BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pascal's Wager is a failed argument.

=====Counterarguments===== >>>Can't make oneself believe<<< At most, this point was to show the impracticality of Pascal's Wager, my second argument was intended to be the refutation. >>>Infinite possibilities<<< "Is the sum of the set of even integers equal to the sum of the set of integers divisible by three?" ----> And by what basis do you make this comparison? I argue that the amount of "God's who praise atheism" are infinitley many as "God's who have a specific religion". In fact, we don't know. There could be more religious ones, or more atheistic ones. Or perhaps the religious ones are specific and non-compatible with each other, while the atheistic God's can co-exist. There are so many unknown variables that come into account that Pascal's Wager is made null. "Likewise, the infinite possible atheist-rewarding heavens suffer from being individually and collectively improbable." ----> In comparison to what, the religious-rewarding heavens? And by what merit do you make this claim? "Not helping their case is that not even atheists believe in them." ----> This, in fact, can very well be one of the REQUIREMENTS to be seen in a good light by these atheistic Gods. =====Conclusion===== I deeply apologize for my short answers, I would really love to develop on this debate. Unfortunately, school is cutting into my time (I had to wake up at 4 to reply to this debate). As such, I won't be debating so much for awhile, and if my opponent wishes to start this debate again then I'll accept when I can. My opponent's refutation of my argument of infinite possibilites makes the erroneous presumption that there are the infinite set of religious gods is more than the infinite set of atheistic gods. He has no grounds to make this claim, and if variables such as these, among many others, are not satistfied than Pascal's Wager should be thrown out the window.
Pascal's Wager is a failed argument.

If your counterarguments are exhaustive, clarification of my first argument will be useless and unnecessary. Counterargument 1: One cannot change one's beliefs by "simple choice", because beliefs are shaped exclusively by "evidence" and "compelling reason". Therefore, Pascal's Wager is "impractical". But there is neither sufficient evidence nor compelling reason to believe counterargument 1's premise. Added to which, its conclusion does not follow from its premise. On the latter note, the Pascal bettor has more options than simply "simple choice". He has what you might call "complex choice". He can choose to expose himself predominantly to such evidence and lines of reasoning which tend to produce and maintain Christians. He can cancel his subscription to Skeptic magazine, find a church, move to the Bible Belt, etc. Eventually, like the protagonist in 1984, he will have achieved God's requirement of not only telling you the coffee table doesn't exist but also quite believing it. We are a social animal, you see, even when it comes to belief, and even when we fancy ourselves intelligent. Even the premise of counterargument 1 has been shown to be false by evolutionary biology, to say nothing of the assumptions of religion. For example, deception (which can be useful) is often impossible without self-deception (See the work of Robin Trivers). Hence, we have evolved the ability to actually believe what it would be useful to believe, even in the total absence of evidence, even where the only "compelling reason" was an initial utility forecast. In the perhaps unlikely event that God is real, the self-deception will have not been deception at all, but simply ignorance of a possible lack of evidence, evidence that was ultimately false. The idea that God will not save those who willfully ignore lack of evidence is absurd, as a commenter explained well: "Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe." And the idea that God would reject fear-of-hell or desire-for-heaven as underlying motivation, is belied by the Scripture's repeated forewarnings of the two realms. Added to which, Pascal's Wager need not be selfish at all. As belief is useful to convincing, we serve others' salvation through our own. Pascal's Wager might even be from a consideration of merit: though God's likelihood of existence is, by a small margin, less than my current master's; the former deserves service more than the latter, and by a great margin. I can't speak for God, but if I were he, I would be more flattered by that reasoning than reasoning based on the presumed certainty of my existence. Counter-argument two rests on the misconception that the sum of one infinite set is equal to the sum of all others. Is the sum of the set of even integers equal to the sum of the set of integers divisible by three? Both are infinite sets, but the sum of the former is clearly greater than the sum of the latter, and clearly by an infinite margin. Likewise, the infinite possible atheist-rewarding heavens suffer from being individually and collectively improbable. Not helping their case is that not even atheists believe in them.
Pascal's Wager is a failed argument.

