BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists.

Sentience argumentPremise 1Con says: 1 is backed by everything we see, like with the kalam premise 1. All things that have sentience, like humans, cats, dogs, monkeys, gharials, etc all are caused, by human parents, cat parents, gharial parents. etc. so 1 is obvious if you use your "intuition" like with the premise 1 of the kalam cosmological arg. I'd like to say that just because everything we observe with a sentience has a cause, that does not mean that everything with a sentience has a cause. For Pro to back up his first premise, he would have to prove that everything with a sentience must have a cause. He has so far failed to do this. Also, he says that we are purely using our intuitions with the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument. If you look, I backed up the first premise in the first round of this debate [1]. Premise 2Con thinks that the God we're talking about here is the Christian God, but neither the resolution or any of the rounds so far written by me say that this is going to be a debate over the existence of the Christian God. This is a debate over a God in general. So, this premise isn't backed up either.Kalam argumentCon says: the THEORETIC PHYSIST Lawrence Krauss, who knows more science than both of the debates, here, explained that the universe came from a quantum when it fluctuated in a vacuum.http://www.amazon.com......So the question now is: Where did that vacuum come from? Con says: the Kalam cosmolgical argument is also cherry picking since we say that everything has a cause, but God doesnt need a cause. God has sentience so he needs a cause. But why doesn't God need a cause in the KCA? this is what philosophers call speicial pleading, it's a logical fallcacyThe Kalam Cosmological argument does not commit the fallacy of cherry picking as it says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist, he is eternal and timeless. As far as I'm aware, that's not cherry-picking [2].Con says: the kalam is also circular since the only reason to think the universe has a cause is if the first and second statements are true, and the first and second are only put there to give the christian reason to think that god exists. So the kalam is also circular since he is trying to assume what that god existsMaybe I'm having a grey moment, but I don't see how that makes the Kalam argument circular. Please explain yourself better.I believe this argument is untouched. Bible Again, this debate isn't about the Christian God.Conclusion-My arguments have been backed up with evidence and Con hasn't disproved them.-Con has failed to provide even one sound argument.-Con has failed to respond to any of my arguments or defences of my arguments.-To win, Con needs to disprove the Kalam argument and present a sound argument of his own. Sources [1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
God exists.

the sentience argument is perfectly sound, its obvious.1 is backed by everything we see, like with the kalam premise 1. All things that have sentience, like humans, cats, dogs, monkeys, gharials, etc all are caused, by human parents, cat parents, gharial parents. etc. so 1 is obvious if you use your "intuition" like with the premise 1 of the kalam cosmological arg. premise 2 is also obvious, since god speaks to moses and noah's ark and the israelites, and jesus, and the wandering jew. But you cant talk if you dont have thoughts, and thoughts means that you have a consciousness. So god has to have a consciousness which means he is sentience. So if god is sentient and sntience is caused, then god is caused. which refutes the KCA of god not needing a cause because he didn't "begin to exist" Kalam pro's argument is stupid, not only because of my sentience argument, but because everything about it is nonsense. the THEORETIC PHYSIST Lawrence Krauss, who knows more science than both of the debates, here, explained that the universe came from a quantum when it fluctuated in a vacuum. http://www.amazon.com... the Kalam cosmolgical argument is also cherry picking since we say that everything has a cause, but God doesnt need a cause. God has sentience so he needs a cause. But why doesn't God need a cause in the KCA? this is what philosophers call speicial pleading, it's a logical fallcacy the kalam is also circular since the only reason to think the universe has a cause is if the first and second statements are true, and the first and second are only put there to give the christian reason to think that god exists. So the kalam is also circular since he is trying to assume what that god exists bible bats are not birds, people can't rise from the dead, etc and people still think that the Bible is real. But its not true, it's just written by a bunch of jews in the middle east, there's no reason to believe the bible is historically true. And the bible is also immoral "Homosexuality is an abomnation" -- book of leviticus. This is ridiculous, theres nothing wrong with being gay "In the beginning god created the earth" -- book of genesis. This is also ridiculous since Lawrence krauss proved the earth doesn't need a beginning, it can come from quantum physics which most christians don't even know about., science advances beyond religion "on the third day Jesus rose from the dead" -- the gospel books. but when people die, they die. this is pretty much a fact of life, it's impossible to come back from the dead when your body is already decaying in a tomb. "it rained 40 days and 40 nights" -- the book of noah. theres no evidence for a flood, meteorologists disprove this every day on the weather channel, it never rains that long. Everything in the bible is crap, god needs a cause, and the kalam is stupid.
God exists.

