BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is a lie

I apologize for not typing out the proper titles to each construct. It should have been three, as below. So you disagree with the second and third construct, or so it seems. As well as my final conclusion. Construct 1 Premise1 : If no one knows if God exists or not Premise2: And somebody claims to KNOW Conclusion: That person is a liar. Construct 2 Premise 1: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs Premise 2: Believers believe God exists, without valid evidence. Conclusion: Believers are not liars Construct 3 Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve based on lack of evidence and contradictory counter evidence (science). Premise 2: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs. Conclusion: Atheists claim to know the truth about God's existence. Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic. However, you have not adequately provided any reasoning or logic behind you presenting the opposite opinion. My opinion and argument that believers are NOT liars, are based upon a logical deduction of the two premises and the construct that follow before. First, IF someone claims to KNOW, they are a liar.... Second, believers do not claim to KNOW. They only assert that they BELIEVE. and to BELIEVE is not the same as to to KNOW. Therefore, one can logically conclude that even if the religion itself is a lie, the person who believes in the lie, is not a liar. However, in order to disbelieve a claim one can do so in two ways. based on evidence or out of ignorance. If one disbelieves a claim, based on ignorance, then that disbelief is not a lie. It's just a suspension of judgement, due to the inability to understand the claim. However, in this case the claimant can say "i can't believe!" but they cannot justifiably say "i KNOW you are wrong." Because their disbelief is based off of ignorance, rather than evidence. How could one KNOW if they are ignorant regarding the topic?" But claims that they disbelieve based on evidence (or even lack thereof), one is automatically making the assumption that they do not simply disbelieve the claim, they disbelieve based on some newly acquired KNOWLEDGE (ie. contradictory evidence.), or lack of the appropriate evidence (ie. lack of evidence), as if they KNOW what the appropriate evidence would even be. They need God to present evidence for them to believe, but even if they had evidence they would not be able to recognize it. Here atheists rely on the idea that "If God was all-knowing, he would know what would convince little ol' ME." However, this argument in itself is also illogical or based on the faulty assumption, that the little ol' atheist knows everything that the all-knowing God knows, and therefore what the all-knowing God ought to do. So even though the atheist may preface many of their arguments with a meaningless "I don't know." immediately every word following that sentence would be plenty of statements assuming knowledge.
Atheism is a lie

Construct 1 Premise1 : If no one knows if God exists or not Premise2: And somebody claims to KNOW Conclusion: That person is a liar. I agree with. Premise 1: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs Premise 2: Believers believe God exists, without valid evidence. Conclusion: Believers are not liars The proper conclusion would be that believers are liars For construct 2 I agree with the first premise but I say "don't accept claims of a god" rather than disbelieve. Premise 2 is repeat of before but the conclusion is totally wrong. The atheist has simply not accepted the God claim as true but that not does not mean it's false either. It's like in a court room. You might be found not guilty but that doesn't mean your innocent. Atheism is a rejection of a claim not an assertion of a claim. Atheists are uncovienved. That does not mean that they may not be convince if provided good evidence just not convinced at the moment. Construct 2 Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve based on lack of evidence and contradictory counter evidence (science). Premise 2: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs. Conclusion: Atheists claim to know the truth about God's existence.
Atheism is a lie

Construct 1 Premise1 : If no one knows if God exists or not Premise2: And somebody claims to KNOW Conclusion: That person is a liar. Premise 1: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs Premise 2: Believers believe God exists, without valid evidence. Conclusion: Believers are not liars Construct 2 Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve based on lack of evidence and contradictory counter evidence (science). Premise 2: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs. Conclusion: Atheists claim to know the truth about God's existence. Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.
God is IMPOSSIBLE!

"If God cannot know the future, is he really all that powerful?" Yes, yes he can. There is no reason, nor logic to suggest that just because one does not know the future, that one is not very powerful. As said, "all knowing" means knowing everything that can be known. If something cannot be known (like the future), then one can be all knowing without knowing the future. Ergo, arguments regarding knowledge of the future have no baring on whether or not something is "all knowing." "Why do we need free-will anyway?" No really related to this debate. I don't know why we need it, I simply know that we have it. But again, whether or not there is free will is not tied to the agreed definition of God. I will not argue further, as that would not be fair in the final round. So I would simply like to summarize what my goals were and how they were obtained. Since the debate was "God is Impossible," I merely need to show that God is possible, not proof for him. I provided a definition of God, and my opponent accepted it and I went to show that every aspect of that definition is logically possible, and so a "God" is logically possible aswell. Thank you.
God is IMPOSSIBLE!

