BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pascal's Wager Stands to Reason

Once again, thank you Magicr for replying to my argument. Believing in the Christian God Opposed to The Several OthersCon makes a logical point in saying that a Christian wouldn't receive eternal happiness if Islam were true or vice versa. If the Islamic God existed, which is refutable due to several facts that contradict the definition of God and within the Qur'an, Christians would be forever lost without hope. So would atheists as well. This is precisely why PW stands to reason, which is key in my argument. No matter what, atheists lose. Christians on the other hand, whom most theists belong to, still have a shot at winning the prize of eternal hope. Christians make a number of good arguments for there existing a God, specifically the Christian God, within philosophy and physical evidence regarding the Bible. If you haven't found any, you haven't searched hard enough. Then even if Pascal was wrong regarding his belief in his God, or any other God as Con rightly previously mentioned, he still had a chance within his uncertainty. Atheists have no chance in their uncertainty according to every possible, logical God. Pascal simply argued that it is of greater value to believe in God, once again the Christian God, than not to. Con also makes another point in reaffirming his stand in saying that he was not referring to the Christian God in the case of a God rewarding atheists and punishing theists.1. In what case has a belief in a God punished those who've believed?2. It is also possible that the Christian God rewards theists. Though it seems possible that a God would punish His believers and reward his rejectors, there isn't a case of this in any religion. If there did exist one, nobody would have a reason to believe it. There is no logical evidence for the existence of such a God, therefore we have no reason to believe it to be true. And if an atheist did believe in such a God, he would be no atheist. Also, grant it were possible, there also exists the discussed possibility. As of now, they remain possibilities, making every possibility obviously possible. Therefore, the possibility that the Christian God exists and rewards theists still remains a possibility in the case that Con makes. There still exists the possibility that the Christian will receive eternal hope, yet also the possibility that the Christian will receive eternal suffering. The possibility, grant it that it is even possible for a God to reward atheists, exists in the minor that an atheist would receive eternal hope and life, yet a greater possibility in there existing no God that there be no hope and eternal suffering if said atheist was wrong. The stand that it is greater to believe in God remains. The Christian has a greater logical possibility that God exists and would receive eternal life, and the possibility that they are wrong and also lose everything. The atheist has an awkward, illogical possibility that a God who rewards atheists exists, and would receive eternal life, yet a quite possible chance that either way the Christian God or any other God exists in which case the atheist loses everything.
Pascal's Wager Stands to Reason

In the first part of his argument, Pro makes the assumption that it does not matter in which God one believes in order for one to receive eternal happiness. This makes little sense as Christians would be unlikely to receive eternal happiness if Islam were true or vice versa. So although we can say that there are two possibilities, belief or non-belief in a God, one's fate in a possible afterlife would likely depend on a more detailed set of choices than the two-fold dichotomy Pro has presented. Pro wrote: "Let's suppose Pascal was wrong about believing in the existence of God (specifically his belief in the Christian God). He is dead and living in eternal non-existence."This statement continues to assume this false dichotomy. We must not only consider what happens if Pascal is wrong regarding his belief in a deity, but also what happens if he is wrong concerning Judaism or Islam or Pastafarianism. In the case the one of these religions were to be true, it is possible that Pascal has lost everything and is suffering eternally. Regarding my argument about a God rewarding atheists and punishing theists, Pro argues that the Christian God would not do this. I am not referring to the Christian God in this case, but rather some other possible God, a God who does not have the same perfect morality as the Christian God, therefore his logic fails. This possibility of such a God also addresses the chunk of Pro's argument in which he claimed that atheists have nothing to gain whether they are right or wrong, but theists have everything to gain if they are right and nothing to lose if they are wrong. The chances of a theist choosing the right God out of near infinite possibilities are next to nothing. When we take into account the possibility of a theist punishing God, the chances of a theist receiving a reward in the afterlife are equal to the chances of an atheist receiving such a reward.
Pascal's Wager Stands to Reason