RebuttalsThe argument presented to me is the following one:(P1) Everything that has a sentient has a cause. (P2) God would have to have a sentient to create the universe;(C) Therefore, God has a cause. None of the premises have been backed up with evidence, not by Con or by Rationalwiki, so we have no reason to think that this argument is sound. Part 1: The Kalam Cosmological argument I will present the Kalam Cosmological argument, one popularized by William Lane Craig. It can be summarized as follows:(P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. (P2) The universe began to exist. (C) Therefore, the universe had a cause. Defence of Premise 1 We know that this is true because something cannot come from nothing because if it did, there would be no reason why that thing came out of nothing and not something else. Hence, everything that begins to exist has a cause. Defence of Premise 2This must be true to avoid an infinite regress. Infinity is not a number, as you cannot add or take away from it, so when asked the question "How old is the universe? ", you would have to come to the conclusion that the universe once began to exist. Defence of the Conclusion This is the logical conclusion following premise one and premise two. Virtual ParticlesVirtual particles are commonly presented as an exception to the first premise, but virtual particles don't come from nothing, they come from a quantum vacuum, which is something. Part 2: What do we know about this cause? What do we know about the cause of the universe? What properties must it possess? Well, since it's been established that everything that begins to exist has a cause, this cause would have to be uncaused, and to avoid an impossible infinite regress of events, that cause must've been timeless. Since it existed before time, it must've existed before space and therefore is spaceless. This cause is spaceless, timeless and uncaused, which is what theists call God. Conclusion- I've given sound arguments to back up my position. - Con has failed to do this. - To win, Con needs to back up the premises of his argument and disprove my arguments.
Sex Ed.

You stated..... "Puberty is, by far, the most difficult emotional and biological stage for a person to experience"...I disagree...teens get themselves in there own mess...I feel men and woman get more hungry for sex after there out of high school then when they was 12,14,16..ect...if they go around looking at ponography and making out with others from school and experamenting then there bodys is going to want sex more......Ive heard it said many times over and over and i believe its true....lust is like drugs or any other addiction....if you get yourself into it then its harder to go without it....the more ya have it the more ya want it..........lets not put a blanket over the real issue....are you going to justify the ones that are running wild,sleeping around,cheating,raping...ect...ect....all that is from Lust!......if parents dont wanna do there job as a parent or the law wont let them then dont give in and say that sex should be a part of a teens life therefor lets have sex ed.....I think the parent should inform the kids about sex and not the schools!
Sex Ed.

I do agree that the age of maturity has gotten later and later and that a 14 year old years ago was much more maturer then a 14 year old now. But if a teen wants to have sex there going to have sex and if they have sexually urges then head knowlege about sex wont take away those urges...they will just be a "informed" teen that is sleeping around....peaple seem to overrate sex ed. No matter how right or wrong something is....is the law says No then we have always had to go by it.....so if a teen is "horney" (exuse my language) then thats the problem of the teen and Not the school cause the law says that the teen is too young for sex and should not be having urges....and anyone can get urges when they got there mind in the gutter....they have urges cause they CHOOSE to have them..lets put the blame where it needs to be..the teens...now a person may say that they cant help how they feel (I disagree).....but if its oh so normal for a person under 18 to want to have sex then they should ower the age...if they dont want to do that cause they feel they that would be too young then I guess the teens will have to keep there pants on and learn that they have control over there own bodys and not to let there lust have control over them....peaple act like these teens nowaday are innocent victoms...there not..there just have attitudes like there adults cause of various things that society teaches them. I aint going to "outline" this...ill just put this the only way i know how............it seems pretty clear and simple to me......the law says a person shouldnt be doing something...then the person shouldnt be learning about it........even if the law says under 25 is a miner then thats what we would have to go by.....its funny that with all of the thing that peaple abide by when it comes to the law they want to compromise with it if it has to deal with sex ed.?
Sex Ed.

