BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The laws of physics make it impossible for some god not to exist

Hopefully, the way in which this debate unfolds will allow for insight and growth for both of us. I accept my opponent's definition of [a] God as, "some [any] being or deity outside the laws of physics [with no specific law being presented in the definition]. I would like to further refine this definition, by adding that this God must be an definite entity; i. e. that God cannot be redefined as an imaginary or hypothetical being; thusly, the burden is on my opponent to prove that such a God exists in a meaningful, discrete, physical way in order to uphold the resolution. I would also like to submit a few definitions of my own. Firstly, I would choose to define a, "Law of Physics" to mean a principle upheld by rigorous scientific testing and experimentation; that is to say, it is provable but not demonstratively disproved; and is supported by a general consensus of reputable physicists worldwide. Secondly, I wish to define, "impossible" to mean that the event in question must not be remotely possible in any way. The event in question must not only be improbable, but proven beyond all reasonable doubt to have a) never existed, b) currently non-existent, and c) not possible for future existence, based upon current conditions. Therefore, in the scope of this debate, the burden is on my opponent to prove that a Law of Physics makes it impossible for a God not to exist, all as defined above. This means that my opponent must prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that a God has no chance of ever not being, not being, or ever not being in the future (thus, impossible to "not be"), AND show that this condition of impossibility for "not being" is a DIRECT RESULT and PROPER FUNCTION OF a Law of Physics. It follows, then, the the major criterion for this debate will be my opponent's ability to prove said condition. It will also be important for my opponent to specify which law (or laws) of physics will come under question, as well as how they relate to the case, and prove the impossibility of the non-existence of a god. I will refrain from beginning further argumentation until my opponent has a chance to accept these definition and criteria.
The laws of physics make it impossible for some god not to exist

Secondly, I would like to define "god": some being or deity outside of the laws of physics. This is not the dictionary definition, rather what I meant by "god", which I only used for lack of a better word. I would also like to point out that I am only in high school and apologize if my facts are a little off. Now, on to the debate. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the the total amount of disorder in the universe is increasing, while the total amount of order is decreasing. Also the famous equation "E=m/c squared" means that the total amount of matter and energy cannot increase or decrease, making the "big bang" theory impossible.
The laws of physics make it impossible for some god not to exist

To briefly address the multiverse; a large and growing consortium of physicist, astronomers, and cosmologists agree that it is possible that our universe is either one of many, or one in a chain of many . http://www.qubit.org...), and such a hypothesis is supported by our understanding of quantum mechanics, which is currently the deepest and most complete physical theory we have. If we were, in fact, the product of prior big bangs and crunches, each preceding universe would have had its own unique laws of physics and physical structure. This makes it entirely possible for matter to be composed differently, energy to be expressed differently, both governed by different rules; subject to different forces. It is, then, possible for a universe to exist in this chain where matter CAN be created (or, destroyed), negating your supposed need for a God to create such matter (weird as it is, you could start out with nothing but laws that allow matter and energy to be created, and matter and energy could spring into being). I urge anybody reading this debate to consult any of the many reputable publications and journals on this subject for further reading, if you wish to broaden your knowledge of current theoretical physics and cosmology. Furthermore, no matter how much my opponent asserts that E=MC^2 implies that the Big Bang is impossible, it does nothing of the sort. At "time 0" of the big bang, up to about 10^-43 seconds, matter and energy were compressed into a gravitational singularity, and thus not subject to general relativity, which breaks down at levels below the planck scale (. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...), thus making E=MC^2 irrelevant. But, I digress. Back to the debate at hand. My opponent, to win, must have definitively shown that, "the laws of physics make it impossible for some god not to exist. " This is basically clumsy wording for, "the laws of physics necessitate a god. " I have shown that they do not, and my opponent has not shown that they do. In order to win, my opponent should have proven that the resolution ought to be upheld, which he has not. When I refuted his claim in R2, he offered not serious argument to my refutations and thusly dropped his contentions. But, he never made any new contentions, or made any new lines of argument to bolster his position, which leaves my opponent with. .. nothing. It is for this reason that I urge you, the audience, to vote CON in this debate. The burden of proof was on PRO, who provided none; and furthermore, PRO dropped all of his points.
This House Would Allow Secret Topics on DDO!