I'll admit...my opponent's argument is confusing. I hate math, and his argument definitely resembles it. Since I have no clue which direction my opponent is arguing, I will simply state every argument against Pascal's Wager and hope that one of these hit his argument. If I fail, then I apologize for not understanding my opponent's argument. But really, things like natural immortality and supernatural immortality? At least define these terms… =====Counterarguments===== >>>Can't make yourself believe in something<<< Pascal's Wager says the safe bet is to just believe in a God. However, I argue that you can't MAKE YOURSELF BELIEVE IN SOMETHING SINCERELY. Sure, you can perhaps TELL other's that you believe in something, but you yourself can't change your beliefs by simple choice. Beliefs are shaped by evidence and compelling reason. You can tell people that you don't believe coffee tables exist, but common sense and evidence will tell your inner voice otherwise. This shows the impracticality of Pascal's Wager. >>>Infinite amount of other possible god<<< There could be an INFINITE AMOUNT OF POSSIBLE GODS that praise and desire skeptics, atheists, or people who don't believe in religion. In fact, there could be a "atheist heaven" and a "theist hell". This is equally possible along with every other god. Sure, we know of no religion right now that has that. But so what? If there was a skeptic God, then we would imagine that it would NOT want a religion based on it. Because there are an infinite amount of possible religions (that can be either discovered or not), then Pascal's element of numbers and probabilities is thrown out the window. =====Conclusion===== This is all I can say right now, and I hope it hits the target. The only thing I ask of my opponent is that if he's going to use arcane diction, at least define them. Or perhaps I'm dumb. Who knows.
Pascal's Wager is a failed argument.

I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in God, but I like Pascal's wager. Consider the following values: a)The expected decrease in worldly utility of attempting to live a Christian life b)The probability that Christianity is false c)The probability that Christianity is true but one can't force oneself to believe in God d)The probability that Christianity is true and one can force oneself to believe in God, but that God wouldn't accept Pascal's motivation e)The maximum utilitarian difference, times infinite. a(b+c+d) is the value of deliberately remaining an atheist. e(1-b-c-d) is the value of attempting to become a Christian. a is a complex set of probabilities (whose sum is 1) of utilitarian differentials, some infinite by virtue of the probability of natural immortality and some finite by virtue of the probability of natural mortality. So, excluding c and d, (each of which are evidently unlikely) the Pascal bettor believes that the difference between the probability of natural immortality and the probability of supernatural immortality, if it even favors natural immortality, is less than the difference between heaven/hell's utilitarian difference and that of piety/non-piety. The utilitarian difference between two mortal lifestyles is of course irrelevant in the presence of infinite terms.
Pascal's Wager is a failed argument.

"And by what basis do you make this comparison?" The probability of "atheist heaven" and "theist hell" is less than the probability of the reverse. Separating our two opposite possibilities into their respective infinite variations, we arrive at exactly the same conclusion. To simplify the numeric analogy, you could split "2" into the infinite set "1 + ï¿½ + ï¿½ + …" and its sum would still be less than the elementary set "3". That "we don't know" evidently does not cause you to believe God is as likely to exist as he is to not exist. So why would it cause you to believe that this God you've invented for the sake of argument is as likely to exist as one whose existence billions attest to? There being "so many unknown variables" is a normal problem, making nothing "null". "Wager" implies imperfect knowledge. I would love to continue the debate, except I think you've proven your point. I realize now, I can't adequately argue the relative improbability of atheist heaven. For peace of mind, I think I'll believe in it, as well. Nice job.
The USFG should universalize its healthcare system.

To rehash my ideas, here's a list of reasons: • Poorer quality doctors • Poorer quality care • Longer wait times • High taxes • Government Empowerment • Personal Freedoms lost • Reduced efficiency • Profit motive and competition will be lost • Government mandates will reduce doctors flexibility • People who chose to risk their health (smoking/drinking/drugs) will be discriminated • Subsidized incentives for MD grads will make income taxes higher still • Eliminate privacy • Bureaucratic monopsony • May lead to outlawing your right to private care • If private care is outlawed in the States, citizens won't have anywhere to go for immediate treatment even if they're willing to pay • Evidence shows single payer-insurance programs costs exceed the expectations of its advocates • Empowers the government to be able to say: "if you keep smoking, we'll deny you coverage." This takes away freedom in the form of the choice to smoke, eat, or drink as you please. • Over time, UHC will be seen as not a social program, but as a right. This will make it near impossible to remove the program down the road when costs get out of control •Will hurt the economy (less money in the pockets of patrons, loss of insurance jobs and businesses closing) Also, take some of these figures into consideration as well: The majority of the 40 million (out of our pop. of nearly 330 million) uninsured in America either do not feel like its worth the money to invest in, or they choose not to work & therefore cannot afford it. There are also some who are temporarily between jobs and haven't had their benefits kick in yet & they are counted as uninsured. Yes, there are some who work & want to afford it but can't, this number is somewhere in the realm of 9 million.Yes 9 million out of our 330 million people are uninsured, that's about 3% of the population. Don't let the numbers fool you into thinking that a huge percentage of the population is unable to get health care, it simply isn't true. Therefore, the other 97% should not be forced into changing our ways for 3% of the population, especially when it means more money out of pocket and worse medical care for the majority of us. To help these folks, there needs to be better private charities. Also, the government needs to give better tax benefits to people who donate to these charities, so more people will do it. Inspire people to help the needy by receiving incentives from the government, not helping by letting the government control everyone in an extremely personal way. Thanks for the debate (or lack thereof).
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

