BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is more probable than Theism.

Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Theism. For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i. e. : omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc. ) That is to say, we are not referring to any specific deity. Therefore, terms such as the incarnation, Biblical errors, etc. are irrelevant for this debate. "More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism). Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access. (2) Sources may be linked to inside the debate; however, no arguments can be placed in that page. (3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. (4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. (5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss. Rounds: (1) Acceptance(2) Opening Statement(3) Rebuttal(4) Rebuttal(5) Closing Statements - 1,000 character limitOther notes:(1) 72 hours to argue;(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. (3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
Muhammed was a false prophet.

A RHETORICAL REBUTTALSources [1] & [2] refute all the claims about verses of violence in the Qur'an, including the ones Pro provided.REBUTTALS2:244The context talks about Israelites not fighting against Pharaoh, as a lesson to Muslims.[1][2]3:151It is about God's help, casting terror in enemies hearts, to Muslims in battlefield.[1]4:76It is about fighting in God's cause in defending those who are oppressed.[1][2]8:57It is about those who broke their covenant with Muslims multiple times, the last ones being attacking Muslim families (women and children) and attempting to kill them while Muslims were not in the city.[1]1. Sources cannot do the job of arguing for you, you have to provide arguments, not just sources.2. You have to avoid misquoting and taking verses out of context.3. Even if your claims were right, you still have to explain how that affirms the resolution.None of these are done yet.SOURCES[1] Choose link of related verses: http://ow.ly...[2] http://ow.ly...
Muhammed was a false prophet.

Pro: "My first point is that people can be misguided by Islam and Muhammad." Bare assertion!Pro: "For example, people say it is a religion of peace but in reality Islam is a war promoting religion with medieval Sharia law."Bare assertion!Islam never promotes war, but it commands Muslims to fight for their safety if they are under attack.. In addition "Sharia law" literally is "Islamic Law".Pro: "Islam don't help people. This I believe is a main reason why Muhammed was a false prophet."Bare assertion!Pro: "Muhammad was a successful warlord but taught that Muslims are to dominate and not to be dominated."Bare assertion!Pro: "If Islam is a religion of peace, this cannot be the case a's it teaches that mu slims shold rule and not tollerate others."Bare assertion and non-sequitur!
Muhammed was a false prophet.

My first point is that people can be misguided by Islam and Muhammad. For example, people say it is a religion of peace but in reality Islam is a war promoting religion with medieval Sharia law. Islam don't help people. This I believe is a main reason why Muhammed was a false prophet. Muhammad was a successful warlord but taught that Muslims are to dominate and not to be dominated. If Islam is a religion of peace, this cannot be the case a's it teaches that mu slims shold rule and not tollerate others.
Muhammed was a false prophet.

RESOLUTIONPro makes two claims which make up the resolution of this debate: 1. Muhammad (i. e. , the prophet of Islam, peace be upon him) is a false prophet, and 2. He has misguided billions of people. .BURDEN OF PROOFBOP is fully on Pro to prove these two claims. My only BOP is to show that Pro's arguments don't affirm the resolution. . In other words, I don't have any BOP to negate the resolution, but only to negate Pro's arguments.
It is okay for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT These beliefs of right or wrong exist for whatever reason. They should also be followed and here is why. 1. Laws Are A Mutual Forfeiture Of Rights Laws are a limit on what you can do. I give up my right to murder you if you agree not to murder me. We follow these laws as an agreement to trade in a bit of our freedom for some security. I agree not to molest little girls in exchange for having my daughter protected from being molested. 2.People Consent To Laws People consent to laws. The benefits include social welfare, roads to drive on, police to protect you etc. When Socrates was about to be executed his followers tried to free him but he rebuked them. He said he reaped the benefits of being a citizen of Athens, and by doing so he accepted their laws. 3. Social Contract So far what I've established is 2 facts. One is that people come together to consent to this social contract. The 2nd thing is that they volunteer to adhere to these laws in exchange for living in a better society. People accept this moral and legal code to not molest kids because they want a better society as a whole, safety, comfort or a myriad of other problems. RAPING A 9 YEAR OLD IS BAD If you're accepting the social contract theory and we all have either explicitly or tacitly than you have accepted the moral framework they are built upon and causing harm to a 9 year old by raping her is a priori bad, in this society. Even societies that do have a problem with child marriages typically have outlawed them, because they realize the harm. MUHAMMAD WAS A CHILD MOLESTER Sorry, I don't think my opponent made a good case for Muhammad's existence. He basically just argued a book says that God is cool with child molesting so it's cool. Which ironically enough, a child molester pretending to be the messenger of God has a ton of incentive to say that. Good luck to my opponent.
It is okay for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl

Sexual Abuse of a Child is BadAll of Pro’s arguments here commit the begging the question fallacy.[1] His arguments are of the form:1. Child sexual abuse causes health effect “X”2. Health effect “X” is badC. Therefore child sexual abuse is badPro clearly doesn’t uphold the assumed premise 2, that the health effect is “bad”. Given that this debate is obviously in a moral context, he thus must affirm that these health effects are “bad” in a moral sense, which I argued in my opening round runs into problems of non-cognitivism, etc. Thus we can reject these arguments out of hand until Pro provides support for the assumed premise. I can concede everything Pro says for the first premise (said health effects are genuine and representative) yet Pro still had a chasm to cross before making a valid point.This is especially important in Thomas Hegel’s Is/Ought distinction.[2] There simply is no way to get from an “ought” from a bare “is”, thus what is proposed objectively (the “is”), cannot in principle be sufficient to affirm a necessarily subjective term (the “ought”).IslamSince I have demonstrated so far that the definition of “moral” is plastic to the subjective preference of which definition of “moral” “good” “evil” they want to use, then we have a rather straightforward religious argument from Islam.Essentially, what is “good” is defined according the nature of Allah. For Allah is Good in the Islamic worldview. Allah is defined according to what is documented in the Qu’ran, and the practices directed by the Hadith. The former is within the Islamic worldview to be verbatim from Allah to Muhammad, and the latter about Muhammad who dictated what Allah said to him.Thus, it is according to Islamic tradition that a 9 year old girl was Muhammad’s wife. IF it was not OK for this to be the case, then we have very good reason to believe he would have desisted given Muhammad devotion to Allah, yet he did not desist, and did not issue any condemnation against such acts.Therefore, within the Islamic worldview, it is very reasonable to conclude that Allah does not disapprove of a fifty year old being married to, and presumably having sexual relations with a nine year old. Thus, because Allah is omnipotent, it must be according to his nature that this is permissible in at least some circumstances.Thus, IF one defines that is “Good” to be in accordance with Allah’s nature, it logically follows that *a* 50 year old man is okay to have sex with a nine year old girl.Pro can reject the definition of “Good” here, but he is only giving his subjective preferential use of the word “Good”, in the same way “in accordance with Allah’s nature” is the subjective preferential definition of “Good” for Muslims. Thus Pro would be committing the fallacy of equivocation to argue against the morality of having sex with a nine year old using secular definitions, since we are then talking about two different concepts.References1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...
It is okay for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl

In the next round I'll get to why the judges shouldn't accept Nihilism (at least not the simplistic version my opponent offered) as a moral framework. this round is for positive argumentation. SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD IS BAD The effects of child sexual abuse has been shown to cause a myriad of mental health problems including PTSD, http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org... It causes anxiety, depression, eating disorders, sexual dysfunction and a bunch of other things. http://www.johnbriere.com... Just suffice it to say grown men having sex with 9 year old girls, emotionally and mentally scars them. There is even studies that show sexual abuse of a minor (which includes, even supposedly consensual sex), actually retards brain growth particularly in showing them to be more likely to have a smaller hippocampus as an adult. http://www.nature.com... There are some severe physical effects of intercourse with a child as well. Sex with a child can lead to a lot of internal bleeding and damage to internal organs. Resulting in an up to death. A study conducted in North Carolina between 1985-1994 found 10 deaths of children 10 years and younger as a result of sexual intercourse with an adult. http://jama.jamanetwork.com... You might think child marriages are better but that's far from true. According to the CFR, child marriages increase the risk of child pregnancy (duh) and put children at extreme risk of deadly complications. Also it was found the child brides are more likely to get STDs than there sexually promiscuous non married counter parts. http://www.cfr.org...
It is okay for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl

Thanks Wylted for this debate.FrameworkI am going to be arguing from moral and existential nihilism, and argue that via. egoism, that sex with 9 year olds is morally good for the man. Given that in a nihilistic world we need to take care of out self-interests, it follows that if a man wants to have sex with a 9 year old girl, he should.Nihilism NaturalismI am going to present moral nihilism as an end result of non-cognitivism. But moral nihilism is also the default position since it is the most parsimonious moral philosophy. It makes no truth claims about reality regarding exististentialism or essentialism. It doesn'tneed to presuppose people have an undetectable property of 'value' or 'essence', moreover it is very much compatible with what we know from science. The universe is naturalistic, and thus humans are just part of the naturalistic construct.There is nothing inherently right or wrong with how the naturalistic universe behaves, or how things within it behaves. Thus raping a 9 year old girl is comparably immoral to an ice cube melting. They are simply just materials acting according to natural laws. Non-cogognitivismMoreover, terms such as "moral", "immoral", "right", and "wrong" are non-cognitive, that is they do not refer to substantial concepts, thus they have no primary nature. This is because if these concepts WERE cognitive then we would be able to describe them in non-moral terms. However, all attempts to do so leads to a subjective definition of "moral".For example, we have utilitarianism, which defines good according to well-being. We have theistic morality, which defines good according to god's nature. We have alltruism which defines good as sacrificing self-interest. These are all mutually inconsistent and subject to one's preferred taste in what they would like to be "moral". IF what is defined as moral depends entirely on one's subjective preference of what they would like to call "moral", then it follows that morality doesn't refer to an actual concept, and thus is non-cognitive. It is simply a meaningless label. At best we can drop the "moral" labels and their euphemisms and only talk about desires, wants, self-interests etc.It also forfeits the ability to say something is "wrong", since it is an incoherent and incomplete sentence.It's okay for the rapist If what is defined as moral, or right is entirely subjective of the subject making the decision, then it follows that whatever he chooses to do is a result of what he desires, or wants. This means that raping the 9 year old kid is almost always going to be within the self-interest of the subject involved.Given that objective moral statements are incoherent, we can only make subvjective statements, such as:"It is bad for me""It is good for her"We must always include the subject in the statement. Thus, if we follow what naturally entails from moral egoism, then raping the 9 year old is "good for him", and thus is OK. Summary WTF at this 3,000 char limit.
It is okay for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl

I thank Con for this debate. I am waiving this round to ensure a fair 3 round debate. Note to Voters: I ask/recommend objectively based on who sustained their arguments most effectively, who best address their opponent's arguments and sustained their own, and how relevant those arguments were to sustaining/negating the resolution. DO NOT vote based on one's preconceived ideas, especially in a debate like this where the resolution is obviously controversial in public circles. This debate is an academic exercise, and not a mandate. Thus voter weighting should be done entirely based on what has been presented in these three rounds.
It is okay for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl

The Social Contract and Nihilism A. I have to respond to pro's rebuttals for Social Contract Theory as this is the only chance I've had to and will have to do it. Social Contract Theory is the response to Nihilism if it wasn't clear before. Pro by presenting Nihilism is trying to get the judges to accept his moral framework. You can see how social contract theory is beneficial so a Nihilist as presented by pro would have every reason to accept the social contract and by extension the morality of society. If you accept social contract theory than no rebuttal of Nihilism is necessary as a reasonable Nihilist would accept it as well. B. Pro's rebuttal to social contract theory was that it isn't optional but he didn't offer much evidence toward it being involuntary. People can move into the wilderness or set sail and live in international waters or move to other societies with a different social contract. The truth is most people willingly accept the social contract because the enjoy the conveniences that societies give them such as access to toilet paper and tons of free porn. ISLAM This is silly you can't base morality on Allah if you're saying he isn't real. It's a nonsensical argument. I think the argument is made under the assumption of Nihilism being true but the Islamic argument is self contained and doesn't really make the connection. CONCLUSION If you accept societies definitions of what's right and wrong, and you should if you accept my arguments for social contract theory, than you accept that the negative physical effects from a 9 year crying in pain and fear while being ruthlessly plowed by a 50 year old man, are immoral to inflict. If my opponent has convinced you that having sexual intercourse with a 9 year old is okay by all means vote for him, but if I've convinced you with my arguments that raping a 9 year old is bad than please vote for me.
It is okay for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl

I conclude. Moral Nihilism Pro drops all my arguments for moral nihilism. Moral nihilism is the most parsimonious meta-ethical theory and the most coherent one. Thus it follows that nothing is right or wrong. Because nothing is wrong, it follows that all actions are "okay" in the context of this debate as they are all morally equivalent. Pro also drops my argument from naturalism, which shows us that we indeed are just machines, thus morality is meaningless. I have shown that making morality cognitive at the very least mandates subjective terminology, and I have demonstrated that even in this case sex with nine year olds would be "good for the rapist". Thus *at worst* we have a perspective where sex with kids is "okay". Islam Whether or not Allah exists is actually completely besides the point of my arguments, as Allah is defined according to the Qu'ran, regardless of whether or not he exists. Thus morality in Islam is grounded in THAT definition. Even if Muhammad was "making stuff up", it simply would be irrelevant. Because I gave one way of grounding morality, to show that one arbitrary way of grounding morality is as good as any other. According to the Islamic way of grounding morality, sex with nine year olds is OK. Islam holds that the Qu'ran is the verbatim word of Allah, thus also hold Muhammad in a special regard to Allah, thus Muhammad's role as a prophet is comparable to Allah's existence. The Islamic worldview and consequently the Islamic moral system thus grounds morality in both of these presuppositions. Social Contract Theory Laws are only a mutual consential forfeiture of rights IF people were ever given the choice in the first place. This is simply not the case. People are born into the prison of society, its rules and are given very limited options to live outside of it. There are restrictions on leaving society in that one is forced to enter another society or go somewhere uninhabitable. The only accessible place on Earth not subject to judicial law is Antarctica, which is inherently lethal to any human wishing to relocate there. At no point is one given the choice to "abide by societal law, or go somewhere else", thus is it not consential. This is a problem because society has a monopoly over inhabitable land on Earth. One simply does not have the option to live outside of that construct. Thus Pro's argument from sociey ignores the fact we live in a societal prison that we simply *cannot* consent to. Pro argues for equal rights, but that is going to matter little to someone who doesn't care for reciprocal conformity. If a man doesn't care if his daughter gets raped then this argument is irrelevant. If a man is given the choice that "you may rape IF you consent to your daughter also being raped" than Pro essentially concedes the debate, since we have a situation where a man made the choice to rape and accepted the consequences. This is besides the fact that is just another arbitrary way of saying what is right or wrong. It holds no weight over my Islamic example, or any other random example one could give.
Gay Rights

My name is Alexander, this is my first debate. I would like to tackle this issue. I welcome anyone to join. the first is an acceptance round. The second and third are in depth into the situation. and third is a closing statement. First off, I would like to further introduce myself. My name is Alexander Warnke. I am a current student of Oxford High School in Oakland County, Michigan. I am fifteen, and a freshman. I'm sure your thinking," What does this kid know, if anything." But bear with me. I'm not your typical stupid teenager(not to say all teenagers are stupid). For six years I have read up on quite a few things concerning: social issues, politics, and economics. I am a Christian, I go to church at Christ the King Church off of Drahner Rd. The issue I'm bringing to the table is gay rights, gay marriage.("typical Christian" I'm sure your thinking that.) I've always been against it. That's my Opinion. I await a response, I will take on anyone. I don't care if your gay, or bisexual, or straight(and that you are for it). All I am looking for is someone to debate.
Gay Rights

Ok, first to answer my challenger's comment. This is about Gay Marriage, or Civil Union. And I would also like to thank him for accepting my debate I am not for gay rights, not just because I am a Christian, but because it's just morally wrong. It's morally wrong because it's just detestable for any two people to have intercourse of the same gender. and more wrong to be married. You can make the argument that its just love. Love can be anything. But when it comes to gay marriage or civil union love is not a factor, its a perversion. Why else shouldn't gay marriage be allowed. It disrupts the idea of the "Nuclear Family". I would further like to show analysis using biblical texts. In the book of Leviticus, one of the laws of marriage or sexual intercourse, it says, "do not lay with a man as one lies with a women." This applies to both men and women, as many people say that its alright only for women to be homosexual just because they believe the verse only applies to men and not women. I submit my first debate.
Obama is doing good so far

obama is stealing my money so i dont have any to feed my cattle with hes taking from the rich and given it to the belly lickers obama doesnt know how to run a millitary so hitler could easilly take over right now if he wanted 2 obama thinks we can just fire off nukes but see we cant obama wouldnt have won if he was white because more old people voted for the old guy then young people voted for obama i like obama
Obama is doing good so far

"who cares, i can type 2plus2=four" So can I. "doesnt make it wrong" I guess not. "he steals my money cause he takes it from me and theres nothin i can do except cry like a lesbian" So you admit you are in fact homosexual, a la biased against your own culture? "a belly licker, is someone who licks bellies" What are you, five? "not the hitler i was refereing 2 **link** " I laughed at that. he will fire off nukes if hitler tries to take over Adolf Hitler is dead. Refer to George Bush by his name and then I'll answer your accordingly. "i like opama because i am young and hip (just like mac users, but macs are for tummy scratchers)" Opama, eh? --------------------------- Please note that my opponent once again shows her complete lack of any form of intelligence. (too harsh perhaps, but true nonetheless) and grammatical comprehension.
Obama is doing good so far

who cares, i can type 2plus2=four doesnt make it wrong he steals my money cause he takes it from me and theres nothin i can do except cry like a lesbian a belly licker, is someone who licks bellies not the hitler i was refereing 2 http://en.wikipedia.org... he will fire off nukes if hitler tries to take over i like opama because i am young and hip (just like mac users, but macs are for tummy scratchers)