1. This is a concession. 2. Some people don't want challenging debates, such as this one. In addition, the only balanced topics, such as DDO tournament debates, are just as challenging as a debate from Edeb8's secret topic list. Argument rebutted. 3. Con needs to provide rebuttals and research for Pro's arguments, therefore Con can't really prepare. In addition, someone might accept the debate before you if you take a long time to prepare. However, Con's primary goal is to negate Pro's arguments, and you can't prepare for that. This argument is, at the very least, semi-refuted. 4. That is a topic for another issue. DDO is totally independent from Edeb8, and vice versa. Just because Edeb8 has something doesn't mean that DDO should get it as well. Argument negated. 5. Even if they have the choice, outside of legitimate and tournament debates (which is a vast minority), secret topic debates would be hardly used because many of the debates instigated are in accordance to the instigator's beliefs. In other words, the coding and the work of adding secret topics for a couple dozen debates out of the thousands overall is not worth it. 6. This defeats the whole purpose. Even if one person wants secret topics, if it's impossible to be added, it can't be added, and Pro loses this debate because secret topics won't be allowed on DDO because it doesn't exist. Conclusion: Pro has made hasty arguments all three rounds, and I have refuted all of them with a contention of my own: It is extremely improbable that Juggle would bother to add secret topics, nor will secret topics compensate for the work needed to implement it. Therefore, secret topics are fruitless on DDO, and should not be added. Furthermore, I have added all of my opponent's arguments. Vote Con. Side Argument (unrelated to the topic): The word "noob" used to describe me is like describing 9space as the "Debate God." That's how low I am in terms of skill. If Pro loses this debate, he will be derided for such lack of skill in debating that he lost against someone like me forever, and will never regain his reputation again. Thanks for the debate, 9space, and for your sake, I hope that you will win, although I have negated all of your arguments.
This House Would Allow Secret Topics on DDO!

1. Indeed, devil's advocate is tough.2. So? At least secret topics can be just as, if not more challenging, than the expert's finale.3. Incorrect. Some people can prepare before they accept. On the other hand in secret topics you must prepare exactly when the topic appears, which is after they accept. 4. Edeb8's new stuff that DDO doesn't have just proves how inferior DDO is to Edeb8.5. If opponents don't want to play devil's, they don't have to. I'm not saying that secret topics should be enforced, just that they should be made in DDO.C1: Unlikeliness of juggle adding a secret topic.Even if Juggle doesn't want or cannot add a secret topic, that still does not mean that Secret topics shouldn't be added. Even if something isn't possible, it's still a good ideal dream to look for.IN CONCLUSIONI think I beat this so called by himself "worse than noobs". Even if I lose, that does not mean I am even worse than a noob. I lost to dairygirl4u2c a long time ago, does that mean I am worse than her? Naw, just that I debated the wrong style in that debate.VOTE ME.
This House Would Allow Secret Topics on DDO!

R1: Incorrect. They may have to take the opposing side they normally take. That's called taking devil's advocate. This argument is refuted. R2: Exactly, that's the big challenge. I was talking about challenging debates with topics that are visible to the topic, as the Tier 1 Experts' Finale. This argument is refuted as well. R3: As I mentioned before, there are over 150 topics for the computer to randomly chose from, therfore you really can't prepare until the debate begins and the topic is shown. In regular debates, the contender also is unable to prepare beforehand during the debate. Because of this, secret topic debates lose half of their entire purpose. R4: Edeb8 has live debating and debate teams as well. What are you talking about? My apologies; I meant that Edeb8 had live debating and debate teams, and DDO doesn't, yet we don't make an effort to have them simply because Edeb8 has them. I switched the two. Feel free to take the S&G point off of me, but this argument is refuted as well due to misinformation. R5: Indeed, some may be repetitive but there's no way anyone did all 150-something debates. Perhaps not. However, secret topics have only one thing that regular debates do not have: the element of surprise. If this element is gone, then there is no point to secret debates. In addition, debaters that dislike debating from their beliefs and are opposed to playing devil's advocate would strongly oppose secret topics due to this issue. R6: My arguments remain un-refuted. False. Your arguments are now refuted again from my previous uses of logic and reasoning. Before ending this round, there is one contention to significantly strengthen my arguments: C1: It Is Unlikely That Juggle Will Add Secret Topics. Take a look at the DDO Enhancement Suggestions thread. [1] This thread is full of hundreds of positive suggestions, with only a few taken into account. If you were to be in favor of adding secret topics, you would obviously post the suggestion of secret topics in the thread so that Juggle may add it to DDO. However, all of the recent suggestions within the span of several months were not taken in to account. Not a single one. Therefore, chances are that Juggle will take a long time to add or even consider the principle of secret topics, at the very least. Due to the lack of uses of secret topic debates combined with the unlikeliness of Juggle going through the process of updating the site, the principle of secret topics is not realistic enough to become a reality. Back to you, Pro!
This House Would Allow Secret Topics on DDO!

