BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The origin of human morality is an omnipotent god

I accept your challenge. I will be arguing that the origin of human morality is an omnipotent god. I would like to thank my opponent for this and I hope we come to truth! I look forward to your opening argument. Omnipotent: Having very great or unlimited authority or power. God: The one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe. Objectivism: the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them. Subjectivism: 1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. 2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience. I would also like to know if con believes in subjective or objective morality.
"Free Will" do exist

My opponents initial remarks are a straw man. I never defined free-will as having no limitation as he says. Viewers can refer to my definition that I posted and it clearly does not entail that nor do my arguments assume it. Pro argues that we do have freedom but does not say how. I already demonstrated that determinacy and indeterminacy alleviate freedom as well as positing that they were the only type of events that occur. Pro hasn't disputed that dichotomy nor has he shown how free-will could exist within it.My opponent quotes a large section of my post and responds but misunderstands its purpose. It was an analogy to demonstrate that when all the influences are laid before us, we can easily tell none of our acts free and that all acts we make are not, in any important way, much different.As it stands, pro has failed to refute determinism and indeterminacy, thus conceding that all acts are either caused or random.Pro has not explained how free-will can exist with the only acts we make being causal or random.Pro has not offered a coherent explanation of what free-will is.Pro has offered literally zero evidence against my last contention that science shows our brain makes the decision to act before we're even conscious of it. Disappointing round. Pro hasn't put in the effort.
"Free Will" do exist

"Free Will" does not mean, "no limitation", free will means to think freely. You think freely, there is free will. You cannot control the outside environment, agreed. But it does not remove free will in us. "Free will", for me, is freely thinking, though, it has limits. In other words, you are free in a limited capacity. "Suppose a single random event in your brain causes you to lurch your arm into the air. Would anyone say that was a free act of choice? Obviously not. You had no control over it. It just happened at random. Suppose in another scenario aliens had taken control of your mind and were influencing your body to cause you to make choices that you thought you were making freely. That also would obviously not be free-will either." This is what we call, "voluntary" movements, right? You can actually "defy" those, though its hard. Try to "contradict" your brain. Suppose, you are right handed, try to write on the left.
"Free Will" do exist

The debate will circulate all about "Free Will" - is there anything called as "Free Will", or it is just a "fantasy" by those who believe? I am happy for who will accept my challenge. The points are: - What is the definition of "Free Will" (Own definition and definition from other source) - How can you say it does not exist? - Cite proofs to support your claims Con can take the first step :)
God most likely does NOT exist

Rebuttals: Argument 1: Rationality "If God exists, did He come into being? " Christians claim that God is (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes which was "already there"; a deity. So therefore, according to that, he did not come to being. Also, according to theism, The bible declares that God is spirit and that he manifested himself in physical form through Jesus Christ. "Second, is the universe eternal? " Possibly. If a monotheistic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God could be eternal, then so can the Universe. "Albert Einstein completely disproved this theory" If he performed an experiment and observed that the Universe was expanding, then that is rather proving the Big Bang theory "Theory of it beginning as a tiny, dense ball no larger than a molecule, then matter merging together and exploding, creating a never-ending Universe". "And had a beginning" Hmm. . Please provide me with it. Also, remember that the Bible is not fully confirmed yet. No evidence proportional to that claim yet. So therefore, that quotation you provided me with that you claim Jesus said may be false. Argument 2: Morals and Argument 3: Meaning I sincerely apologize. My brain is currently not very flexible yet. I have to strain my brain in order to be able to comprehend. I will try to refute your arguments soon. Response 1 I concede that the statement I constructed was illogical. If everything to me is relative, then therefore, absolute truth doesn't exist. So therefore, no indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole (Time) exists. And therefore, future doesn't exist. And if he exists, he knows what we choose to do in advance. HOLD ON God manifested himself in Physical form through Jesus Christ. And theists claim that he is omnipotent (One having unlimited power or authority). So if he knew what HE will choose in advance, therefore, free will doesn't exist. Response 2 Like said: "Remember that the Bible isn't fully confirmed yet" So therefore, he most probably does not intervene with Earth's happenings.
God most likely does NOT exist

