BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists

===PRO CASE=== Contention 1) Self-Awareness, an argument from Rationalism. I have always found it fascinating that the Abrahamic God alone names itself an existential proposition. In Exodus 3:13-14, "Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " Rene Descartes once used his rampant skepticism to doubt all aspects of the natural world until he fell upon, in his mind, one indubitable truth, which he related in the maxim "Cogito ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am". It became the impasse of skepticism that if a thinker is conscious of their own thought and can thus state their own existence that this self-awareness empirically proves the existence of that person. The Hebrew God declared that his very name is the verb of being, AM, pronouncing a present state of existence. Almost a message in a bottle to later enlightenment thinkers such as Descartes that the mysterious and undetectable creator of the cosmos does exist, even by the standards of their new found rationalism. Contention 2) Transitive Existence, an argument from Postmodernism. The resolution doesn't provide a standard for measuring existence, which leaves a gaping hole from a postmodern view. See, postmodernism deconstructs anything we believe is objectively true to demonstrate that all truth is attached to subjectivity. Hot and Cold for instance have undeniable existence, even though "Cold" to an Eskimo is very different from "Cold" for an Floridian. Carry this same argument to the existence of God, and you have a very potent and insightful line of thought. Consider the Christian Postmodernist Soren Kierkegaard said of his religion: "In determining truth, the subjective acceptance is precisely the decisive factor; and an objective acceptance of Christianity is Paganism or thoughtlessness. In this way Christianity protests every form of objectivity. It desires that the subject should be infinitely concerned about himself. Devoutness inheres subjectivity, nobody ever becomes devout objectively." -From Kierkegaard's "Postscript" Put succinctly, Kierkegaard is arguing that all truth is subjective truth, and he demands that a Christian not tread into the "paganism" of objectivity, but rather celebrate the subjective reality of God which produces devotion. By this logic, the PRO easily affirms the resolution, as God does indeed exist in the hearts and minds of almost 3 Billion people on Earth (adding up all Abrahamic faiths). Oddly, and perhaps ironically this might even bleed into the correspondence theory of truth, which is, reality as informed by a shared perception. More than half the humans on Earth perceive of this God, by both the postmodern and correspondence standards of truth God therefore exists.
God exists

The resolution is simple, does God exist? I would like to clarify the term "God" as the God of the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. In this debate I would NOT like to debate the definition of God, just his existence. As con my belief is that God does not exist. It is preferable that this debate be one of philosophy using solely our ideas/beliefs and background information. I would like to step out on this first round and pick the up the debate during the second round. To help my opponent prepare their argument I have listed three of my contentions below. C1) God is too cruel to exist C2) Omni-potence and omni-presence do not support human free will C3) The idea of an omni-potent, omni-present, and omni-benevolent God is illogical, irrational, and contradictory upon itself.
The recent warming trends are not due to man made Co2 emmisions

"Whose woods these are I think I know. His house is in the village though; He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow. My little horse must think it queer To stop without a farmhouse near Between the woods and frozen lake The darkest evening of the year. He gives his harness bells a shake To ask if there is some mistake. The only other sound"s the sweep Of easy wind and downy flake. The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep." -Robert Frost
teacher should poses weapons during a class

Ok So the argument is that teachers should possess firearms in case a student comes into a school firing a weapon. So let's examine what a teacher does for a living. A teacher is responsible for teaching a particular subject. That's what a teacher has been trained for, that's what he studied for, and that's what's expected of him. Therefore, under the typical and normal tasks expected of him, shooting students is not one of them. I can agree that the school and the faculty as a whole is responsible for the well being of students while at school, but this hardly involves taking firearms into a classroom. It usually involves peaceful resolution of student disputes and applying methods of punishment or counseling for deviant behaviors. Even in the case that you have one teacher carrying a weapon then you should make every teacher carry one, simply as you will be unable to predict where and when a shooting might happen. The risk from having a sixty year old teacher use a weapon in a public place among students might be greater than the casualties expected from the shooting. Moreover I don't think that there is a single teacher who would find it acceptable for him to take such action when lots of other things can be done in order to prevent such incidents. Don't forget that the important element in any kind of public shooting is the element of surprise, no one expects it to happen. Therefore it is next to impossible to prevent it once a weapon has found its way into school grounds. This means that having a weapon wouldn't prevent much from happening. The person shooting knows that he will be shot at by the police therefore any such action would only take minutes to cause maximum casualties and any preventive action such as shooting back only has a slim chance of success, if any at all. Looking forward to your reply.
There is a low enough probability for the existence of God to doubt his existence.

