BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is unreasonable for a completely benevolent god to sentence all non-believers to damnation

Im not home and my iphone is dying so ill just oet your own argument speK for itself: "I can say 'If there is a god then blah blah blah is unreasonable.' without actually assuming that such a god exists." Youre argument basically is: IF THE CHRISTIAN GOD EXISTS, then its is unreasonanle for him to sentence people to damnation, BECAUSE WE DONT EVEN KNOW IF HE EXISTS OR NOT. Thats not a valid argument. If youre arguing against the CHARACTER of, in this case, the Christian God, then youre automatically assuming, for argument's sake, that God exists. Therefore, you have to argue WITH IN THE CONTEXT of the reality that Christianity claims to be true. We cant have a debate if we dont have the same foundations and definitions.
It is unreasonable for a completely benevolent god to sentence all non-believers to damnation

"But that is not the debate here..." It has everything to do with the debate at hand. If salvation is dependent on belief that Jesus is the son of god and the savior of man, and that belief in turn is dependent on faith that god exists, then starting from the most basic level on the path to salvation (belief in god) makes the most sense to me. "And this debate calls for both of us to assume that the God of the Bible exists, at least for argument sake." I can say "If there is a god then blah blah blah is unreasonable." without actually assuming that such a god exists. "This also means that we have to assume, for argument sake, that the Bible is the word of God." Similar to my previous point while I do not assume that the Bible is the word of god or even necessarily true it is still very valid in this argument and I welcome its use. "If you can't do that then we really have no debate here, and we should start a new debate and argue if God really does exist and if He gave us enough evidence." That's not true. The debate topic has in no way changed. The arguments I've used thus far have merely touched on a sub-section of what the overall debate is about. Since the debate is only about the damnation of non-believers it makes sense to discuss why they don't believe. I will now address your points in the order in which you made them. 1) I understand that in order to obtain eternal salvation a person must put their faith in Christ as their savior but as I stated earlier that first requires a belief in god. I will get to your point about having enough evidence next, I just wanted to make the point that you can't have faith that Jesus is the son of god if you don't have faith that there is a god. 2) The quote and your argument both basically say that we all know that god is real but we choose not to believe that there is a god. Firstly I have never seen any indication that is true. Secondly if that were true then I would feel guilty or at least different by saying that I don't know if there is a god, however I don't feel anything so I am still left with no indication that "I know god is real" or that god even exists. In regards to your conclusion, while sin may be the reason for damnation in the first place, the only way out of damnation is through belief in Jesus as the savior of man, and consequently belief in god. You have yet to argue against why a lack of evidence to convince non-believers is not the fault of man other than saying "There is enough" without supporting that claim.
It is unreasonable for a completely benevolent god to sentence all non-believers to damnation

By "non-believer" I mean people who deny the existence of or do not actively believe in a god. That would therefore extend to your description of people who do not believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation. My position: People vary on what will cause them to believe certain ideas. For example, there are some people who believe that aliens control the governments of the world. While those people are convinced by certain arguments that they hear, other people (because of their mindsets) are not convinced and as a result don't believe that aliens control the governments of the world. Similarly, many people (also because of their mindsets) don't believe in the existence of god. Some of those people assert that there is no god and others simply have a lack of belief in a god. What causes this difference of belief between "believers and non-believers"? I have found that most commonly the reason for "non-belief" is that the person was raised in a way that caused them to question what they see/hear/know to a point where it is very difficult for that person to put much faith in an idea that, to them, does not have enough convincing evidence to support it. One reason for this person's mindset could be a parent that had similar behavior and as a child the person used that behavior as a model for their own ideology. Another reason could be that due to a surrounding that the "non-believer" was hesitant to accept, that person developed a mindset of questioning every thing they came in contact with. It is because of those initial occurrences which cause some people to question everything they see, that I believe there isn't much of a choice when it comes to accepting god and the bible as truth based on faith. Simply put, some people aren't built to accept things based on faith. If it is true that these "non-believers" are naturally not prone to believing in Jesus as the road to salvation, then in what way is it their fault that they don't believe in god if they haven't been presented with sufficient reasoning to convince them that god exists? Also in response to the judge analogy, I can physically verify that the judge exists and even if I still don't believe that he exists, I can physically verify that his/her sentence will be carried out because we can see it happening.
It is unreasonable for a completely benevolent god to sentence all non-believers to damnation

