BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's probable that the God exists

Con: We are so strongly biased that we routinely see patterns even when they aren't there . So atheists have a strong confirmation bias of things that are not there by statement of Con. * Con: "This drive compels one to seek out explanations and we frequently respond to uncertainty by fabricating plausible explanations. What's more, we hold on to these invented explanations as having intrinsic value of their own, and we don't like to let them go." Which applies to atheism. * Con: "We have a deep-rooted mindset for cause-and-effect; when coupled with imagination and the strong need for an explanation, we end up accepting irrational answers to avoid having no answer at all." Which applies to atheism. * Con: "those who tend to solve problems more analytically also tended to be religious disbelievers." So I have been an atheist and a Theist. I must be an anomaly, thus the only one that can claim no strong confirmation biases or a subject to any bs rules of analytical nature vs religious nature. Thus, my opinion should be of value to anyone with a strong endoctrinated belief system from childhood such as atheism or Christianity. I was born into neither belief system, thus by Con's definition, I have the highest ground on the isdue and am pointing out his own confirmation biases. * Con: This attests to the great inaccuracy of our ability to perceive the truth of the matter if it is the case that a God actually exist. Yet they all have the same basic construct. * Con: "This attests to the great inaccuracy of our ability to perceive the truth." So...apply this to atheism. * Con: "It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one." My model is not simple or nearly the simplest one. I've been in over 50 debates. Check em out. * THE ATHEIST DILEMMA Con: "Until there's direct evidence for a god's existence, it's an assumption. Therefore, the existence of God is improbable, and more likely a manifestation of our psychological nature." Not actually. In either a finite reality or an infinite reality we get the highest conceivable or possible being by default of no beginning of history, whether within the construct of the finite or infinite. If you adhere to a finite model, first you must explain how something can exist inside of nothing, and give examples. Nevertheless, with no beginning to history, God would exist by default. If you adhere to an infinite model, God exists by default as the highest conceivable being by the very laws of infinite space and time. Thus, the psychology of the atheist is based on a strong confirmation bias according to Con himself. Your turn. Get it.
It's probable that the God exists

I accept.Since they were not supplied by the instigator, I'll provide some relevant definitions in order to crystalize the parameters of the debate.God : the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Probable : Likely to happen or be the case.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Exist : Have objective reality or being.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
In the Realm of Economics, Freedom Ought to be Valued Above Equity

Well, since PRO has failed to respond to any of my arguments, I guess I won't spend time discussing them. In PRO's argument, he claims that equity is horrible. However, just exactly how fairness is 'horrible' remains to be seen. PRO offers the examples of both World Wars and the Civil War as examples of this. I fail to see how these examples prove that the principle of fairness in economics is s bad. The World Wars where not fought because of economic equity, and the end result of the Civil War, the abolition of slavery, was hardly a bad thing. PRO gives another non-sequitur with the example of "Taxation without Representation." Taxation without representation is not economic equity in the slightest. On the contrary, it is highly unfair. PRO also claims that the Constitution was created to protect our economic freedoms. However, the founding fathers spoke just as highly of equity. After all, the Declaration of Independence tells us that "all men are created equal," which is the entire idea behind having an equitable society. In conclusion, PRO fails to prove that freedom is superior to equity. Instead, he provides examples that don't even come close to proving his claims. As it stands, economic freedom ought not to be valued above economic equity.
In the Realm of Economics, Freedom Ought to be Valued Above Equity

My Oppenent is saying that Equity is a good thing. But Equity is Horrible thing. Take world war 1, World war 2, the Civil War. The Civil war was to make "All men Created equal" are founding fathers created the Constitution so that we could have Economic Freedom. What about Taxation without Representation" there are countless examples of How equity is fallen. But the truth is that Economic Freedom can't exist without some Equity but not to the extent of the Redistribution of the wealth. So if you vote for the the Pro's side you are going to get a strong Economy. But Innovation can foster freedom. But the End the Long term Economic Freedom has been proven in past generations and Hayek, Mises and Milton Friedman all has proven for Economic Freedom. The Opponent didn't really talk about the examples of how Economic Equity can Succeed.
Obama's plan to tax the rich would do little to solve the debt problem.