I accept. In this debate I will argue that Pascal's Wager (PW) does not justify faith in a God.The main problem with PW is that it presents a false dichotemy in assuming that there are only two choices, God, or not God. The reality is that there are thousands of choices, if not more, choices between all of the different gods that have been present throughout history. In fact, the choices are almost infinite when one takes into account the possible deities that could exist, whether they are worshiped or not. The question does not just apply to the atheist "What happnes if you're wrong?" but to the theist as well. A person of any fatih might be wrong about all of the other religions, thus limiting their access to eternal happiness.Additionally, what happens if there exists a God who punishes theists and rewards atheists? Because of this possiblity, PW provides no more of an advantage to theists than to atheists.
Pascal's Wager Stands to Reason

Pascal's Wager Stands to ReasonPascal's Wager stands to say that it is of greater value to believe in God than not to. If one believes in God and is wrong about his beliefs, He loses nothing. Though, if one doesn't believe in God and is wrong about his beliefs, he loses everything; namely God, eternity, heaven, and infinite gain. Pascal is wagering that it is greater to believe in God than it is not to. If you would like to debate me I'm all for the idea. We'll be discussing topics and arguments that prove one's standing on whether it is better to believe in the existence of God than not to.
Does the Bible give (or is there any) Evidence for the existence of God

My name is not Tim, Using the argument "the bible says so..." is a begging the question/circular reasoning fallacy. Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo's Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned. like... The Bible. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... a Fallacy is a logical flaw in an argument which invalidates it. Neither logic, science, not even the bible itself supports the contention that because the bible says so it is evidence of it being true. The bible demands faith. This is an example of a subconscious flaw, conformation bias.
Does the Bible give (or is there any) Evidence for the existence of God

I will be using an argument map that i created for this debate The website does not allow me to make it any bigger, here is an external website for downloadding: http://www.filedropper.com...I highly sugest before opening any downloaded file you always do a virus scan. You can use one of the many free website which give have this feature just do a google search for: "scan file for virus".
The top 10% should be taxed 90%

Rebuttals to pro's points (his/her arguments will be in quotes and Italics)1. "If you taxed the richest top 10% of the world's population by 90%, Nobody in India or China would be affected (unless they were billionaires in those countries). It would only affect the rich people in rich countries."There is no world government currently to implement this action. The only closest thing we have is the UN where the only possible Big 5 member who may not veto (annul) this resolution is China, even this is very unlikely (they probably will veto). UK, France, US and Russia will be against this without doubt. And for good reason.2. "I'm talking about taxing people, not businesses. Businesses provide jobs, and are not the same as rich individuals."I understand Pro is talking about taxing people but the reality is that rich people own the largest businesses, invest in them which logically results in them generating the most jobs FOR THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS. Taxes which take 9/10th of the income are not great incentives for being an entrepreneur is it now? Even if the rich people are already rich, they will see little to no point opening up new businesses or expanding them to a level which puts them eligible for the 90% tax rate. Hence this will not work. To make matters worse, they rich can just store their income in a foreign account as black money( taxes that have not been paid) or they could just live in a tax haven like Dubai which means that the middle class will end up paying the 90% of their taxes. This will lower the average consumer buying power which makes business EVEN LESS PROFITABLE. So whatever businesses are left will go to tax havens or store their black money which means the 90% tax rate will affect the next lower income class. Starting to see a cycle?And this cycle will be devastating to the long term economy of any country (rich or poor) which implements this cycle. This is especially true in emerging markets in Asia which rely on their growing consumer buying power for future growth.This is why I argue that the richest 10% should not be taxed 90% of their income despite the fact that I am indeed a pro-socialist believe it or not. However, I live in no socialist utopian paradise. I know the world we live in and I can say and prove that taxing 1 in 10 people 9/10th of their income will be detrimental at this time for reasons argued above. I leave the rest to the voters and encourage them to make a rational judgement on whether pro's resolution will work or not work. I know most people will like to see a world where rich are taxed for improvement of infrastructure etc. But I must appeal to voters to please make a rational judgement and not emotional judgement. Thank you nonprophet, for the debate.
The top 10% should be taxed 90%