"...for top-tier competitors, or even people who are well acquainted with all kinds of issues but do not excel in debating, there will be hardly any change in difficulty, as they do not have to research."Incorrect. They may have to take the opposing side they normally take. >:D "...actually been forced to do research in order to acquire facts that they are not familiar with." Exactly, that's the big challenge. "...secret topics are not truly "secret" as there really is no surprise or additional difficulty than a debate with a visible topic."Actually, there is. As I mentioned before, there are over 150 topics for the computer to randomly chose from, therfore you really can't prepare until the debate begins and the topic is shown.2. Because Edeb8 has it "DDO has other things that Edeb8 doesn't have--live debating, debate teams, etc."Edeb8 has live debating and debate teams as well. What are you talking about?3. They are fair.Indeed, some may be repetitive but there's no way anyone did all 150-something debates. My arguments remain un-refuted. Secret topics are still fun, unpredictable, challenging at most times, and because such are better than normal debates. All I need is pure logic to support my motions.
This House Would Allow Secret Topics on DDO!

His goals are wrong in my opinion. Bluesteel is definitely not worse than Roy and will be a gazillion times harder than Roy to beat. Furthermore, I think of him far better than a noob. Whatever. Now, let us see why DDO should allow secret topics. (Computer randomly decides which secret topic is availible)1. MORE FUN, MORE CHALLENGE!! You see, with about 150 secret topics, it is very unpredictable what topic you are going to get. Therefore it is more challenging and more fun, and the time limit truly closes in with these secret topics, forcing people to jump on their feet quickly and manage to uphold their part of the debate. With more challenge, secret topics are definitely going to be more fun than usual boring topics in which one already knows what the topic is going to be and can prepare beforehand. 2. Because Edeb8 has it.Edeb8.com uses Secret topic, and those debates are just as high quality as those that are not "Secret topic". There is no reason why DDO shouldn't have secret topics either, if Edeb8 also has secret topics.3. They are fair.As Admin from Edeb8 can justify, all of these secret topics are done before, and both sides have been debated over in many different tournaments as well as official debates, whether live debate or online debating. As both sides can win in these debates, they are obviously fair, and both sides are non-biased, as well as being controvercial, so any secret topic will definitely have lots of solid argumentations to them. Who knows, someone might come up with a unique argument for that topic from some other research.Since my opponent downgraded himself so much I will respect him, and, for this round, go easy on him. The full impact of my force will be coming next round. But for now, there you have it. Secret topics are awesome and fair. Onto you, RevNge.
This House Would Allow Secret Topics on DDO!

Round one acceptanceSecret topics: Topics hidden until the beginning of the debate. The debaters choose the side, then the topic is randomly selected. These topics are chosen from this link: http://www.edeb8.com....The only exception considered is " That governments should only test drugs for safety, not effectiveness, before approving them for the public" (Because that topic is ridiculously biased) DDO: Debate.orgNo trolling nor semantics.
RESOLVED: It is more logical to believe that no 'God' exists

Rules:This will be a three round debate, beginning in round 2. Rounds will be restricted to the following:ROUND 1: Strictly for definitions, rules and acceptance. THERE WILL BE NO ARGUMENTS MADE IN ROUND 1ROUND 2: Pro (me) will provide opening arguments. Con will provide their own arguments/counter arguments and rebuttals. ROUND 3: Pro and Con may introduce new arguments. Pro and Con will continue with counter arguments and rebuttals. ROUND 4: Strictly no new arguments. Pro and Con may make their final rebuttals and conclude their arguments. I accept the burden of proof, though it is up to each of us to reasonably prove our assertions, at the discretion of the voter. Definitions:The word 'logical' obviously pertains to the word 'logic' which for the point is this debate will be defined as[sourced from: . http://dictionary.reference.com...]:1) "The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "3) "The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. "4) "Reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions. " The word 'God' is defined as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe" and "one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. "This is the God of Monotheistic Abrahamic Religions, though not restricted to it. I'm speaking specifically of an omni-max and personal God, such as Yahweh or Allah, though this debate is not strictly restricted to said Gods. If there is any confusion about exactly what I'm talking about (I'm trying to avoid semantics and vague philosophical arguments and it's quite late), accept this debate, but let us discuss the specifics in the comment section before you post your acceptance. A pre-emptive good luck to my opponent.
Homeschooling is better than learning in school

The major problem with home schooling over public/private school settings is that children do not have to be responsible for following time constraints. The problem with that, is that students get to do school work on their own time, when they feel like it, or even just a couple days a week. This is not how the real world works, if you have a job, you have to be there when the boss says, not when you want to show up. Plus the home schooled students often does not have good social skills because they are not interacting with other individuals. Being part of a larger school setting allows for students to learn how to be accepting of others and how to communicate with other adults. What type of qualifications do parents have to have in order to home school students?
Homeschooling is better than learning in school