I am against sex ed. in schools cause I see no use for it...if someone wants to learn more on sex ed. let that be some class outside of school....mostly everyone in school is under 18 and there to learn about the typical subjects and not about sex.......if you teach them about sex they will take it as teachers telling them there old enough for it....just like drivers ed. When kids took drivers ed they knew that they was old enough to drive. Same thing with sex ed. It seems to be fine with calling Anyone under 18 a minor yet we want to ram sex down there through while there still in school! Jr High students are not adults!...High school student are not adults!...its one way or the other you eather lower the adult age or take sex ed. out........and by the way.....putting condom machines in the schools is basically telling the student (go ahead..have sex) whats the point?? are they going to put more sex items in school in the future?...Oh no there not trying to encourage anything..its just there in case its needed....(ya right)......and the parents who are for this sex ed. i think is brainwashed. and ya wander why kids are in a rush to have sex?...they think there adults....and the kids that are still virgins are being seeing as immature by other students AND adults. Keep sex ed. out of the schools. If its illigal then of course its wrong and students under 18 aint suppose to have sex so why biult a class about it?...to learn?...learn what?.......Society wants parents to think that if they can teach there kids sex ed. then that will help prevent them from having sex....thats a bunch of crap. Its funny how hypocrite society can be.....parents wants there kids to not have sex at a young age BUT they think there "helping" them by putting them in sex ed And are FOR sex ed...lol.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were true American heroes

So you believe that they are many gods. your entire argument is based on the fact that is okay to kill of an entire type of people, just to get into heaven a place, we are not even sure it exists. I never said the Nazi's killed everyone, I said they tried to killed of entire religions, races and sexual orientation. Which is what Natural Selection is. And how do you know what the "gods" want, are you a prophet? If you believe in gods, how can you not believe in the devil. You never addressed the fact that children were killed in that meaningless massacre. It is horrible that you believe you are right, you need immediate psychiatric help.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were true American heroes

You imply I believe in a single god. The Gods kill to show people how they want people to act, and to show them what happens when a majority fail to follow the Gods. Also the Nazis in no way attempted to kill everyone, the basis of that statement is based purely off allied propaganda. The Gods want people to embody Natural Selection and Wrath as doing such gets you into heaven, those who fail to do so have to try again. Your friend was given another chance to embody what the Gods want. If I were you I would hope he did on his next time around so that he doesn't get stuck in a loop of failing the wishes of the Gods. Eric and Dylan are saints of the Gods, the allowed the Gods to take possession of them and let the Gods use them to carry out their will. They can't be children of Satan when Satan does not exist.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were true American heroes

So is this is what you are saying, God wants to wipe out one entire race,sex,religion and orientation. That is evil and it is actually what the Nazis did. If you are an actual real believer of god you believe god made no mistakes. Please your entire enlargement is faulty. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are Satan's own children. don't speak ever about my friend again. I had to watch a mother and father bury their child and you say that's what god wants?
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were true American heroes

The people who died on that day had succumb to the affects of Natural Selection. They did not have the ability to protect themselves. The Gods of Natural Selection and Wrath used possession of Eric and Dylan so that the Gods could carry out their method of spreading beliefs of Natural Selection and Wrath. Eric and Dylan carried out a part of the needed extermination of humanity. "Humanity is not worth fighting for, only killing"- Eric Harris. I feel bad for your friend. He should have died to be released to retry and be better in the eyes of the Gods.
Slang is destroying the English language

