BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women should be able to become priests/ordained ministers

I was hoping for a serious debate (at least I hope you're not serious . . . ). But I'll play along. "women clearly have smaller brains than men, they would n be able to understand the complexity of the rite. we a all in god's image but god is a man. therefore only men should celebrate this while the women stay home and make sandwiches" So, in justification of the discrimination, you state that women have brains. (Source?) First of all, brain size has no bearing on the subject unless you can prove that brain size somehow affects women's ability to lead in some way. This website debunks such an idea http://www.thirdage.com... "they would n be able to understand the complexity of the rite" To declare that women's brain size keeps them from understanding complexity is false. http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com... Brain size in no way disadvantages a woman . . . "we a all in god's image but god is a man." Proof? And using the Bible is not good evidence in this case because out of the few who have seen God, he wasn't in the shape of a human being. Besides, such a statement is absurd. Let's compare a woman's and man's bodies side by side. Now let's remove everything that are equivalents, all toes, fingers, hairs, limbs, torso. What are we left with? A penis and scrotum. So let's all look and point and say "Not this THIS is the image of God". Men and women are both equally in the image of God. As Paul says "in God there is neither male nor female". Therefore, if you wish to use proof texts to assert your premise, then IF God is a man, then is can make no difference, because God himself does not distinguish between male and female. Lastly, you have not actually proven that discrimination doesn't exist and that it is not because of a traditional bias towards men and prejudice towards women. In fact, you have helped my cause by demonstrating yourself that women shouldn't be able to become priests/ordained ministers because of you helpless bias towards men and prejudice towards women. Clearly, you are openly prejudice against women (if what you typed isn't a joke).
Women should be able to become priests/ordained ministers

The many reasons that churches use to withhold women from ordination or the priesthood are quite varied, but the reasons make little difference because it is still patent discrimination against approx. 50% of the population due to a deep and long-lasting prejudice. Definitions: Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination (In this case, clearly a distinction against women.) Prejudice: 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. 3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group. I challenge anyone who is against women's ordination or women in the priesthood to explain how such discrimination is not because of a traditional bias towards men and prejudice towards women.
THW give greater financial aid to students who major in STEM fields.

In the Con argument, they stated that they would like for people to pursue a STEM career because they want to, but this would not work. The reason that we are supporting this is because there is currently a drop in STEM majors. What the opposition is saying would be true in a perfect utopian world, which the US is not. Another statement made by the Con side is that people aren't more ignorant because fewer people are graduating with STEM degrees. However, since there are fewer people graduating with STEM degrees., there are also fewer people working in the STEM field. This is detrimental to the economy and relations with other countries. The final point that the Con side made was that people don't know what they would be when they grow up. This doesn't change whether there is a scholarship or not. The students would still be unsure, and having this would, as Con conceded, mean more people will enroll in those degrees. I have both shown why the Pro side should win and why the Con side should not with the arguments and refutations above.
THW give greater financial aid to students who major in STEM fields.

STEM fields are extremely necessary but America isn't more ignorant because less people are graduating with STEM degrees. Either way, americans are going to have access to great products and progressive knowledge in all STEM fields. The only quesiton is, should we allow foreigners to make STEM breakthroughs instead of us? And, what price will we pay for not making those discoveries? I concede that giving money to the cause in the form of scholarships would mean more people will enroll in those degrees but that WILL NOT solve the problem. Kids coming from high school may not know what job lies ahead of them after graduation and whether or not they will actuall like it. That's why I think people get multiple degrees in different fields during the course of their life. The first degree is the one they thought they would enjoy and the second one is the one they actually want and should have gotten in the first place. I don't want people studying these fields because they get aid or because they can get a good job. I want them studying them primarily because they want to be great at it and secondly because they can make a living doing it --Not because we're in some kind of competition with other countries. If the goal is to strenghten our economy with STEM industry and scientific discoveries then our entire education needs to be overhauled to reflect the true beauty of those fields and the joy that comes from pursuing them. I want an engineer or scientists doing what they do because they want to change the world, not because their degree program was paid for by John Q. Public.
THW give greater financial aid to students who major in STEM fields.