I guess I'll just sum up this round by rebutting your points "the best things in life are the things you caint see" You fail to describe exactly what the best things in life are, so I will define them for you. The best things in life are blackjack and hookers, which we can obviously see. Therefore God does not exist. "For example how did you get here were did adam and eve come from were does rain come from were did earth come from" I got here in ways only an OBGYN doctor can explain specifically. I have not talked to Adam and Eve so I don't have a credible source to explain how they got here. Rain comes from clouds. Earth comes from space. "a big test results show that things caint from out of no where they have to made by someone or something." I would like to see this "big test results." And with your logic, if things can't come from nowhere, then that would ultimately leave out God, who is claimed to have come from nowhere (to argue that God has no beginning is another argument, but I would think that is just as far fetched).
There is a low enough probability for the existence of God to doubt his existence.

Wow, I'm kind of mad right now. I just put in an hour's worth of argument that attempts to tackle the logical and scientific aspects of God and all you could do is cite an argument that I've already addressed? (that something can't come out of nothing) First off, you never addressed any of my points, which is that God lacks scientific evidence, that God is Himself a conundrum because people like you cite that something cannot come out of nothing (which you exclude when referencing to God), and that there already is an answer to how life got on Earth that is much more plausible and probable. Oh, I just looked at your profile, and you're eleven years old. Ugh!!!... ...you could've at least tried to use some punctuation marks.
There is a low enough probability for the existence of God to doubt his existence.

God exist He does there may not be scientific record of a lot of stuff but hje exists because the best things in life are the things you caint see just cause you caint see him doesnt mean he doesnt exist For example how did you get here were did adam and eve come from were does rain come from were did earth come from a big test results show that things caint from out of no where they have to made by someone or something.
Creationism is false.

Introduction:As a disclaimer, I do not think that evolutionary creationism can be proved to be false. Since there are multiple types of creationism and the focus of this debate is only one type of creationism, I will define the term creationism for this debate. Definitions:Creationism: The belief that the world was created as described in Genesis, in the Bible, and that humans did not evolve from nonhuman apes. God: the Christian god. All-powerful god: a being whose will can do literally anything. Argument:Premise 1: Chromosome 2, in humans, seems to be the result of a fusion of two chromosomes in nonhuman apes. Premise 2: If chromosome 2, in humans, seems to be the result of a fusion of two chromosomes in nonhuman apes, it is sufficiently evident that humans evolved from nonhuman apes to warrant belief that humans evolved from nonhuman apes. Premise 3: Therefore, it is sufficiently evident that humans evolved from nonhuman apes to warrant belief that humans evolved from nonhuman apes. Premise 4: If something is sufficiently evident to warrant belief in it, it is true. Premise 5: Therefore, humans evolved from nonhuman apes. Premise 6: If humans evolved from nonhuman apes, creationism is false. Conclusion: Creationism is false. Argument form: Premise 1: f (Based on research.) Premise 2: if f, e (Based on logic.) Premise 3: Therefore, e (Supported by premises 1 and 2.) Premise 4: if e, a (Based on logic and phrased in a more general way to sound obvious.) Premise 5: Therefore, a (Supported by premises 3 and 4.) Premise 6: if a, -c (Based on logic.) Conclusion: -c (Supported by premises 5 and 6.) Final notes: The first part of my definition of creationism, namely "The belief that the world was created as described in Genesis, in the Bible", may not be false if an all powerful god willed it to not be false since an all powerful god's will, by definition, could do literally anything. Not everyone believes in an all powerful god, though. Question to the contender: If the Bible said, clearly, that 2 + 2 = 42 and not 4, would 2 + 2 = 42 and not 4?
Social Media IS IMPORTANT

Social Media has saved millions of lives. March 2009, an avalanche separated 2 people from their group during a mountain climb. Using google maps, Twitter, and Facebook, they were able to communicate to the lost hiker and they rescued her. (The other person fell down the mountain and the body wasn"t found.) But not only individuals were being rescued. Augest 2016, TEN THOUSAND ex-workers were starving to death. A single photograph brought them to the attention of the government. They got rescued by the government, and there was no casualties! I"m sorry this is short, but it is all true, and I hope I have opened your eyes.
Feminism is cancer of contemporary society

Well, I don"t really agree with this, feminism has never been about advocating the rights of one gender over another. Just because there is a "fem" in the term feminist doesn"t make it so, you can call it anything you want, it"s still means equality. Feminism to me is a movement that seeks to empower women to take control of their lives. The goal is for both men and women in society to understand that anachronistic restriction on the male and female roles have no standing in modern society and to work towards a more equal society.
Feminism is cancer of contemporary society

Well, not every man is scared. In fact, this feeling has nothing to do with fear. It's rather embarassement and dander, caused by tons of illogical claims and demands. What modern feminists refuse to admit is that feminism is only one side of a two-sided coin of inequality. A "movement" that advocates for the rights of one gender over another is sexist and inequal by nature. To counclude I want to add, that if feminists were striving for equality, then they wouldn"t be FEMinists. That"s just deductive reasoning. Being against feminism means that you"re truly for equality.
Feminism is cancer of contemporary society