I highly doubt a language such as English will change into a completely different language because of slang. Sure, English has changed greatly since Old English, but we no longer live in the conditions that allow languages to change greatly. In fact, English speakers today could speak with English speakers of the 1500s. [1] It may be weird, but we'd understand each other on a basic level. Plus, we have people today who can translate ancient Hebrew. I'm pretty sure we'd have people in the future who could translate our current language to their own. It's been a pleasure debating with you. :3 Citations: [1] http://learningenglish.voanews.com...
Slang is destroying the English language

Thank you Con for your point. I'm going to begin my argument with a passage from George Orwell's 1984: "The destruction of words (. .. ) Take "good," for instance. If you have a word like "good," what need is there for a word like "bad"? "Ungood" will do just as well- better even (. .. ) Or again, if you want a stronger version of "good," what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like "excellent" and "splendid" and all the rest of them? "Plusgood" covers the meaning or "doubleplusgood" if you want something stronger still. " Sounds pretty ridiculous, right? But isn't that very similar to what is happening to our English language as you stated in your argument? ("Slang could be described as the transitional phase between two meanings. ") I agree with you, of course the English language has to change in some form, especially with the addition of new words as new things are being invented, discovered etc. But by gradually assigning each current word a different meaning (ie. slang), eventually, in another millennium, people will be talking in a completely different way than today. You might think, "Well what the heck has that got to do with me! " And you're absolutely right, it has NOTHING to do with you. But what about the future? We're here sitting comfortably, enjoying the amazing works of Shakespeare, Lord Byron and the other greats. But in another millennium, nobody is going to understand ONE SINGLE LINE of 'Hamlet' or 'Don Juan'. There'll be no special dictionaries called 'English 1AD-1500' and 'English 1500-1600' etc. And if there will be, it won't allow the people to personally indulge into and appreciate the stories of the writers- all because some people are randomly creating new meanings for our ALREADY existing words. In conclusion, slang is not only destroying the current version of the English language but also the beauty of past works of art. Thank you and I beg you to oppose. It was a pleasure to debate with you.
Slang is destroying the English language

I'm up for a short and light debate, so I'll give this a go. First off, there was never a time where every word had its own individual meaning. Languages grow and evolve constantly, an if you know anything about linguistics, you would know that words have been being assigned new meanings since humans developed an advanced form of speech. Many people think slang is a new thing, but it most certainly isn't. Modern may be different from the slang of the 19th century, and some argue that it is more vulgar, but slang is really just an innovative way of talking. The reason why people take words and assign them slightly (sometimes very) different meanings is because words we recognize catch on better than gibberish. Even Shakespeare modified words and gave them new meanings. The English language also uses many Greek and Latin words and terms and gives them similar or even loosely related meanings. Take for example, the Latin word 'ad,' meaning 'to' in Latin. In English, it is a suffix meaning 'to' or even 'towards.' Now let's look at the word 'nice.' It is a compliment today, but used to describe someone who was simple and foolish. We don't look at it as a slang word now, because it doesn't mean both, the definition has completely shifted. Slang could be described as the transitional phase between two meanings.
Slang is destroying the English language

Round 1: main arguments Round 2: rebuttal and conclusions (Note: this is intended to be a short and humorous debate and does not reflect any existing strong opinions! ) **************** There was once a time where every word had its own individual meaning. For example, being 'gay' meant being 'happy' and 'shifting' meant 'to move'. It is understandable when a new slang word is created- but when people use everyday words that already exist and destroy them by assigning the words a completely different meaning, that is totally unacceptable. Let's take the two words above for example. Why can't people just use the words 'homosexual' and 'kissing' instead of 'gay' and 'shifting'? Or if they really wanted to create a code name for the words, why can't people just stop being lazy and actually CREATE their own words out of gibberish instead of COPYING or STEALING other people's words? Everyday, words and phrases are being destroyed without us even realising. You can no longer say something like "I'm going to meet him next week" without people both young and old trying to suppress their sniggering. And not only will you say something completely normal and be answered with "that's what she said", but you will no longer even be able to say "that's what she said" in the original context without some misunderstanding from others. Slang words are clearly destroying the English language and limiting the availability of words that we can use. Thank you for reading and I beg you to oppose.
shuold kahoot be used in congess