In the first sentence, I do not understand what vi_spex means by "not seeing evidence isn't a position." They then ask if i'm an atheist, which I would like to note that I don't classify as one. I couldn't quite get the third statement my opponent made, then they insist that atheism is theism again. Vi_spex isn't seeming to make any sense here, they then say atheism is belief in god. It isn't, it's the polar opposite. I don't quite get what Vi_spex is saying, but he has not bothered to refute my arguments.
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

not seeing evidence isnt a position, do you conclude from the lack of evidence of gods existence that god is false? are you an atheist btw? religion is non sense, atheism is belief to the contrary, not just other belief claims because science dosnt deny the existence of god, you can still believe in science as a christian.. atheism is a belief based counter position on my claim as a theist atheism=disbelief=belief=theism disbelief=belief to the contrary but you cant disbelieve to the contrary and be an atheist without a counter belief, like belief in Thor and odin atheism is belief in god, theism, in order for it to exist to get really simple, belief is belief in god, god is information any theist, is an atheist
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

My opponent asks "if you are an atheist, why disbelieve?" Some people may not see evidence for god, thus making them an atheist. Vi_spex than argues that by being a theist, you're an atheist to other "belief claims." This does not make sense because atheism is disbelief in god. If one believes in a god, they're still a theist. They may disbelieve in other gods, but that does not make them an "atheist" to those gods, it simply means they just disbelieve. If they were an atheist, they would believe in no gods what so ever. If what Vi_spex is saying is true, this would mean that an atheist means somebody who rejects a certain god. This isn't true, because an atheist is one who rejects all gods. A theist is one who accepts at least one god.
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

According to dictionary.com, this is the definition of an atheist:noun 1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existenceof a supreme being or beings.And theist:noun 1. the belief in a God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation(distinguished from deism ). 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ). My opponent insists that atheism and theism are the same thing. He insists that believing in one god makes you disbelief in other gods. While this is true, that does not make one an atheist. A theist is one who believes in a god (or multiple gods.) If a Christian rejects the Hindu gods as being fake but Yahweh as real, this does not make them an atheist. An atheist is one who believes in no gods.Atheism is the disbelief in gods, theism is the belief in a god or gods. Rejecting one god but believing in another still makes you a theist. Atheism and theism are complete antonyms, my opponent is not making sense here.
Chess is a sport

Premise 1 - Flawed LogicPremise 2 - RE: Flawed LogicPremise 3 - Misguided LogicConclusion - Chess has no physical exertion and thus qualifies as a game and not a sport Chess does fufil the following, you are correct:- it's an activity - it requires skill as it is trainable- teams and individuals can compete against each other- it's for (some people's) entertainment and pleasureHowever the following also define a game and since chess takes no physical exertion as i will show below it is infact only a game and not a sport:Premise 1 - physical exertion is derrived from physical movement not a biological entity: Your logic to show physical exertion includes biological enities of the human body is flawed, while your right muscles are not injured in the breaking of a bone it is still hindering the movement of muscle and physical exertion that you can place on it. it is not the same as a headache at all. I also find your login behind pain killers flawed as well, Pain killers can treat and numb gums too and no physical exertion is ever caused by ones gums. Under your logic sitting is a sport because individuals can see them selfs fitting it into the same guidelines and because their gums can be numbed they are paticipating in a sport.Premise 2 - Flawed Logic I find this point flawed as well, under your logic speaking aloud is a sport. you are causing exaustion and can even feel pain from speaking however this is not a sport either. Almost any activity in existance will cause exaustion, heck even living causes exasustion, we must sleep because we are constantly burning calories, but living isnt a sport either.Premise 3 - standing causes physical symptoms standing for long periods of time burns calories as well, BBC reported: "There was also evidence, from the heart rate monitors that they were wearing, that by standing they were burning more calories." [1] But guess what this also isnt a sport. the logic used in this point also supports the idea of stressful environments making an activity or game a sport. If im stressed from work ill be just as stressed as someone planning thier next move because my job keeps me fed and my family alive, but my job is not a sport.Bonus Observation: Look, chess is a game, it requires skill, time, effort, practice, but like E-gaming it isnt a sport. Its a game, it doesnt matter how competitive it is, its a game. Chess isnt even a competition because you can interfere with your opponent.Conclusion: Because my opponent is affirming they hold the BOP, and since they have yet to provide us with sound logic explaining why it takes physical exertion to preform, thus it is a game and not a sport.[1]http://www.bbc.com...
Chess is a sport

