, as you can't have a competitive business with only competition. Of these resolutions none was made clear to me through any of pro's many analogies, this is not to say that they weren't there, just that they were not tied to the resolution. It may have been helpful if he were pointing to economic models which supported his ideology rather than vague thought projects. The collaborative world pro seeks does exist within this one, the people of Anuta work on what is called a gift economy, this essentially means that everyone works and everyone shares. I agree that this system can work, however this is on a very small scale (population 300). However to turn an industrialized country to that sort of ideology is a highly improbable task. This is not too say that small communities couldn't exist along side those who choose to live differently. The problem here is pro is arguing the whole world follow his ideology, which may very well have benefits, but doesn't fit with others desired lifestyles. This is why it important to have theses different cultures, it allows anyone on this little rock to find like minded people who share their world views. . http://en.wikipedia.org... A strictly competitive world, where it would literally be every man for himself is unlikely to exist since even for a moment you may need to collaborate with another in order to further yourself. I will agree with pro that humans will do best when we stop fighting each other and work together, however I don't believe that it follows that competition should be eliminated. While pro argued the side of collaborative economies, what I feel was really presented was the flexibility of the words, as I tried to demonstrate in round 2. While saying Tesla had a collaborative mind may sound meaningful it does not say what is meant when speaking of a collaborative mind.
Collaboration is better than competition

I accept your challenge. I first ask that you define your terms since competition involves collaboration, I would agree that collaboration doesn't necessarily involve competition, but competition is mostly supported by collaboration. This of course depends again on what definition of competition pro is appealing to, as their are team competitions, solo competition, as well as biological competition, just to name a few. Given this it is not a logical question to ask which is better, as the two terms are entangled. Perhaps pro will clear this confusion in round 2.
The Almighty God exists

I am referring to the God of the Bible, the One who made a promise to send a Messiah called Jesus. Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies about Him... some examples would be that He would be born of a virgin, be a descendant of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of Jesse, and would be delivered to the Gentiles(non-Jews) to be persecuted(He was crucified). So far well done on your argument. Comparing the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to a leprechaun and a Flying Spaghetti Monster, however, is a very childlike action. Unlike leprechauns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, God is known because He spoke to the physical ancestors of the Jews today and raised up prophets who have performed and still do perform miracles today(yes, there are real life prophets today. I'll give you an example.. search for Prophet Tom Deckard. Contact him and tell him to prove to you that he's a real prophet. That's the only way you'll know if you don't take my word for it. He has prophesied even to the president). Now I don't know about leprechauns, but a Flying Spaghetti Monster does not have any witnesses or proof. There's no historical evidence for it either. Compare the number of people who believe in leprechauns or unicorns or Santa Claus with the people who believe in God. You'll find that the number of people who are Christian, Jew, or Muslim far outweigh the number of people who believe in other things. You might bring up that many are "conditioned" into the religion through their upbringing; beware of generalizing. Not all Christians are brought up as a Christian. If you have an open mind, search online for Akiane Kramarik, Dr. Eben Alexander, George Rodonaia for examples. They were raised as atheists until something happened to them that completely changed their lives forever. And no, no one preached to them. Concerning science, I did not say that God never breaks the laws of physics. He does create miracles like you said; I was emphasizing the point that natural phenomenon do not disprove God's existence, which I hear so many ignorant atheists try to argue, except for you since you are quite more logical than many of them. If you are open, I do have some proof of His existence. The near-death experiences, healing miracles, and appearance of angels in bodily form(not the fake "did-you-see-that?" videos which are obviously edited) that you can find on Youtube. Regarding the rest of Bible prophecy that have yet to occur in the future, I'd recommend you search for information on the Shemita, which is an event that has been observed to have affected many of the world's major events(this is the statistics you are looking for). It's very accurate: And on the blood red moons: Well there's some proof for you. No manipulation of words, just testimonies.
The Almighty God exists