Thank you and good luck as well. May we have a respectful, fun, informative debate. I will be defending the omni-benevolent Christian God of the Bible for this debate. I would also first like to clarify somethings first: 1. By "non-believer" I am assuming that you are referring to anyone who does not believe and accept Jesus Christ as the only way for salvation (from damnation) as is taught in the Bible. 2. The omni-benevolent God of the Bible does NOT condemn "non-believers" to damnation because they did not believe and accept Jesus. Instead, God condemns one to "damnation" because of SIN. (Romans 6:23) 3. Everyone sinned against God and are deserving of damnation. Believers are just as guilty of sin and just as deserving of hell as the non-believer. It is only through God's mercy and grace through Christ's sacrificial death are they (believers) SAVED from damnation. (Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16) I would now like to know why it would be unreasonable for an omni-benevolent GOD, who is also at the very top of all of justice, to give the punishment that the offender justly deserves? Is it unreasonable for a kind hearted judge of a court of law to sentence someone to prison for breaking the law? What if the person he is sending to prison is his own son or daughter? Does this action take away from his kind hearted character?
It is unreasonable for a completely benevolent god to sentence all non-believers to damnation

This debate can be about a god in general sentencing non-believers to damnation or about the Christian god if my opponent so chooses. I would like to leave round 1 open and start debating in round 2. Definitions from dictionary. com: Benevolent - characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings Unreasonable - not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational Thank you and good luck to my oppenent. If you have any questions about the debate feel free to ask before accepting.
the 700B$ bailout is a good/bad idea.

I will support the 700 Billion Dollar Bail Out, and my opponent will attack it. Because my opponent has not left a real argument yet, I will only clarify the debate and then my opponent will leave his platform. I do not support the prospect of 8000 characters and I encourage my opponent to limit his characters to 2500 or less. http://www.cnbc.com... The 700 billon dollar bailout spent 700 billion dollars (really?) to save the current credit system. Though usually the government has no place in the markets, our economy was too close to stagnating to risk stalling or not responding to the crisis. There was a risk of creditors and brokers severely limiting their new loans. This would almost end the creation of new small businesses and make house buying nearly impossible. That is background on the subject of this debate. It is now my opponent's turn to debate.
the 700B$ bailout is a good/bad idea.

Big spending is bad, but the banking system must be saved in order for the economy to be able to rebuild during our next potential great deppression, of which capitalism shall bring us out. Capitalism works faster when banks take part in the economy. When they cannot, the system slows and fails. The banks have lost money due to bad loans, but will learn from their mistakes. I do not want a comment war between me and pro afterwards. Thank you for reading this debate.
The United States should legalize homosexual marriage.

I will be advocating the legalization of gay marriage, while my opponent will be arguing that the United States should either stick to the status quo, reverse the rulings of certain states already allowing homosexual marriage, or any other plausible path of action aside from legalizing gay marriage. The burden of proof is shared, as Pro must prove a harm in the status quo, while Con must prove benefits in the status quo (or any other plan of action) and/or that there are harms to legalizing gay marriage. Round 1: Just accept the debate in order to keep each person at an equal number of rounds. Round 2: Both sides offer points of contention. Round 3: Both sides offer rebuttals of the opponent's case. Round 4: Summary/Conclusion If you're interested in this debate but would like an alteration of the rules, just reject this debate and let me know what changes you wish to be made. Thanks!
God's existence cannot be proven

My opponent should have been more careful with the wording, and to be honest my interpretation of the wording is reasonable and no stretch for the imagination. "i can still argue that God cannot be proven because no one can effectively prove it" God hypothetically is a being, and thus would count as "one". To say that God's existence cannot be proven without any preconditions, is to leave the debate open to my intepretation of the resolusion regardless.Also, pro said I could define God anyway I wanted and his argument would work that God cannot be proven, However, I defined God as omnipotent. An omnipotent being could prove to us he existed without contradiction (my opponent never made it necessary that the proof of God could not come from God himself). Also, an omnipotent God could give us the tools to prove his existence, thus we could still prove God's existence without God having to actually prove his existence directly. Therefore, the resolution has been negated.
God's existence cannot be proven