2 points:1. If you taxed the richest top 10% of the world's population by 90%, Nobody in India or China would be affected (unless they were billionaires in those countries). It would only affect the rich people in rich countries. 2. I'm talking about taxing people, not businesses. Businesses provide jobs, and are not the same as rich individuals.Thanks for the debate
The top 10% should be taxed 90%

America is drowning in debt. George Bush took a surplus from Clinton and gave tax cuts to the rich and started 2 wars that we couldn't afford. Obama took office while the wars were still going on, so he had to spend money on those, plus the tax cuts to the rich, plus spend to get stimulus back to the economy...all while the debt gets higher and higher. The way we got out of the great depression was with social programs.The government taxed the richest people up to 94% and used that money to put people to work building roads and bridges, which made America's infrastructure stronger.http://taxprof.typepad.com...The rich still had more money than anybody else and the country got back on it's feet.This country gave the opportunity to people to become rich. They need to pay back some to the country so that we can stay a strong nation.The "trickle-down" theory never worked because companies are not making new jobs with the record profits they are making. They may be making new jobs in China and India, but that isn't helping the USA. That's treason. So in order to save America, the rich need to either create jobs here or be taxed 90% so the government can create the jobs with that money.
All prisoners have the right to visits from the outside under the 8th amendment

I believe taking away someones loved ones constitutes torture. Prisoners should definately lose some rights in prison but not all of them. John Locke created the concept of natural rights or rights every person is born into regardless of any circumstance. Every person should have the opportunity to see their family no matter the crime. Seeing their family doesn't tale them out of jail or interfere with their sentence. Family has to be involved in a persons life especially a troubled persons life if a fair justice system using natural rights is to be expressed.
All prisoners have the right to visits from the outside under the 8th amendment

It is not often that prisoners are denied visits from the outside and when it happens it is normally for the best, their is usually a good reason. Again this is a policy debate not a values debate and we are arguing whether the 8th amendment allows courts to suspend a prisoners right to visits. When the founding fathers developed our constitution they strongly believed that a nation so deeply rooted in the idea of liberty should not included the inhumane punishments they knew from their past lives. The Rutherford Institute illustrates what was on their mind when the founding fathers wrote the 8th amendment, " The past, as the Founders knew it, was one shadowed by the threat of torture for any who disagreed with government policies. Torture in the form of pillorying, disemboweling, decapitation, and drawing and quartering"
All prisoners have the right to visits from the outside under the 8th amendment

While denying a prisoner visits does affect their family as well, I would still argue that it has a more direct impact on the prisoner. The family, on the outside, still has friends and family that they can see as they wish. The family is only being denied the right to visit one person, while the prisoner is being denied the right to see anyone besides his lawyer. Now, the Bill of Rights Institute quotes the 8th amendment which mandates, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." By denying a prisoner visiting rights the 8th amendment is not violated.
Is Earth flat

First off, I apologize for my bad grammar in my previous argument. I was typing on a phone and am now on a computer. Secondly, Your argument about seeing items above you is not valid. Let's take the ocean for example. If you go higher, You can see farther out into the ocean. The reason for this is because of the Earth's curves. Your argument that people would fall off the earth isn't a valid argument either. Gravity is what keeps people on the planet. That's common sense. You also mention that the moon isn't flat. Do you believe all of the other planets are round except for Earth, Or do you believe all of the other planets are flat as well?
Is Earth flat

You have made some plausible arguments but I've heard them all before. Think. If you are in a room filled with items the higher you are, For instance if you stood on a chair, You would see more compared to if you were laying on the ground. That disproves your theory as to why you can go higher and see farther. Lets assume the sun moves around the Earth because the Earth is round. If that would be the case what happens to the people on the other side? They would fall off. On a flat Earth humans, Or anything for that matter, Can't fall off. Unless they pass through the Bermuda portal. The moon isn't flat by the way, But that is a whole different discussion. I appreciate the attempt but as you said, "You argument just doesn't make sense. "
Is Earth flat