Contrary to what atheists, agnostics, and even many Christians believe, God does indeed use science to accomplish His will. Abiogenesis is very likely to have inititated life, but it does not disprove God, and neither does evolution. Why would a God create a universe, with all its spot-on and orderly laws of science/physics, just to break those laws? He doesn't. He uses those laws to execute His will on earth, whether that be to create life, make a grand, beautiful and perfect environment suitable for life, or to punish nations that have turned away from His perfect goodness by volcanic eruptions, floods, meteor showers, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, famines, and disease.
Vegetarianism is a Necessary Lifestyle Choice to Lead a Perfectly Ethical Life

Ending speech: Ok ignoring all his previous dribble about how i did stuff i will actually follow cobo's advice and just argue without facts but to the point of ethics. When we look at the meat in a package, we all see just some red meat in a package and ignore how that meat got there. We all ignore the fact that these animals are raised in the hundereds and are slaughtered by the thousands, animals are slaughter in the U.S about 600,000 animals a day. Also do we even think how they are killed? Does being stunned till you pass out then they cut your throat and watch you bleed out. Does any of this sound humane to you? No absolutely not, we as people consider humans animals, and yet we are animals we are above these creatures simply because we can process complicated thought. The main point in my entire case, that my opponent did not attempt to argue was that animals and humans are similar even in his own words they are similar. So let me ask you this if cows were smart than us, how would we feel to switch there place? Used as a food source which is not needed as plants are better for you than meat is is not a needed supplement. Then might i ask you why do we eat them? Simply because we can, the mass slaughter of innocent helpless animals because we can. Now i ask you which one sounds ethical? Thank you
Vegetarianism is a Necessary Lifestyle Choice to Lead a Perfectly Ethical Life

First, thanks for accepting my challenge. Thanks also for putting a lot of information on the table. I suspect you realize that I won't be able to respond to every single "fact" point for point, but I don't think this is necessary - I think what is necessary is to show why, given the facts, vegetarianism is not required to lead an ethical life. Therefore, the first step is to decide what the relevant facts are. This is where the information you copied and pasted from the cited website comes in handy sometimes, but I'm afraid it has to be left at "sometimes." There are many inaccuracies. I'll start off by pointing out that the very absolute statement #1 is wrong. Collagen is a protein naturally found only in animals, and it is the most abundant protein in those animals. Ingesting this is nutritional, especially for the joints. Many people with arthritis and other joint diseases take collagen and powderized shark cartilage capsules as supplements. It seems self-evident to me that there are many differences between plants and animal, and there are many similarities between animals and humans, that make eating animals (at least occasionally) very sensible. I don't think that following this sense can be unethical. I will admit that the most compelling case against eating animals to me is the supposed environmental effect and contribution to global warming. However, the greenhouse gas statistics that are often cited as gospel is very questionable and has been challenged. Here is a press release in the telegraph on this challenge coming from an academic at UCD. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... I guess an underlying point I'm trying to make is that, the vast majority of your "argument" is not even complete sentences, and therefore doesn't necessarily help in coming to a conclusion on the issue. Usually it helps if an argument is sentences, (yes based in information and fact), and linked by logic, into paragraphs with a conclusion. I therefore assumed that you were trying to first put a lot of relevant facts out there, but I was discouraged to see that you simply copied and pasted information from a Hindu believers' website with dubious information. Therefore, I continue to fail to see how eating meat is NECESSARILY unethical when it is a good (and perhaps the only nutrient-based) first-line of defense against joint disease. And the key word here is necessarily: I was wondering, when I created the debate, whether vegetarianism is a NECESSARY choice to be ethical. It seems to me that this positive effect I mentioned (among others), combined with the fact that animal slaughtering is NOT necessarily brutal to the animal, suggests that vegetarianism is not necessarily the only way to adhere to a certain set of sufficiently ethical guidelines.
Vegetarianism is a Necessary Lifestyle Choice to Lead a Perfectly Ethical Life