The challenge was posted for several days without anyone accepting, so accidentally killing it at this point is not too big a deal. It's time to move on to a new topic. Still, it's important to read challenges carefully before accepting. Questions can be asked in the comments before accepting if something is unclear.The revenue is at most 3% of the deficitAn optimistic estimate of the revenue generated is"In 2008, there were 236,883 tax filers reporting income of $1 million or more. The Patriotic Millionaires, a group advocating the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on tax filers making $1 million or more a year, estimated that their plan would raise $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years." [P2. http://blogs.wsj.com...]That includes implied savings in interest on the national debt. "the tax would actually raise $40 billion to $50 billion a year: equal to about 3% of the annual federal deficit." [P2]The revenue would actually be substantially less than the optimistic estimate, because the rich are able to evade taxes by not taking capital gains and by moving money to offshore accounts. There are also complex tax avoidance strategies that flow from the 70,000+ pages of tax laws. [P3 http://www.businessweek.com... ] the goal is to have transactions that do not qualify as income. excluding deductions has no effect on something that is not counted as income in the first place.The top 3% of earners are already paying 50% of the taxes under the current system.The revenue raised would be trivial compared to the magnitude of the deficit problem.The resolution is affirmed.
Worst [best?] way to die

That's pretty sick, I'll try my best.You're strapped to bed. Your mom comes in, but she's naked. She comes up and hits you in the face, and then she hits you again but this time it like totally stings. You say "Why mom?" but before you can go on she is rubbing her titties in your face. You try to struggle but then your dad (who has AIDS) comes in and starts sodomizing you. After your mom and dad are done with you and you've been infected, they just let you be for a few months and let the AIDS kick in. Afterwards, when the disease has kicked in, your mom comes back and starts poking you in the eyes with a rusty needle until your blind. After that's done your dad rips out all your nails after shoving bamboo chutes up them. Your dad then calls "Jimmy the mobster" who breaks your kneecaps with a baseball bat and then forcibly sodomizes you again. After giving you like 2 hours to recover, mom and dad return to sprinkle you with drop of sulfuric acid, which literally sears through the skin and eats through organs. Mom and Dad do this until you die, but not before calling over a group of japanese men to perform one last act of bukkake.Good luck to Pro!
Worst [best?] way to die

You wake up in a room. A light shines above you. Around you is nothing but pitch darkness. You are bound to a post, naked. A man appears in the light with a amphetamine drop. He explains you will stay awake for most of the 'show'. He starts by blinding you via stabbing you with a rusty needle. Then he talks about axes swinging about. He also reports that they are now visible in the shiny lamp. He draws with a marker, this is where your going to be cut. But only your upper layer of skin will be damaged. Next a nest of bees lands on you. They sting! You hear him laugh! The axes strike again, but this time your chest. Next, he places sticks of TNT in holes around your body. These will be of use later. But he isn't done! He pours an alkali bath on you, lights the fuse, and leaves. wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine
Criminalizing Abortions Is Not Christian Behavior, take 2

Yes, in the Old Testament it says "an eye for an eye," and I agree with you that you can't just toss out the Old Testament. But Jesus mentions this law specifically and says that he's got a new one: "love your enemy." I interpret it this way: In the Torah, when "eye for an eye" was given, it was to keep escalation from happening. If a guy pokes out your eye, don't kill him - just poke out his eye. In the gospels, Jesus believes that we're ready for something new - don't take revenge at all! Turn the other cheek. Now if Jesus thought we were ready for this message of forgiveness 2000 years ago, why are we Christians still trying to take a life for a life? Jesus did not support the death penalty - the proof is in John 8, where Jesus is able to stop an angry crowd from stoning a women who had cheated on her husband. The Old Testament penalty for adultery was DEATH. And here's Jesus saying "you without sin cast the first stone." In this society, the woman deserved to die, and Jesus said no. So even if you're right and girls who get abortions deserve death (which is very debatable), do you honestly believe Jesus would be first in line to put that girl to death? Or would he say, "Let's help this girl instead of killing her"? Honestly, I think if a Christian really wants to prevent abortions, they ought to volunteer at Planned Parenthood for at least a year. Then they can look at these girls face to face and tell them the reasons they ought to preserve the baby's life. At the very least, they'd be closer to the situation and be able to look at the situation and see people they know - not faceless women. Leonitus, I don't think you'd be so eager to put people to death if the person getting an abortion was someone close to you. Also, I believe this question deserves an answer: What about girls who can't even afford to have their baby? The delivery alone can cost $1000 and many people can't afford that. Abortion becomes the only option for them. Do propose we kill a person because they're poor?
Criminalizing Abortions Is Not Christian Behavior, take 2