Since you didnt put out the Definition for sport i will: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... I would also like us to look at Chris Crawford's definition for a game throughout this round: if the player can only outperform the opponent, but not attack them to interfere with their performance, the conflict is a competition. However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.
Chess is a sport

Core Statement | Chess is a sport and not only a game. 1st Round: Acceptance / something you might want to add before we start 2nd Round: Arguments only 3rd Round: Rebuttals / Optional more Arguments 4th Round: Last rebuttals / No additional argument Some side notes | Like traditional ball-sports there is of course a context in which chess is merely a game. Three 8y-old boys in a backyard are for example perusing football as game and not as a sport. But in a competitive environment chess is as much a sport as such as football, rugby or swimming. Let's go!
By accepting you concede.

Thanks for creating such a fascinating debate.Quantum space-time continuum You "joined" before I did. Therefore, you concede before I did, and therefore I was winning (or won) for a longer amount of time than you were winning/won.LooseYou also "loose" this debate because you joined before I did. Conclusion Even if we both lost because we both joined, you joined before I did, therefore you lost before I did, and therefore I won before you did.Thanks for a thrilling debate, it really got me thinking.
The Minimum Wage should not be raised.

I am sorry if my premise seemed unclear. I thought it was rather clearly set in keeping it the same, and not raising it.Moving on, my second contention is my personal experience going to a fast food place. I went to a Taco Bell, and have you seen the inside of a Taco Bell? When I went there, it was mostly teenagers and elderly people working there. My guess is they are probably working there because they just want to make a little bit extra money. Teens would want to save up for a new car or a new phone and retired people are already getting money from social security, and they just want to make a little bit more. I only saw one middle-aged person there, and she appeared to be the manager. Also, many people with jobs that pay minimum wage or less receive tips for their services. Pay should be and is based on supply and demand. If there is an insufficient pool of unskilled workers, employers will pay above the minimum wage to retain employees and attract new employees. Depending on the amount of the increase, employers might have to postpone hiring additional staff or even let go existing staff. When these approaches are used not only is there less money spent by workers, but there is also the impact to customers. For example, maybe the fast-food restaurant used to have three lines to order, but now only has two. If the minimum wage increases too much, we provide less of an incentive for workers to get educated and get into jobs with greater potential.
The Minimum Wage should not be raised.

I would be happy to tell you where I got my 98% number. I made it up. It was not, nor was it ever intended to be a supportable statistic. It's use was satirical.You argued: "The Minimum Wage should not be raised."You then argued: "Indeed, the minimum wage should go up with inflation, but it has been going up gradually. Gradual increase is necessary."Nowhere in your premise did you argue for or against a specific rate in increase. therefore there re three choices:1. Eliminate it.2. Do not raise it. Clearly you set your position here.3. Raise it. I took this position.Thank you for conceding that a rate increase is inevitable, even necessary.
The Minimum Wage should not be raised.

Thank you for accepting. Raising the minimum wage results in job loss. A 2006 review of more than 100 minimum wage studies by David Neumark and William Wascher found that about U32; of their studies had negative employment effects. It reduces employment among younger, less-educated individuals. It has little effect on reducing poverty. It may result in higher prices for consumers; a 2007 study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that restaurant prices increase in response to minimum wage increases. An argument can be made to lower it or eliminate it, but I think society has developed a mental block that a control is necessary to ensure people will work these positions. Unfortunately, people don't understand that minimum wage jobs are not career choices or entry level jobs but rather services to meet a need. Why should a maid get 15 dollars an hour ($30,000 a year) and a new teacher at a public school start at roughly the same wage (if not lower). People need to get into the mindset that demand for jobs will always be there. You are always going to have people who want/need to wait tables, clean hotels, flip burgers. These should not be long term jobs, but rather temporary jobs for students, or supplement jobs for low income working professionals. Professional jobs allow the market to dictate salary; non-professional jobs should work that way too. Now that I have said this, would you please state where you got the source for 98% of DDO users that only?Indeed, the minimum wage should go up with inflation, but it has been going up gradually. Gradual increase is necessary, but almost doubling the minimum wage is crazy. I will also have you know that I am not subjecting anyone to poverty, that is only a poor personal attack. I do not believe that Bernie Sanders has anything to do with this debate, so I am going to ignore that comment.
The Minimum Wage should not be raised.

I accept. 98% of DDO users make Minimum wage. You're locking them into the same pay rate for the rest of their life. Inflation will require an adjustment anways.In 1960, it was $1.60. So it should still be $1.60? Inflation says it should and will go up. Why are you subjecting so many DDOers to abject poverty. They'll just complain louder that life is unfair then vote for Bernie Sanders in 2020, 2024, and 2028.