Feminism is not encouraging hate against men, its main goal is to help bring women equal to men. The debate is the fact that men are scared that they are going to lose their rights as women gain theirs. However, that is not the case. Feminism is not ignoring the issues men have faced - they are focusing more on the fact that women are a discriminated majority. In todays society feminism is a must. Everyday women are being discriminated against without them even knowing. Girls grow up knowing its safer to give a guy a FAKE phone number than to turn it down.... Yeah nothing is wrong there. They are taught that its better to tell a guy you have a boyfriends then to say you're not interested. Women are oppressed, feminism is not the victimization of women, it is a movement to empower people to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. Radical feminists who attack men and wish to be superior are not true feminists. It is beneficial to both genders. Those who believe feminism is a movement that discriminates men have not been exposed to genuine feminism.
Feminism is cancer of contemporary society

I'm really grateful to you for explaining me the "shades" of the same notion. But I somehow find them interconnected, if not the same. They are as synonimous, as irony and sarcasm are. The latter is an "upgraded" version of the first one. So basically, you're saying, that there are soft men-haters, mid men-haters and hardcore men-haters. Well yes, women were considered to be mistreated in the past, but are they now? Sure, there are countries in the world, that have certain traditions towards women, and they're not going to accept western gender agenda, but what about the rest? Women have all the rights to occupy prestigious positions (google Zaha Hadid, Theresa May, Patty Jenkins) , to earn a decent paycheck (maybe less than men, but still decent enough to live a life, and if it's not enough, then how much is enough?), not to raise children or give birth at all (for example, like in Denmark). But it turns out, that that's not enough. That's why I'm saying, that the goal was surpassed, there is nowhere to move on. Or is it? Should we have mixed-sex football teams? Man vs Woman MMA fights (actually, there is such thing as WWE, and there women sometimes fight men, google it too)? Women soldiers, that would lay their bodies on the battlefield, defending their country? Maybe we should have, but that's arguable. Now, rape. Yes, men do sexualise women, especially when women wear revealing clothes, which is now a common thing with most women. But that doesn't mean, that every man is capable of doing that. Plus nowadays cases of false rape accusation are gaining numbers. Only in these cases men are always on the losers' side, and most of the time men should do a spell in prison for something, they've never commited. The best part of these "rapists" are virgin, by the way. How cool is that? Does it mean I could be put in jail for rape too, though I've never had sex with a woman? I guess, this is a ture justice and equality according to feminists. "Feminism also seeks to bring down all those patriarchal opinions that men should constantly prove their masculinity and ever shed a tear". But who said, that men cannot and shouldn't shed a tear? And what do you mean by "constantly prove their masculinity"? But this is how it actually works in the nature. The strongest one wins. Men are taught to be strong, in order to be able to keep family in tact. Let's take another perspective. Ask women, wether they would choose from two absolutely the same men, but one of them is stronger than the other, the weaker one. The thing is, they would not do that, because preference falls upon the stongest one, apparently. And it's absolutely normal, as this is in our instincts. We tend to stay close to the strongest. Now, feminism is trying to demolish this tendency. But who would benefit from it? I assume, no one, neither men, nor women. All I'm saying is that feminism has nothing to do with the notion of equality. It's all vice-versa. It deals too much damage to contemporary society, by imposing even more injustices and inequalities, than it should get rid of.
Feminism is cancer of contemporary society

Well, first of all You have to understand, that feminism, misandry and matriarchy are three very different things. Matriarchy is identical to patriarchy, with the exception that the roles are reversed and the woman is the authority figure, feminism does NOT support that. Misandry is the expression of hatred towards the male gender, feminism does NOT support that, either. Feminism strikes to correct some very obvious and toxic treatments and social beliefs towards women until they are equal to men. It is very simple. The reason why this movement was named 'feminism' is that women are considered to be mistreated more in comparison to men. It is much like racism towards black people. Misandry does exist, but it does not hurt men socially or politically. While misogyny has caused not only the mistreatment of women but also the lives of women. Admittedly, there are people who call themselves 'feminists' in order to excuse their sexist actions, but this percentage is very minor and the whole movement should not be brought down because of the mistakes of minor. Feminism is needed for plenty of reasons. It is a problem that in rape, the woman gets hate for being too 'provoking' or wearing inappropriate clothes. No is no! Women don't say no and they mean yes, they say no because that's their answer. Feminism also benefits men. Society treats men like they are animals, it's their 'hormones' they say, 'they can't help but think of sex' or the most irritating phrase 'boys will be boys". This actually underestimates men's intelligence. Such words allude that men only seek sex and are willing to commit rape for it. Such words allude that men are not capable of handling and restraining themselves. Feminism also seeks to bring down all those patriarchal opinions that men should constantly prove their masculinity and never shed a tear. Feminism is a movement that strikes for equality.
Feminism is cancer of contemporary society