I thank my oppoonent for accepting. Before I begin, I would like to say that Financial Aid is a full college scholarship for those who major in the STEM fields. This would only apply to public colleges. My first argument is that this would create an incentive for people to major in the STEM fields. If there is a full college scholarship, there would be more people willing to major and work in these fields. Currently, there is a lack of people who work in the STEM field. This would help America's economic situation. My second argument is that this plan would be able to help students be beneficial to society. Currently, 60% of college students (12 million) have college debt from previous years. If they have the full college scholarship for those who major in STEM, we also help the economy. This results in a positive economy. My third and final argument is that this plan would increase the score of our students. Currently, the US ranks 27th in STEM curriculum. Improving the STEM students would help us to be able to succeed better in the world. To go over my points, my arguments are: 1. This would create an incentive for people to major in the STEM fields 2. This plan would be able to help students be beneficial to society 3. This plan would increase the score of our students Thanks once again for accepting my challenge, and this is why I should win this round.
One can't prove logic is a reliable guide to truth

Yet again the opponent uses a non sequitur argument that can have no relevance to whether the original claims that theists make have any logical argument to begin with. He uses the notion of "nothing can be proven" concept, however this of course is a fallacy as the argument can't be disproved either. Opponents statements taken from Atheists/Agnostics Unite! "You can't prove anything through evidence. The only things that can be proven 100% in this world are mathematical statements. Statements about nature are only approximations of how things work under certain conditions". Here we see the perfect contradiction in the opponents thinking. He clearly states... "You can't prove anything through evidence" yet he goes on to write... "The only things that can be proven 100% in this world are mathematical. He bases his argument purely on a logical conclusion, yet he is to state that logic can't be proven. But goes on to contradict himself in the process. He clearly states that mathematics is "100% proof" so in turn also has to be 100% truth, this in-itself would be a 100% logical conclusion. ISSUES His argument is baseless to begin because he would have to prove that logic itself is unprovable, we see more evidence everyday based on logic of its accuracy every time, but the opponent failed to suggest where this can be disproved to begin with. He uses Petitio principii fallacy, (when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof) which means that the conclusion is inevitably exactly the same as the premise. He continues to use a Straw man fallacy, as my original statements have no bearing on the philosophy of logic, but rather the actual use of logic in relation to religion.
One can't prove logic is a reliable guide to truth

Con's Irrelevancies This debate regards a disputed quote from Con, "a true [free] thinking person would never stay within the confines of a single unproven belief system" [1] ... it is this claim that I challenged him in forum and subsequent formal debate. Notice Con just assumes that theists cannot be free thinkers because their beliefs are unproven, yet when I challenge him with the argument that many things are known but not proven, such as logic, and that free thinkers use logic, and so he can't condemn theist on these grounds; Con then ignores this challenge and just reasserts his original claim that theists are not free thinkers because their beliefs are unproven! Con also conveniently fails to complete my response to him in the forums, "Close-minded village atheism. First, you're assuming the theist doesn't have a proof for theism that you just do see or get yet.. Second, the external world is unproven, logic is too, now how many free thinkers believe in the external world and logic?” [1] ... To which his response was merely pejorative, "are you intentionally trying to be stupid? Because its working." [1] Despite all of this, Con insists on the irrelevancy that "theists [must] have proof of their claims." But that's just the point, there are many things which are unproven that we know, why then would Con insist that the theist must prove his belief to be rational? If he is to remain consistent, he must demand that free thinkers prove logic in order to remain free thinkers, but no one can prove logic since it would be circular to do so! Hence Con's epistemology fails by its own standards. This is what our debate is about however, "can one prove logic using logic?" Con's answer in accepting the debate is "yes" but he hasn't even tried to defend it, rather he only brings up irrelevancies. Con's Dilemma Con just brings up science (an eclectic form of inductive logic, which cannot prove logic by definition since it is less basic and founded by more basic logic), and morality (something which has absolutely nothing to do with axiomatic logic, e.g., regard the ever persistent "is-ought problem"). [2] Again, the issue here is not whether science, morality, or religion is logical, true or false. What is at issue here is whether one can prove logic using logic. Con has not gone one step in answering this dilemma, and so the debate is won in favor of Pro! Sources 1. http://www.debate.org... (12/4/2013 12:08:17 AM post, emphasis added) 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
One can't prove logic is a reliable guide to truth

FACTS The original argument comes from proving logic can justify the immoral preaching of religion and that theists can't be free thinkers, the opponent is changing the subject, to try and avoid a religious debate which is what the forum post clearly indicates. All my original postings and his can be viewed on the forum Atheists/Agnostics Unite! where the source of this debate begins to prove this. He clearly stated that Logic can't be proof that theist cannot be truly free thinkers, so in tern attempts to use JUNK science in an attempt to justify this. However he has failed to validated how his argument makes theists any more justified in their position of faith based clams. Pros text found on Atheists/Agnostics Unite! "Close-minded village atheism. First, you're assuming the theist doesn't have a proof for theism that you just do see or get yet". ISSUES Has failed to give any coherent reasoning in how theists have proof of their claims and how others "just don't see it or get yet". logic only exists when there's a basis to do so, however there is no base or physical data in theists or religious claims to begin with and only exist on a personal level. I submit that the opponent can't use this debate in any way to move forward scientifically or morally any of the theists claims in any real sense and so hes arguments will be nothing but credulity.
One can't prove logic is a reliable guide to truth