Alright, Leonitus! You wanted it - hear it is. Since this is an earlier topic that my opponent failed to respond to, I'll just copy my original opening argument: ~ I do not believe that Christians ought to persuade the government to criminalize abortions. First let me say that I am not for abortions. If someone who had an unwanted pregnancy came to me to and asked, "Should I get an abortion?" I can't really think of a situation where I'd say, "Yes, you should." Abortions are bad news. But I think many Christians, even though they have the best intentions, miss the reality of the issue. Most women who do end up getting abortions do so because they have run out of options. Most are poor and simply can't afford an abortion! I truly believe Christians ought to attempt to prevent abortions, but the way to do it is not through making laws. Jesus Christ exhibited a very clear stance on violence. Everything he accomplished, he did in a nonviolent way (including the salvation of humankind!). So why should we threaten violence against women and girls who have had abortions? If Christian truly want to prevent abortions, the only way that will succeed will be not through criminalization, but through lovingly providing new options for those who have unwanted pregnancies. ~ Also, I'll pose the question to you that you answered on the message board so you can officially answer it: What punishment would be appropriate, in your opinion, for someone who gets an abortion?
God does NOT exist

1.) "Until one can prove that the big bang WAS caused by god, one may justified in using SCIENCE as a viable option for the causation of yet unexplained phenomena." I was not stating that one must believe in god as the source of the big bang, only that it has not yet been proven that god was not the cause, so one may choose to believe that if one wishes. After that you try to shift the burden of proof from you to me. You are the instigator and pro in this debate and are the one who challenged me. In this debate, you have the burden of proof and it is up to you to prove god does not exist. I do not have to prove that a god exists, I must merely refute your own arguments. 2.) My opponent at this point responds to my challenge to show that people's prayers going unanswered proves there is no god. This has not been done. I noticed in the example of the study you provided the only people praying were Christians. The Christian god might not exist, but that does not disprove the Greek or Muslim gods. You also have not shown that god could not simply be malevolent so we can assume you have conceded this argument. Why can't our vision of god be incorrect? You may be able to disprove a benevolent god according to our own standards but might the standard that has traditionally been attributed to god be incorrect? There is not complete agreement on the moral code of the Muslim, Christian, or Greek gods. So your contention that if god were 'perfect' ,in the sense of my definition, he would act in a traditionally benevolent manner is faulty. You have also not responded to my refutation of the problem of evil so it may be assumed that the point has been conceded. You also did not provide a source for your example of the prayer study so it may automatically be discarded. If I'm not mistaken though I believe I recognize that study from the book, 'The God Delusion'.
God does NOT exist

Thank you for responding my friend, for playing the devils advocate your counteractions are exceptional. "The concept of god being energy is in contradiction to my definition of god which you have accepted. God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" I was simply offering an alternate definition as some persons' god is what they say to be 'energy' and not an actual person, but ok lets discard that definition for this debate. 1. "Until one can prove that the big bang was definitely not caused by god, one may be justified in using god as a viable option for the causation of yet unexplained phenomena." Until one can prove that the big bang WAS caused by god, one may justified in using SCIENCE as a viable option for the causation of yet unexplained phenomena. In the words of Richard Dawkins "It is not up to to atheist to disprove the existence of god, but for theists to prove his existence." 2. "To summarize this argument, my opponent merely takes prayer as an example of religious faith and tries to refute it. Now as my opponent did not bring any evidence or examples to show that claims of answered prayers are "hodgepodge" we may discard this argument." There is alot of evidence I can point to which definitely highlights prayer as "hodgepodge" superstitious nonsense, and once again we turn to science for the answers(as we always do): A study was done to show the effectiveness, or lack therof of prayer. In the study, the researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery. The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers. The researchers asked the members of three congregations — St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City — to deliver the prayers, using the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names. The congregations were told that they could pray in their own ways, but they were instructed to include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications." Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not. At least 10 studies have been done in the past 6 years to judge the effectiveness of prayer, and all have turned up with the same results. Now once again you may argue that god possibly is actually malevolent, or does not have to 'prove' himself through these scientific studies, but facts are facts. You are entitled to your own set of opinions,, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
God does NOT exist