Rebuttals: Argument 1: Rationality "What comes from nothing? Nothing of course" How about God? According to theism, God (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority who was "already there"; the supreme being. So, logically speaking, matter can be a physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, esp. as distinct from energy which was "already there" and energy can be power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, esp. to provide light and heat or to work machines which was "already there". Also, if God truly did not exist, that doesn't instantly mean that the theory of a tiny, dense ball no larger than a molecule, then matter merging together and exploding, creating a never-ending Universe is confirmed. Maybe the Universe was "already there". Argument 2: Morals "Many people believe that without religion, the planet would descend into immoral chaos. The reality is that the majority of heinous crimes committed against people on this planet across all of recorded history had their roots on religious beliefs, but the ability to distinguish right from wrong does not require any religious beliefs. In addition, animals who are incapable of understanding our human concept of religion show clear evidence of understanding moral behavior and distinguishing between right and wrong." Argument 3: Meaning Yes, there is. Life is a very improbable existence of an individual human being or animal. Response 2: God is omnipotent 2 According to theism, God is "good" What IS good? It is that which is morally right; righteousness. We do not necessarily inherit fortune from unnecessary sufferings, grievances, etc. Also, he is never involved with Earth's happenings and lets us suffer because we chose to sin? How so? We chose to, and yet he does not do anything about it.
God most likely does NOT exist

I simply do NOT hold the belief that a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists until proportional evidence is presented. For instance, there is a box. We haven't opened the box yet. So we have no sufficient justification to prove the claim that it contains anything.REMEMBER:1) Presentations2) RebuttalsHe definitely exists in the faith of individuals, though.Nonetheless, it is possible. It is just most unlikely. Also: 1) "Christians believe their God is omniscient and knows everything, including everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it. If that's the case, there is no "free will."" 2) "They also believe their God is omnipotent, and can do anything. Problem is, if their God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened, are happening now and will happen in the future, their God is also a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery." I have derived these from my Atheist friend. He is no longer a Deist (Belief in a God who does not intervene).
Gay Marriage

1. No, gender is the same as sex, it's just that a bunch of idiot liberals decided that they are different. Bruce Jenners can think that he is a purple/green Elephant with poky dots for all I care, he is a MAN, he has a X chromosome and a Y chromosome, deciding otherwise doesn't make it so. And actualy my comparison of being naked is actually correct, you DO chose who you marry, just like you CHOSE to be naked, you don't however chose to WANT to be naked, just like, according to you, you don't chose who you want to marry. 2. Nope, it's life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, and the definition of liberty set up during the times of the Constitution was to move freely. And the homosexuals can go live with a blood sucking cannibal for all I care, he goveronment doesn't get to say it's marriage while it is clearly not. 3. Just because marriage is currently given to the goveronment doesn't meat that's to whom it belongs, there's a reason why it's called "holy mattrimony," not something else. 4. No, they were just as able to adopt as before, why they chose to do so more frequently is not my concern. 5. Big difference, marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman, nothing else, Egyptian Culture may have had it, but that was because marriage wasn't for the goveronment to decide, so a couple perverts decided they were married, just vlike murder happening in ancient china doiesn't mean it was legal. 6. I didn't say that, I only said that coorelation is not causation, you need to prove the coorelation to be consistent, otherwise I could flip it and say that it means the opposite.
Gay Marriage

Due to some comments harrytruman made in a few forum posts, I decided to challenge him to a debate on gay marriage with him as con and me as pro. Structure:Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening Statements from Pro, Rebuttals from ConRound 3 - Defense from Pro, Opening Statements from ConRound 4 - Rebuttals from Pro, Defense from ConRules:1) No hate speech/ slander2) No kritiks3) No plagiarism4) Please use citations5) No forfeiture6) No troll arguments7) BoP is sharedThank you.
All Religions (From Catholicism to Buddhism) either Change the Bible or are Iliogical

Jrardin12, I find that your post in the last round does not talk about the main issue of authority. Also it seems that you are dodging the question of what tradition or church that you defend. Is it your own? Every single church claims to be the true biblical church that Christ mentions, But all of them teach differently. I have three main questions, And then I hope you get to refuting my arguments that I made earlier: 1. Why do you dismiss oral traditions? 2. Where in the Bible does it say to teach bible alone? 3. Where is your authority to interpretation the bible and why do you think that your interpretation is correct.
All Religions (From Catholicism to Buddhism) either Change the Bible or are Iliogical