Con's Irrelevencies Note the resolution, "One can't prove logic is a reliable guide to truth" ... also note my central claim, that "any argument that attempts to prove that logic is a reliable guide to truth necessarily uses logic in a way that is circular." Now I made it explicit what I'm NOT arguing or defending, I'm NOT saying "that logic fails as a reliable guide to truth." Instead, "we simply must take logic as a self-evident given, which doesn't require proof, just like the reality of the external worlds, morals and other minds, etc.." Con therefore mistakes the debate and brings up irrelevencies like how to intellectually navigate the waters of religion by way of logic. This isn’t what the debate is about, recall that I’m not arguing that logic isn’t useful here. Rather I’m arguing that Con cannot prove logic is a reliable guide to truth since that would be using logic itself, a circular endeavor. His only other alternative is personal opinion, which is invalid for a debate context, hence he faces a dilemma. Con’s Dilemma Logic is not an instrument for finding truth; on the contrary, truth is necessarily an instrument for using logic—for using it for the discovery of further truth and for the profit of humanity. You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it. Simply, you can never prove your first statement or it would not be your first. Now any argument Con gives will either be using logic, or some opinion. But opinions aren’t valid for our debate, and logic can’t be used to prove logic, otherwise it would be circular reasoning, so Con is stuck in a dilemma here. It’s circular to use logic to prove logic because to find within a body of logic a proof that logic is consistent is impossible, since to accept the validity of such a proof is to concede to a part of logic a special privilege which is clearly not justified if the coherence of logic as a whole is in doubt! It’s blatant circular reasoning. Everything that logic can give us is ultimately founded on something other than logic, call it faith, or common sense, or intuition, or insight, or primary intellectual conviction. Simple logical relationships are, in fact, insights. It’s only because they seem so self-evident and because the contrary defies our imagination that they are not recognized as insights. Theist Samuel Johnson says, "Nothing can be proved but by supposing something intuitively known, and evident without proof." Bryan Magee writes that "No argument can establish the truth of its premises, since if it tried to do so it would be circular; and therefore no argument can establish the truth of its conclusions." In summary, in order for Con to win the debate, he must first actually engage the resolution with relevent statements, then he must show how one can prove that logic is a reliable guide to truth without using logic (because that would be circular) and without personal opinion (because that is invalid for a debate context). Given this dilemma however, Con is forced to admit defeat, and claim that the cannons of logic are taken on pure insight, self-evidence and faith or whatever.
The Earth Is Flat

where do you think the edge is? Its obviously not Antarctic on the Gleasons map. Like I said operation high-jump 1955 bud comes back and says on the news there is more land beyond Antarctica here is a flat earth map showing more land beyond the Antarctic circle https://pbs. Twimg. Com/media/DFL8gxIUMAEA4o1. Jpg why can't the flat earth be infinite? You're getting way over your head now. I didn't get any example showing me why the suns light takes 8 minutes to travel from the sun to earth. the light on the moon we see is the moons light itself / the moon generates its own light/ sunlight and moon light / yin and yang rotating around the earth. It is scientifically proven that the light that comes off the moon is "cold" light. The light is nowhere near similar to the suns light. Or the suns light reflecting off a object. I am telling you open your eyes and understand that "IF" the earth is casting a shadow on the moon and the earth is larger than the moon. Then the shadow on the moon should appear less curved than the line of illumination on the moon. lets imagine two moon in space. And one of the moons is casting a shadow on the other moon. The shadow that casts on the other moon should appear just as curved as the moons. Its that simple. If the moon casting the shadow is larger than the moon its shadow is on then the shadow should appear less curved. the earth is apparently 4 times larger than the moon. Yet it casts a shadow on the moon that appears to be from a a object the same size as the moon. where is the night and day terminator line on Saturn like we see on the moon? Why is there never a shadow on the rings of Saturn when viewed from earth? here is what Saturn looks like seen from earth- https://i. Ytimg. Com/vi/vD6QNBl2M0g/maxresdefault. Jpg does this look like a sphere to you? 15800 miles is about the diameter of the earth from the Antarctic circle to the other side of the earth at the Antarctic circle. The north star / Polaris is about 3100 miles above the earth and the sun and planets are a little lower. Please go more in depth next round before I start laying down the things that round house kick the globe earth model in the noggin. The movement of every celestial body in our sky debunks the globe earth. the stars especially back hand the globe earth. But it won't be easy to understand right away I am no teacher
The Earth Is Flat