You claim that all of the other planets in our solar system are round except for Earth, And that all other life that has tried to develop on the other planets have "fallen off" because the other planets are round. However, That itself is very wrong. The Earth "being flat" is not why we have life on Earth. We have life on Earth due to a number of reasons. Some of these reasons include the average temperature of Earth compared to other planets, The stability of Earth"s atmosphere and chemical composition, And the Earth's perfect distance from the Sun. There are many other reasons, But I am on an 8000 character limit and am unable to mention them all. Another thing is, According to your logic, If the Earth was flat everyone would fall off. This is because there is no bottom or top in space. Also, Many people have gone to the moon and they haven't fallen off, But yet, The Moon is round. Another thing is, If the Earth was flat, Then there would be no gravity on Earth. If that was the case, We would not have a moon and satellites would not work. If there was no moon on Earth, Then we wouldn"t have tides, Our axial tilt would be unstable. I am personally very glad that our Earth is round because if it wasn"t, Many things on Earth would be different. Another thing is, There is literal proof that our Earth isn"t flat. Check out these photos: https://www. Nasa. Gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd. Html Also, If you believe that these images are fake and that NASA is hiding something, Then that is wrong. They have nothing to hide. Science here is backing me up, And your argument that the Earth is flat is "simply preposterous"
Is Earth flat

I believe that the other planets in our solar system are round. I also think the Earth is flat. The reason why the Earth is flat and the other planets aren't is because Earth has life on it whereas on the other planets there aren't. This is because any possible life that has developed has fallen off. I understand the concept of gravity and how it works on the moon and on other planets but you have to understand that Earth is different because it is flat. You have made many valid points but logic is backing me up here. The thought that the Earth isn't flat is simply preposterous.
There should be more motorcycle lanes in the US.

I believe there should be more lanes, designed for small vehicles, such as motorcycles, bicycles, motor scooter, etc. The reason for this is, it would enable a safer area for those that ride such things, because most motorcycle accidents are because a large vehicle such as a car, or truck. If they had their own separate protected lanes. There are already cops that ride mototrcycles, so move those cops to the motorcycle lanes, and they can enforce motorcycle safety laws more strongly. Like the helmet laws, most motorcylists don't wear helmets (I have to though), so the motorcycle lanes will create safer transpertation in more than one way. I understand the cost but tax money is spent on roads, so the tax money would be better spent on creating a lane, half the size as a normal lane providing a safer place for those wishing to ride a motorcycle, without as much risk. The reasoning is, if the money is to improve the road, it would make a really good improvements, allowing a safer way for vehicles that use less gasoline, creating less pollution, to safely travel. It wouldn't be a bad idea, to have toll roads, on the motorcycle lanes, where they normally have them on normal highways. I have more points, but I will allow my opponent to make, his/her point before extending my own. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
The Gospel Accounts Are Anonymous

I accept. As agreed upon in the comments: The resolution is: the traditional authorship (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) of the canonical Gospels (Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, Gospel of John) is accurate. In this case, accurate can be defined as the following; "historically true, factual" And as for the Burden of Proof: xXKorvexiusXx has the full BoP as he said, in the comment section "you are taking the position that the four figures mentioned above did not historically author/write the four canonical Gospels. The burden of proof is upon me to establish historical evidence that they have indeed written these documents. Of course, providing evidence against it will help your case, however you are not required to do any such thing as I am making the historical assertion." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I wish you good luck, I look forward to reading your arguments.
The Gospel Accounts Are Anonymous

This debate is on the anonymity of the Gospel Accounts, being the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John, the four Graceo-Roman Biographies within the New Testament. I view that the traditional authorship of these four documents (that they were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) is historically factual. It is not about whether or not they are true in their theological claims, but simply whether or not these these four authors (the Apostles Matthew and John, disciple of Peter being Mark, and physician and historian being Luke, just as they are claimed to be in the Bible) were the true writers of these documents.