I cant believe you tried to use your MOTHERS ILKNESS to win this bedate. BECAUSE ACHTUTHLY I HAVE canser RIHGT NOW! the devule, Saituiain GAVE IT TOI ME SEKSUALLY! I WANTt0 Use Kahoot AS A Feun WaY to EDUcate CoMGREASE About SAETOINE So YOu ANd ME WonT Get ROEPED SekcsuALly By SaTIEN!
shuold kahoot be used in congess

JUST WANT YOU to Now tHat My best frendd HaS a raER disease AND iMA NICe person SO To rPRove I am A cHRISTAIN I caughtTTT HErobrine and I HavE prof. Click on Dis Linck . So don't Tell MEE, ?A Chirstian MIngle user that Kahoote is not Autism. ILL HAVE YOUN KLNP)W THAT MY MOM Has Sckin Canser And she prolly gone die so LEABE
shuold kahoot be used in congess

OBH REALUTY! I am Ashamed that you hekmed me and wmy ACOunt ON XBoks! I Was LOOKING that up so I COULD FIGHT SAITAIN! I was Preparng For yoears. IM A HACKRE AND WIL SHOW THAT YOU ARE SAITAIN AND I Will fIGht YOU Rignt nOW!!!! You re SCeARED THAt Your SETEN WeAYs will bee WATSCH YOUr ExBACKS I WILL RAPOE ITTT BEITCH
shuold kahoot be used in congess

I LL HAVE YOU NOW THat MY dAAd WorKs for Xbocks andf he got you ip Adressing. he SAys Theat YEW have been lookin UP SATNAISM in "YUTH" AND ALSO CHEMOTHERAPY cAUSEs Austism so dony tell me that satan is not in kahoot bc ACCRODING TO GANDHI 'kahot es eaustism" SO DONTTREell ME LIDLE BOI. Kepe in Mind I SM A polimitician. You are weklcome
shuold kahoot be used in congess

Akthtuly according to Mein Kampf, Hitlers Audobiografy, Christian mingle is a pro Kahoot Program. I AM CHRISTAIN, IF YOU SAY IM NOT CHEISTAIN I WILL HAVE TO TELL YOU KAHoot is a very CRISTAIn app and has never been ofFiliated with SATAINISYM! Kahoot in congress is a very good thing and educatnal. Thank you
Kickers are Underated Football Players!

I understand what you are saying, but the kicker is not threatened by being tackled. The kicker starts everything, while the QB has to make split second decisions before he is sacked. Like in high school football, they can have someone be the kicker as well as something else. I do not think that the kicker is being under appreciated by any means, he gets enough appreciation as his job deserves, if not more.
Kickers are Underated Football Players!

You say all a kicker has to do is kick a ball. Well doesnt a quarterback just have to throw? And a wide Reciever just have to catch? A kicker is the moster underpaid player on the field, yet has to be the most clutch. The art of kicking is much harder than one would think as well as there is many aspects that must be done to have a solid kick. You say a QB is being presured from the start, well isnt a kicker aswell? As soon as the ball is snapped 11 guys are running at hime for the block. Kickers must have the strongest mental game in the leage to make it through.
Kickers are Underated Football Players!

The kicker is way over payed for what he does. If all you have to do is train yourself to kick the ball through a field goal and then wait for your next time to kick the ball, you don't need to be recognized like a hero. The kicker isn't getting hit hard like a QB or a lineman. QB are the "heroes" of the game because, come on, they are the number one target at the beginning of a play. I'm very sure they can teach one of the other players to ALSO be the kicker.