So not only are you oddly disputing the gravity argument, But you said "I have not researched why objects fall. " when that should be common sense. Sounds to me like you think gravity doesn't exist. "I am not sure why you think there has to be a edge if the earth is flat. "Look at a basketball. You'll notice it has an outer surface. Just like a basketball, The earth has an outer surface. Now look at a DVD. You'll notice it has an edge. Just like a disc, The flat earth has an edge, Since it's shaped like a disc. Search "flat earth" on google images. There's an edge on every single picture. If you're proposing that the flat earth doesn't have edges, That would mean the earth is an infinite size -- which it is simply not. "Can you give an example that proves the suns light takes 8 minutes to travel from the sun to earth? "The sun heats the earth through radiation. Since there is no medium (like the gas in our atmosphere) in space, Radiation is the primary way that heat travels in space. When the heat reaches the earth it warms the molecules of the atmosphere, And they warm other molecules and so on. (Source in comments)"Also the moons light is not from the sun"Where is the light coming from then? "The partial lunar eclipse shadow is so curved that the earth would have to be the same size as the moon. "Do you think the earth and the moon are the same size or is this a hypothetical? "And again in my above post I explained to you that planets seen from earth do not look spherical"So are you telling me that Jupiter is flat? Keep in mind, That Jupiter is much larger than earth. If the earth is flat, I'd like you to give me an estimate of how big you think it is. Since it's flat, Give me an accurate circumference. If you can that is. I am going more in depth next round.
The Earth Is Flat

Isaac Newton wrote a book as thick as the bible trying to explain gravity and he still didn't finish the equation. I would rather not debate with you about gravity because it ends turning into a children argument. / I will be brutally honest with you. I have not researched why objects fall. But I have explained in my last post that gravity cannot be the only thing that causes objects to fall because gravity would act as a magnet sucking lighter objects to the ground faster than heavier objects. I am not sure why you think there has to be a edge if the earth is flat. Like I said above research operation High Jump. / very interesting. Admiral Byrd comes back and says on the news we have found more more land for future explorers beyond the Antarctic circle. Like I said in my above post the flat earth model suns light does not travel forever. / Here is how the flat earth model sun works. Https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=R52_PdZlSq8 the angles of the sun we see in reality do not match the globe earth model. I can easily debunk the globe earth sun in 20 different ways but first can you give an example that proves the suns light takes 8 minutes to travel from the sun to earth? Like I said above. The flat earth model lunar eclipses are not causes by the earths shadow. Also the moons light is not from the sun. As I proved in my above post. Its very simple to understand that 5 hour lunar eclipses are impossible on the globe earth. You can do the math your self its obvious that it takes 30 days for the moon to complete one cycle. So it comes down to the moon moving 2. 75 degrees around its 750526 mile circumference orbit in 5 hours. If a lunar eclipse can last 5 hours long start to finish then that means the earths shadow covers 2. 75 degrees of the moons orbit. It is impossible for the earths shadow to cover 2. 75 degrees of a 750526 mile circumference circle. If the earth is only 8000 miles wide. 30 earths can fit inside of the diameter of the moons orbit. Here is a link to the earth and moon distance to scale. Http://www. Takayaiwamoto. Com/Earth_Moon_Sun/Solar_Eclipse. Html The moon would HAVE TO be traveling so fast to complete to complete a 750526 mile circumference in 30 days. Lunar eclipses should not last 5 hours long. "The curved shadow" on the moon during a lunar eclipse is way to curved for it to be " earths shadow" the partial lunar eclipse shadow is so curved that the earth would have to be the same size as the moon. And again in my above post I explained to you that planets seen from earth do not look spherical / for example there is no night and day terminator line on Saturn or a shadow on the rings of Saturn. Here is an example of what a planet seen from earths atmosphere looks like. As you can see it does not look like cartoon NASA balls. Https://www. Funnydog. Tv/video/nikon-coolpix-p900-planetary-astrophotography-2-saturn/vD6QNBl2M0g I am not here to win a debate or something alright I am here to be heard because I am being censored up the azz by every social media platform. If you have any questions for a flat earth believer lets do it here because you won't find any good flat earth you tube videos anymore :(