Hello Jrardin12! I am elated that we can debate such an important topic as Christianity, As I'm sure we can both agree there are numerous misconceptions that are placed upon it. However, And where this debate starts, You assert that you know of a true Christianity and decidedly denounce all other religions/takes on Christianity in place of this form of Christianity. I just have a few questions for you that I hope we can clear up to make this a fantastic debate! (1. ) What form of Christianity are you defending? This is very important as there are tens of thousands of different sectors of Christianity, All with different takes on the bible. (2. ) Why is your denomination true? What grants you more authority/merit than the other? (3. ) Why do you think the other denominations are false/copy and paste from the bible? a. By which church was the bible originated from and what version is true by what authority? b. Is the bible the sole authority of Christianity? I am hopeful that you answer these questions so that I can truly understand your position. I will take your response as the start to the debate and I will present my side accordingly. Happy debating Christian brother!
The Non-Aggression Principle is ethically sound

1. The debate should be impossible to accept. Finding a way to accept without permission will result in an automatic loss for Con. If you would like to accept, please say so in the comments section, and I will challenge you in a few days. 4. By accepting the debate, Con agrees to use the following definition(s) Non-Aggression Principle: the moral principle that all humans have natural rights such as life, personal liberty, and ownership of their property, and that only actions which violate another person's natural rights can be considered immoral. Ethically sound: capable of upholding moral values 5. Arguing for the nonexistence of morality is disallowed. Good luck, Con
God Does Not Exist

Opening Speech (Ragu Ram): The hypothesis of that an omnipotent and omniscient being created this world is a poor hypothesis that creates as much questions as it answers. 1. It leads to an infinite regress-for who then created God?If that question does not arise,then hypothesising a creator is an arbitrary hypothesis-not one that fits the problem situation . 2.It does not make any predictions of a new kind-every good theory uses laws to explain and also gives us predictions of a new kind. 3. Finally,the most obvious-it is does not give any angle to criticise. The basic characteristic of a rational/scientific explanation is that it is arguable and critisisable.It leads back to my point no.1:it is simply chosen ad hoc-plucked out of thin air -a take it or leave it thing( of course,it doesn't end there-if you don't believe you'd go to hell-how the hell else do irrationalists winj adherents-but with fear,calling names,emotive statements,etc?? ) It's pointless to debate you-you deny rational standards.Though I doubt,you'd forget to pour petrol for your car though"Every man uses the scientific method for a great many things and only ceases to do so where he does not know how" C.S.Peirce . Of course,in your case you simply don't want anybody applying scientific standards to analyse your God Delusion. Just saying.
People are unfairly prejudiced against clowns.

I'm sadden to see my opponent didn't rebuttal my claim. However, I will post my final round arguments. A phobia can be developed by a traumatic event. If you are scared by a clown than you will most likely end up developing Coulrophobia. However, that is not the only way to develop a phobia. Simply seeing someone else fear a clown can cause a fear in yourself. Once you see someone else scared of it, you start associating it will fear, and start seeing all the negatives in it. For example, even watching r a movie like "IT" and seeing the actors be afraid can spark Coulrophobia. My point is, a fear for something does not just happen. Something must trigger that fear. Either 1: you were afraid of the clown Or 2:someone else was. If it is the 1st one, that's an understandable reason to fear clowns, and is not unfair prejudice. If it is the 2nd, that's also an understandable reason. If you are walking with your friend around your neighborhood and you see a loose dog running at you. Your friend freaks out and sprints away, are you going to be afraid too? Of course, your friends fear caused you fear also, and now you fear the dog. You also fear it as you don't know about the dog, just like the children meeting a clown at a birthday party for the first time will be afraid as they know nothing about the clown. As I stated before, it is NOT unfair prejudice and it perfectly natural.
People are unfairly prejudiced against clowns.

Considering I'm taking psychology and want to major in that, I know a bit. However, I'm not fully educated. That is why you and I both can look it up on the Internet. On the Internet I looked up "psychological reason to what causes fear" and I found this article. In the article it states: "A potential for pain, or an unrecognizable event, causes fear". The unrecognizable event could be a birthday party or a circus where a clown would be. A clown is so much different than everyday life, sticks out like a sore thumb. The antics the clown is doing is so unusual, so strange, and so "unrecognizable". (Website http://www.effective-mind-control.com... ) "The clowns make up is too extreme" was something I was trying to state in my first round and above in this round. Kids are used to pretty isolated and secure locations. They aren't exposed to things so different and bizarre. It's different, it's unknown, and people fear the unknown. If you have to enter somewhere dark without any light, wouldn't you be afraid? Of course, you've never been here before. That's exactly how the kids feel seeing the clowns. Therefore, the reaction of fear is perfectly normal and understandable, not unfair prejudice.
People are unfairly prejudiced against clowns.