These days we are learning to much unnecessary information in school that will not help us in the future. They are many advantages to this topic and I will be listing the best one's I know. Homeschooling provides flexibility. You can create a weekly schedule that allows your child to learn without the constraint of a traditional classroom. If they are quick learners you can move on to new material, rather than boring their eager minds as many public schools do. On the other hand, if your child is struggling with a new concept, you are able dedicate the time to help them understand and fully grasp the idea. You are not tied down to a strict routine or time line. Another example how homeschooling benefits your child, is it protects them from negative influences at a young age. It"s been proven that trauma as a child or teen can have adverse effects on your mental health as an adult. At home education can prevent the scars of bullying that many children receive in the public education system. What better gift can you give your children, then for them to have high self-esteem and confidence to excel in school, college, and one day their future career? (information taken from TeenInk and some of my own points also added)
Homeschooling is better than learning in school

I would just like to write down some major points and benefits of home-schooling: 1) Child-centred learning - you can learn with your child at his/her own pace, without any competitive aspect. 2) Since socialisation will have to be more organised and/or structured, a home schooled child will meet people who share their interests and hobbies rather than merely their age, and get involved with a range of extra-curricular activities. 3) Home schooling allows much flexibility of education, which takes into account a child's level of learning that day, and fits in once in a lifetime learning opportunities as and when they occur, such as an exciting exhibition coming to town. 4) Home schooling can happen anywhere, and can take in exciting locations such as science museums, zoos, as well as being able to home school abroad (although parents should check local rules and regulations). 5) Home schooling involves more family time.
Who am I battle

yea! you got it. it was fear :) sorry about the dollar bill thing lol. ill try to pick more general stuffs. Are you pride? or.... a flag(of a country) Who am I? I warm the soul, Hot as a coal. I am all-around, but sometimes no where to be found. A hum, a ring, a snap, I'm even a clap. Accompanied with voice is when I fly, Never ever will I die.
Who am I battle

Oh god I was way off, am terrible at guessing. (although we don't even have dollar bills in Australia;) Yaay you were right (technically it was a drop but close enough) Were you fear?? or cowardice... Here is my new one. Who am I? I am a voice, I am a cry I have no mouth or tears or eyes I differentiate between win and loss I decide who is the boss I am right, never wrong I'm not weak, I am strong I am merely just a papery thing But I allow freedom to ring. Who am I?
Who am I battle

hahaha woww. i was gonna say "smile" but you put 'grin' in your description, so I thought you wouldnt be something so close to that :( darn. Nope. I was a dollar bill. :) For your new one... you are a tear! Who am I? I make your strength fade at the worst of times. But I keep you safe, I keep you alert. I give you sweaty hands, and make your heart grow cold. I visit the weak, but seldom the strong. Who am I?
Who am I battle

I was a smile. clouds??? or a balloon...I have a feeling I am going to be bad at guessing:) A glistening orb, shining pure Upon a blade that must endure I'm product of hate, longing or fear With absence of love hope and cheer I'm on a face, I'm one or many No-one's immune, I cling to any I course along a slippery slide I have been frowned, I have been cried Who am I??
Who am I battle

This sounds fun. I accept. You are the 'Sun' :) Or just light in general. That's my best guess. Here's mine: Who am I? People want me, but I'm not useful in my form. You could say I am two-faced, but I do not have a personality. Time to time, I'm on the ground, But not for long. :p I get wrinkly when i get old, But no one cares. =/ Who am I?
Who am I battle

Okiee Dokiee... Here's the rules. I give a who am I and you reply with 2 guesses and a who am I in return. My response will then be 2 guesses and a who am I....etc, etc Who am I's can be any length of words, however it must be one per round, and 2-4 stanzas (about the same thing). Who am I? An arch of sand along the coast A moon a cresent at it's post A joyful grin an expression of love A sign of peace, brought on a dove A bracket an emoticon, a letter Nothing in the world can show happiness better A hug a laugh a moment to share I live on a face but not in a pair Who am I? One with the most correct guesses wins, if it is a tie, the person with the most creative answer wins.
should it be allowed to force kids into religion

There's two serious problems with your argument: 1. Freedom There's no way that you could make it illegal to do such a thing without removing people's freedom of religion. If people can't raise their kids in a way that they deem as moral, then that's ultimately too much control from the government. 2. Truth In your argument, you state that these are "stupid ways to give false hopes and take peoples money." Unfortunately, there is no such thing as objective reality when it comes to determining whether there is or isn't a God, nor is there any way to determine for certain that the universe began one way or another. The best you can do is limit the ways that it did start, and then believe however you want to believe. As for the taking of people's money, we have to keep in mind that some of this money doesn't just line the coffers of some televangelist. In fact, hospitals like St. Mary's and St. Jude's wouldn't exist without the church, nor would several other charities such as Habitat for Humanity. So, in reality, we have to keep in mind that this isn't the stealing of people's money in every case. In many cases, it's true that televangelists and other shady characters do take this money. However, unilaterally declaring all of the church's functions to be based on the thievery of money is a bit of an exaggeration.