"if this being exists, he could give everyone in the world an unmistakable proof of his existence (this act on God's behalf would not involve any logical contradiction). This follows from the common understanding of omipotence. Thus, it's possible that God's existence can be proven with this method. If it's possible that God's existence can be proven in this method, then God's existence can be proven with this method. " first this is a semantical type of debate that is missing the essence of the debate. yes i could have said God "has not" been proven. instead of "cannot be proven". that leaves open the possiblty that God could be proven. however, this is semantics and should not count as a win for con on this specific techncality.... even with my language, for effective purposes, i can still argue that God cannot be proven because no one can effectively prove it. con is simply being unreasonable in langauge expectations, expecting langauge that goes beyond the norm of normal human usage, which is actuallly a flaw on con's part. prople around here have dubbed such things, as grammar and semantics troll.
God's existence cannot be proven

"Depends on the level of proof you want, and how you define God. But ultimately, if you define God in any meaningful terms, or with substantial level of proof, God's existence cannot be proven."Lets say we define God as an omnipotent being (which to many theists, means God doesn't logically contradict himself). Now, if this being exists, he could give everyone in the world an unmistakable proof of his existence (this act on God's behalf would not involve any logical contradiction). This follows from the common understanding of omipotence.Thus, it's possible that God's existence can be proven with this method. If it's possible that God's existence can be proven in this method, then God's existence can be proven with this method. Therefore, God's existence can be proven. The resolution has been negated.
god of destruction.

I'm going to assume that your argument is that the only god that exists is a "God of Destruction," and that it intends to destroy. I believe that this notion is a romantic, Victorian era of God. During that time period, religion was seen on a basis of good and evil, everlasting and destruction, etc. When Friedrich Nietzsche wrote his "Beyond Good and Evil" in 1886, these views on religion were strengthened by what was seen as philosophical fact... which of course failed, and resulted in newer ideas of social Darwinism to be accepted. What is important to recognize is the vast differences in both humanity and its philosophy. A middle Nietzche ideal is that destruction, torture, and death of fellow humans is not universally objectionable. Some people will accept it, and some will even revel in it. It is the morals, ethics, and prejudice of the individual man that change his reaction to such events. Personally, I extremely dislike torture, rather preferring euthanasia, but I would gladly injure or kill another human being if they were attempting to rob or injure me. It is oddly normal that humanity is so hypocritical; many would be fine with killing another human being, but would repulse at the idea of torture. To answer the idea whether a god is of destruction; it is probable that it is a Victorian era idea, that is was the hope of some dreamless romantic, based off of the ideology of the middle Nietzsche, that you have decided to adopt, as well. I do hope that you decide to respond, as my last debate with someone took a week to reply, and was with obscene words. Best of wishes. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Homosexuality is natural

TopicThe topic of this debate will be: "Homosexuality is not a decision, it is natural". The pro will be arguing that homosexuality is not a decision, and that it is natural. The con will be arguging that homosexuality is not natural, and optionally argue that it is a decision(However this leads on if it is not natural).DefinitionsDecision: "the act or process of deciding; determination, as of aquestion or doubt, by making a judgement" [1]Natural: "existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): anatural bridge." [2]In this debate, we will be referring to natural as something that is formed by nature. Making a decision does not constitute being formed by nature. Debate StructureRound 1: This round will be used for acceptance of the debate and/or for any definitions either side would like to make prior to their arguments.Round 2: In this round, both sides will state their arguments. Neither side will respond to each others arguments directly.Round 3 and 4: In this round, both sides will respond to/rebutt their opponents arguments. No additional arguments may be made during this round, only response to pre-existing arguments.Round 5: In this round, both the pro and con will conclude their arguments. No additional arguments may be made.Debate RulesBurden of Proof: The burden of proof is on both the pro and the con. Pro must prove that homosexuality is natural and is not a decision, whereas Con must prove that homosexuality is unnatural, and optionally that it is a decision(However this follows if it is unnatural).Respect: Both the pro and con must be respectful to each other, and must refrain from any insulting, discriminating or harmful remarks that are not directly relevant to the debate.Evidence: Provision of evidence will be required for any kind of statistical/scientific finding. All evidence mentioned or used during the debate must be cited or else the opposition will not be required to respond to the particular argument in which the evidence is used.Listing of Arguments: It is required that when making an argument, that it be labeled and optionally numbered. If an argument made by either the pro or con is not able to be clearly referenced, misinterpretation will be the fault of the person who made the argument. In other words, number/name your arguments so clarity can be ensured.References (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...Note: This debate is a repost of the following(http://www.debate.org...) in which someone accepted it thinking they were taking a different position to what they were. The debate is open.
All drugs should be legalized.