Be it resolved: Vegetarianism is a Necessary Lifestyle Choice to Lead a Perfectly Ethical Life I am a brand new debater to this site, and I was interested in voting on others' debates for starters - but I see that I need to engage in 3 debates myself before I can do so. Therefore, here is my first try. I see that some people make it a convention to use the first round only for acceptance of the challenge by both parties. As you could guess from this being a non-argument, I wish to do something like this. Therefore, first accept if you are interested in a very short debate with me on this topic and then immediately (in the same round) begin arguing. I ask for this sort of beginning to the debate for the reasons I will explain below. You can see that I worded the topic as a proposition for which I wish to argue against. Therefore, you will be arguing for the existence of some sort of ethical requirement. I see that there is some ambiguity on this site as to who has the burden of proof - but there should be none whatsoever, as the burden ALWAYS lays with the person arguing a non self-evident positive statement. That would be you in this case, and so you get first turn and I get to simply react.
no one knows who wrote the bible

If I am correct I will be debating that people do know who wrote the bible. The bible was written by many different people with messages passed on from god. "Moses wrote down all the words of god" Exodus 24:4 God passed on messages to many people incuding Moses, Paul, John, Noah and many more religious and historical figures. If you read the bible you can notice the differences in writing styles. The bible usually states the writer of the chapter you may be reading. So in conclusion we can establish the the writers of the bible are known.
U.S. Intervention

**Im leaving the option open to my opponent (only 1) - state which country you want in Rd. 1**The U.S. should intervene in:IranSyriaor North KoreaYou will obviously be Con.Rules1. No semantics2. Drops are concessions3. No new arguments in the last round 4. Forfeit is an auto-loss*Arguments will begin Rd. 2Good luck to my opponent!!
Crusades were REALY about power not religion!

The crusades were campaigns made brought by the catholic church to gain religious holy land, you even admit this. [1] [2] [3] Your premises and conclusion ---- Premise one: The crusades occured because Christians such as Pope Urban II wanted religious holy land. Premise two: This land would increase the amount of power the Pope Urban II. Conclusion: The crusades were for power and not religion. Your reasoning doesn't prove your conclusion in fact it proves the opposite since premise 1 and your conclusion directly contradict and you even admitted the Crusades occured because christians wanted religious holy land. Sources: [1] http://mrkash.com... [2] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... [3] http://www.lordsandladies.org...
God is not great

He is capable of anthing but does things for love. When someone passes away he wants you to be strong and carry on. A lot of what he does are tests. Some times god has to use tough love. Him being great i but an opinion but is proveable. You state that "the bible has contradictions within its own texts, it's also filled with contradictions with historical and archaeoloical findings, but most importantly contradicts science." Since this is true according to your arguement then the bible, according to your arguement is false which tears apart your other points.
God is not great

It's a common belief among Christians that their god is a perfect being only capable of love. However in the bible is jealous, cruel, condones slavery, condones genocide, promotes misogyny, and is altogether an unreasonable person. Christians like to claim that the bible holds absolute morality, however in the ten commandments it is only the second half that actually addresses morality whereas the first half only addresses on how to worship god. Morality isn't absolute and should be reasoned and changed the more we progress as human beings. For instance, the bible makes an absolute claim that lying is wrong and that it is a sin, however there are situations where lying can be justified. If we look at WW2 for instance, all the people in Europe that went to great lengths to hide the Jews from the Nazis technically were liars, but through that lie they were able to save people from death and torture. In the bible it tells slaves to obey their masters, so by the bible's standards Harriet Tubman's escape from slavery is nothing more than a sin. The bible is filled with contradictions within its own texts, it's also filled with contradictions with historical and archaeological findings, but most importantly contradicts science. I've heard the argument before that the reason why we see trees that are older than 6,000 years old, which is the chronology of the bible, however it is inconsistent with the fact that all those trees wouldn't have been able to survive the flood. I'll end it here, because I'm looking forward to hearing your side.