This seems very interesting. .. Good luck! I feel as if people aren't prejudice against them, I just feel like it is a psychological trigger like you stated. Most kids are afraid to sit next to Santa. Why would you be afraid of Santa? ! He's a jolly old man who gives you the things you want! Yet kids still cry every time they have to go up and sit on his lap. It's not prejudice, it's just a natural reaction for many kids. Besides, clowns are different than what you usually see. They stand out. The make up, the over the top antics, the costume, everything about a clown is different than what kids are use to.
People are unfairly prejudiced against clowns.

I was afraid of clowns-when I was six for Pete's sake! I mean, come on, when people on forums trash talk people who just want to bring you joy and laughter. Come on, have some respect for one of the world's most benevolent professions. Granted, there may be some human default instincts going on here. Psychologists suspect that it's instinctive for people to fear individuals that disguise their face because a person who did so could have malicious intent. This may explain why coulrophobia is so widespread.
zoos are interment camps for animals and should be shut down

Zoos are not internment camps.Many of the animals in zoos actually were species about to go extinct.Many animals were saved by zoos.Animals are fed very well and they have a very good living climat, therefor it is not an inernment camp.Animals like zoos due to the fact that zoos provide to all thier needs.Con has provided no arguments so I can say no more.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The LXX Septuagint is more reliable than the Masoretic Text

Thank you for your superb arguments, I look forward to a lively debate.==Opening arguments==C1: The date My partner claims that "older is better," which I concede to, TO AN EXTENT. However, unfortunately for my partner, his date is a little off. The Masoretic texts are not from 1000 CE; rather, they are from 200 BCE. It is true that they have copied and edited some of the texts between 7th and 10th centuries; however, there is very little differents from the different texts. [1] C2: The languageThe LXX is just a translation of the Hebrew texts in Greek whereas the masoretic texts are in Hebrew. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the Masoretic texts are closer to the Hebrew scriptures than the LXX.C3: The completionThe LXX is just a copy of the Torah, not the Old Testament (which my partner concedes to). [2] However, the Masoretic texts are a complete copy of the Old Testament. Hence, it reflects the original Hebrew Bible the BEST (as the resolution claims). C4: Corruption in the LXXSurprisingly, the LXX is corrupt and not the original. Dr. F.F. Bruce notes: The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles. [3] In Acts 7:14 we read this: "Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls."The only problem is that the Torah contradicts this. Where did Luke get his numbers? The LXX! [4] Likewise, the LXX lists 75 twice and the corret number (70) once in Deuteronomy. [5] Thank you. References1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. The rest of the LXX was preserved by Christians and written much later than the original LXX.3. F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, p.150. quoted http://www.outreachjudaism.org...4. http://www.lookinguntojesus.net...;5. You can confirm this by the reading of the LXX online http://ecmarsh.com...;
The LXX Septuagint is more reliable than the Masoretic Text

I will argue that the Masoretic texts are more reliable than the LXX. First, I should point out a flaw right away in my partner's opening: the 72 rabbis only translated the Torah. That was the original LXX. To prove this, I shall use two *perhaps three* documents which I will elaborate in my opening round. Good luck :-)
The LXX Septuagint is more reliable than the Masoretic Text

I'm looking for an opponent who is willing to debate which of the two versions of the Old Testament is most reliable and most probably reflects the original Hebrew bible best. Rules : (1) Round 1 is for acceptance and amendments to rules and definitions only. (2) Rounds 2-4 are for opening arguments and rebuttals. (3) Round 4 is exclusively for rebuttals and closing arguments. No new arguments may be presented in this round. (4) No slanderous or derogatory language will allowed. (5) All sources must be referenced. (6) Plagiarism is forbidden. If anyone is caught plagiarising, it will result in automatic defeat. Definitions : LXX Septuagint : The Greek translation of the Hebrew bible that was translated by 72 Jewish scribes in the 2nd century BC . It is mostly used by Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox churches. Masoretic Text : The text primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. It is accepted as the authoritative version of the Hebrew bible by Modern Jews. It is used mostly by Modern Jews and Protestants. References : [1] http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org...