I already did this debate, but I love doing it and hearing new perspectives...and I did it yesterday and got, nothing short of an illiterate moron who quoted propoganda, so I am instilling new standards, 1.Quote research 2.Don't use propoganda Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal. 1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay. 2.Many of them are harmless in the short term. 3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users. 4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate. 5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it) 6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power since clean industrial production would be created. I'm not saying let's give needles to every 12 year old. I'm saying educate them about the REAL risks. Educate them on the long term affects. Make it impartial. When americans turn 18 they can... vote. join the army. drive a car. own a gun. drink (at 21) buy cigarettes (which are worse than most drugs most doctors would agree) use a prostitute. (where legal) buy explosives buy fire works and do all other kinds of things... many of these things are MORE dangerous than most drugs and can kill you quicker! yet we don't trust ourselves with some recreational drugs. I invite anyone to disprove me. But when it comes down to it, what people do with their bodies is NO ONE's BUSINESS. I'm not defending meth heads, but I'm following along the principle of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall Replace "say" with put drugs inside your body.
Beans (A Debate Just For Fun)

"First, beans come from gardens. But who works these gardens? In the past, families would have several kids. My grandfather was one of eleven. Families had many kids so those kids could work in the garden. This is child labor. And child labor is bad." It is not based on child labor anymore. It is done by adults from labor unions. "beans are usually small. Therefore, they are easy to choke on." Not all beans are small. And how would you choke on refried beans due to size? "Third, beans come in many different varities and styles, of which could cause health problems. Several people have linked intenstinal issues to refried beans. Some people are also allergic." Because they come in so many different kinds, there are many others to choose from if you are allergic to one kind. Furthermore, the farming and sale of beans stimulates economic growth because it creates jobs. My opponent never refuted my point that beans are delicious, so this is a dropped argument. In conclusion, beans, beans, they're good for the economy. A strong economy means helps us avoid politcal autonomy. Yeah, I rhymed.
Beans (A Debate Just For Fun)

Beans. Where do they come from and why are they bad? First, beans come from gardens. But who works these gardens? In the past, families would have several kids. My grandfather was one of eleven. Families had many kids so those kids could work in the garden. This is child labor. And child labor is bad. Second, beans are usually small. Therefore, they are easy to choke on. Third, beans come in many different varities and styles, of which could cause health problems. Several people have linked intenstinal issues to refried beans. Some people are also allergic. Therefore, beans are not good.
Tic Tac Toe

I have to concede loss again. As I said before, my brother and I played this untill we both had learned how to never lose and the game was a draw (cat) every time and we got bored with it. I forgot how to play and thought it would be easy to remember. I should have studied it out a bit after that last tail whooping. I took another beating here and I have to concede, but now I have studied it out and know how never to lose when the first move is not mine. I'll show this in the next game. Afer that, I don't think I'll need to study for frist move strategy and I'll take a shot at moving first wihtout further study.Loss conceded again :( Vote for my opponent
best franchise

My opponent says that if the Pittsburgh steelers win the the super bowl this year it would make the Dallas cowboys the second best. what dose this? means it means that the Dallas cowboys are the best as of now. reasons they are the best as of now 14-13 Cowboys lead series over Steelers 464 -341 -6 OVERALL RECORD .747 record these stats that talk about the overall franchise as of now. these aren't if facts they real facts you can see why the cowboys is the best
best franchise

My oppennent states that the cowboys are the best franchise in the NFL. But the only thing he shows records that were broken by the cowboys. Just because they might have been the first Nfl team to have 24 winning regular seasons doesnt make them the best franchise. Every franchise's goal is to win superbowls. The Franchise with the most superbowl wins would be considered the NFL's best franchise. The San Francisco 49ers have won 5 super titles. 49ers are 5-0 at a suerbowl game. Meaning they apperaerd five times and won five times. So saying this doesnt that mean the 49ers are as good as the cowboys. Showing that they aren't the best franchise. But what about the Pittsburgh Steelers??? The Steelers are tied with the Dallas Cowboys with the same amount of super bowl wins. But this year the steelers made it the AFC championship, where as the cowboys didn't even make it to the wild cards. Meaning they are just one game away from the superbowl. This year they have the number one ranked defense. They have a good chance this year to win another superbowl But where would that put the Dallas Cowboys?? It would put them one superbowl win behind the Steelers. Meaning that the Dallas Cowboys would be only second best. So as i have showed each teams goal is to win superbowls. The team with the most superbowl wins would be condiered the best NFL franchise. The cowboys are tied with the most superbowl wins . Thus making them not the best NFL franchise.