"The definitions you present are fine, but I would like to add that some religions do not believe in a "being" per se, so I'd like to add the definition of the possibility of god being 'energy' in accordance to new age religions like scientology etc." The concept of god being energy is in contradiction to my definition of god which you have accepted. "God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" My definition describes god as a perfect being. This would be in accordance with moral principles put forth by the god which implies sentience. You have accepted my definition of god so you may not use your example of god being 'energy'. Religions who define god in a different way from the definition I added will not be debated here. 1.)Lack of evidence This argument may support weak atheism, or one disbelieving in god, but it comes far short of defending strong atheism, the position where one definitively states that god does not exist, which is what you are defending. this argument does not apply to the resolution and as such may be discarded. Also, your point that one should not believe in god simply because we cannot explain natural phenomena is not really relevant. Until one can prove that the big bang was definitely not caused by god, one may be justified in using god as a viable option for the causation of yet unexplained phenomena. 2.)Praying "I would like my opponent to try praying........Will anything happen? No." To summarize this argument, my opponent merely takes prayer as an example of religious faith and tries to refute it. Now as my opponent did not bring any evidence or examples to show that claims of answered prayers are "hodgepodge" we may discard this argument. However, even if my opponent had disproven claims of answered prayers, that would not disprove the existence of a god. It could simply point to a malevolent god who does not care about the well being of people. Or it could imply that a benevolent god merely chooses not to answer a prayer as to answer it would be detrimental to the religious devotee. 3.)Problem of evil My opponent ends the round with providing the so famous problem of evil. My opponent has not actually provided an argument here but has merely posted a quote. Also, as aforementioned, humans could have simply misinterpreted the morals of god. Our entire understanding of what is moral could be fabricated but that does not positively disprove the existence of god. It could point to god being malevolent or a human error in understanding god.
God does NOT exist

Thank you for accepting this challenge. I am new to this site so I'd like you to take it a bit easy on me, (not meaning you should go easy in the debate, but bear with me if my arguments aren't exactly how you guys do it here). The definitions you present are fine, but I would like to add that some religions do not believe in a "being" per se, so I'd like to add the definition of the possibility of god being 'energy' in accordance to new age religions like scientology etc. For my first argument I would like to speak about the lack of evidence of this 'god'. During the course of history there has been no SIGNIFICANT evidence showing the existence of a deity or any supernatural force in this universe. Science has been used to explain almost everything, and what has not been explained now will be explained in the future. Now before you attack me on this point, let us go back to the ancient days, when man did not know how or where the rain came from...he said it was the rain god and offered sacrifices to this god in exchange for rain. Fast forward thousands of years, and science has explained how rain is formed. It is the same issue today. We may not know how or why the big bang was started however we are confident that advances in science will be able explain all these unanswered questions in due time, and it would be extremely stupid o attach a 'god' label to everything we don't understand. Secoondly, I would like my opponent to try praying. We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. Will anything happen? No. Of course not. Now i do not wish to attack christianity per se, but it is the religion which mostly adorns prayer. These so called 'miracles' that we see happening everyday is nothing but a hodgepodge. Euphoria, mind over matter are just some of the things that actually happens when people are 'healed'. Now before you start attacking me on this matter, ask yourself this......"why doesn't god heal amputees?" We see many people being 'healed' of cancer and diseases that are not necessarily visible, but we never see an amputee receive a new leg or arm. (I'm not sure if i should state all my arguments at once or what....so I'll just leave those two for now) I will end my points with this popular quote from epicurius (341-270 B.C) "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
God does NOT exist

To be honest, religion based debates are my favorite kind though I usually argue from the opposite position. I will take the liberty to define the main parts of the resolution. God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe[1] Exist: To have actual being; be real. [2] I sincerely hope that these definitions will be satisfactory to my opponent. Now as my opponent has initiated this debate, he as the burden of proof and as such I will await his opening arguments. ____________________________________________ [1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Vegans should be crucified

Ohhhhhh my god. Where do I start? For one, this is inhumane treatment of a minority. This is official persecution of an innocent group which is (thank god) banned in all civilized countries. Another, if you're an American, this is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the fourteenth amendment, meaning everyone is equal under the law, so the law can not take action against a minority for simply being a minority. This would be PARTIALLY UNDERSTANDABLE, but only if the minority being persecuted was a hate group, such as some specific altright members. But Altright members are protected by our first amendment, and cannot, again be persecuted simply for being a minority.