I believe, that gender equality is truly a noble goal, but feminism is not it. Feminism perpetuates sexism. If it was really about equality, it would not focus on women or men, but gender equality. Sadly, it does not. And we are all paying for it. "Feminists" just haven't figured it out yet, because they're usually too busy screaming about the inequalities they have to invent to remain relevant in some parallel universe. Feminism's original goal, equality, is not something I disagree with. But the goal was reached and surpassed long ago. Now it's about hating men and inventing reasons and ways to attack them, both openly and subtly.
Cricket is a better sport than baseball

I do not believe the word "like" is directly related to the word "better. " Say someone has a choice to eat figs or Twinkies, which he/she likes to eat, as a snack. Of the two choices of snack, the figs are BETTER because they are healthier, but that does not mean that the person will LIKE figs more than Twinkies. There is no direct relation between "like" and "better," so my opponent has no advantage over me in that aspect. On a side note, if anyone happens to think: "Hey, logistically this bat has a better spin gradient than those in that other sport[;] I can fully aim my shot in such a way that in can traverse a 60 degree arc at a speed of 50mph! Yay! " That someone ought to meet a psychiatrist, or ought to get out and actually breathe some fresh air. .. If you find a sport more engaging, more fun, then it is a better sport. My opponent has stated, though in other words, the same statement. My opponent also claims that it is impossible to say that a sport is objectively more enjoyable, thus impossible for a sport to be a better. I do not know how many of you have gone to a baseball game, but I went once, and it was one the most boring things I had seen. I could have fallen asleep and understood the game just as well. Though that is subjective, waiting 2 minutes between each pitch is about as fun as watching a sapling become a tree, and most people would (I would hope they would) agree with me on that. I'll get my point across very simply: better quality sport = better sport. There are certain characteristics of baseball which are not as good in quality as similar characteristics of cricket. Certain characteristics can be measured objectively in a sport, and those characteristics provide more quality to the sport, which, in turn, makes the sport better. First, pitching is much like bowling, but bowling allows you to do more than just pitch. Bowling essentially encompasses pitching, and has a bit more. The bit more is a good bit more for reasons I stated in round 1, so more quality there. Batting in cricket is better than batting in baseball because you can bat near exactly the same way in cricket as you can in baseball, but you can also whack the ball any which way as I said in round 1. More of the same quality of batting found in baseball is found in cricket, so batting in cricket is better. To sum up: (Better quality bowling+better quality batting > okay quality pitching+okay quality batting)=cricket > baseball Ain't that a great way to look at things? By the way, color preference is quite a bit more subjective than sports. .. I await my opponent's next response.
Cricket is a better sport than baseball

[note: I'm used to using aff instead of pro and neg instead of con, so mind that when reading if I accidentally use it] Greetings to all of you avid sports goers. It may seem odd to you that I, rofflewoffles, who does not play either baseball or cricket is joining this debate. This actually makes me a much more legitimate source of argumentation in this sense because I am completely unbiased to these two sports. That puts me immediately ahead of the Pro's like towards the sport he clearly prefers, cricket. -ONTO MY FIRST POINT- --THE RESOLUTION-- I do not need to prove that baseball is better than cricket - I merely need to prove that cricket is not better than baseball. Thus, if I prove that cricket is on equal grounds with baseball then I have won this debate because I have negated the fact that "cricket is a better sport than baseball. " -NEXT- --THE LIKE OR DISLIKE OF SPORTS IS COMPLETELY OPINIONATED-- The neg seems to have neglected the fact that it is impossible for a thing as subjective as sports to be comparatively "better" than other sports. Sports, much like food preferences or music tastes, are not objectively measured. The first time someone picks up a cricket bat or a baseball bat or whatever kind of sport instrument and starts playing a game with it, they don't think: "Hey, logistically this bat has a better spin gradient than those in that other sport - t I can fully aim my shot in such a way that in can traverse a 60 degree arc at a speed of 50mph! Yay! " No! That is nothing what sport is about. You cannot objectify such things as the pure enjoyment from playing a sport. --THEREFORE, CRICKET CANNOT BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN BASEBALL NOR CAN BASEBALL BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN CRICKET - THEY ARE EQUALS DUE TO THEIR INNATE SUBJECTIVE NATURE-- If there is no objective way of measuring enjoyment from a sport, then one cannot claim that "cricket is a better sport than baseball. " It is roughly the same as saying that "red is a better color than blue" - a statement I'm sure none of you would find makes any sense.