This is a Strawman argument. At no time, did I use the bible in my arguments, and at no time, did I argue for the Christian God, as defined in the Bible. In fact, our agreed definitions from the get go, have been on a Generic God.No. However, I am using the same type of logic as Jesus. Obviously being figurative. A better way of saying it would be that if you are corrupt, you cannot be good. However, if you are good, you cannot be corrupt.Omniscient, as stated means "all knowing." But if we are in a village, and I am "all-owning" meaning that I own everything in the village. Does that mean I own $100,000,000,000,000,000.00? Probably not. Does that mean that I'm not all-owning? No, I simply own everything that can be owned. And to be all-knowing, one only needs to know everything that can be known. We can argue whether or not the future can be known, but given that we have free will, that future gets cloudier and cloudier the futher into it you go, and so it cannot be known with any degree of certainty.To be all-knowing, you need to know everything that can be known. If God cannot know the future, is he really all that powerful? No. And if he is all knowing and can know the future, he cannot change the future making it impossible for him to be all-knowing.Free willI was wondering when you would mention that!Most of my arguments can be found here http://www.infidels.org... Why do we need free-will anyway? Just so we can be happy? Well, if only creatures with free-will can be happy, God can make a rule that says robots can be happy, right?
God is IMPOSSIBLE!

We also stumble across several logical fallacies. Such as "a good tree cannot produce bad fruit." What is the logic for that? Surely the fruit of any tree can go bad, does this mean that every single tree is a bad tree? Where do I get that phrase? THE BIBLE! Matthew 7:18 to be exact. So you are refuting yourself. If you don't believe Matthew 7:18, how can you believe the rest of the Bible?You never refuted ANYTHING from the arguments about the other stuff. I'm interested in hearing your arguments for: 1) A Contradictory history 2) Contradictory justice 3) The imperfect revelation 4) Infinite punishment for finite sins 5) All-good God knowingly creates further suffering Our diffiniton of God was as followed deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force•a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"•idol: a material effigy that is worshipped; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god"Omnipotent, "omni" = "all" and "potent" = "power", so Omnipotent = all power or all powerful.Omniscient, "scient" (old form of "scion") = "knowledge" so omniscient = all knowing.Who Made God? According to some, nothing so complex as the universe could exist without having been designed by a creator. But where does that leave the traditional concept of God? Isn't God more complex than the universe? Doesn't God require a creator?If you say, "God doesn't require a creator" then why does God not need a creator but everything else does?As far as he being omniscient, "All knowing" then I shall go back to one of my arguments in the first round that you have not touched onGod is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible. A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. Therefore, a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful and free-will cannot possibly exist! This was based off of our definitions. Sure, you could say that God is not all-knowing, or not all-powerful, so then, what makes God any different from us?Back to you, con!
God is IMPOSSIBLE!

refutations for my opponent's argument don't need to be very indepth. My opponent is arguing based on a single view of God, and not the agreed definitions from round 1. Therefore, the entire argument is meaningless as it pertains to a debate about God in general. However, I will point out some fallacies in so that my opponent has something to counter refute. The arguement has an issue with definitions. First, it argues about "perfect" and what that is. I believe my opponent and I can agree that I what I believe is "perfect", and what he believes is "perfect", are going to be two entirely different things. Infact, what I believed was "perfect" when I was seven years old and what I believe is "perfect" now are also completely different. So what is "perfect" is completely subjective, and so cannot be measured on its own, not without a set guideline to use as a compass for it. As one was not provided by the argument, everything that falls on "perfect" in the argument is meaningless. We also stumble across several logical fallacies. Such as "a good tree cannot produce bad fruit." What is the logic for that? Surely the fruit of any tree can go bad, does this mean that every single tree is a bad tree? Of course not, that would be an illogical measure of "good." And it pulls from that flawed metaphor, that a "perfect" being cannot make something "imperfect." What is the logic behind that? I am quite able to create things at below my highest quality, as is everyone. If I can score 100% on a math test (a perfect score), I can also score 80% on that same test (an imperfect score), if I choose to. What it should say, is that a "perfect" being cannot creat something imperfect when attempting to do "perfect". I look forward to next round to defend the refutations against my argument. Thank you,
God is IMPOSSIBLE!

Hello, thanks to my opponent for a first good round.2) Controls some part of the world or some aspect of our lives.This one is simple to prove that it is possible. Are our lives 100% under our own control? No, not unless you control the lightning that strikes, the earthquakes that hit, or the wind that blows. There are things out there that control our lives to some degree other than ourselves.Okay. I can agree that we can not control earthquakes or other natural things. However, these things are just part of nature and stuff that has been around for hundreds of millions of years. a) earthquakes are caused by the shifting of plate techtonics. Not by God shaking the earth. No-one can have control over that.b) Wind blows is another natural thing. We don't have control over it. But it isn't caused by God. Wind is caused by air flowing from high pressure to low pressure. Since the Earth is rotating, however, the air does not flow directly from high to low pressure, but it is deflected to the right (in the Northern Hemisphere; to the left in the Southern Hemisphere), so that the wind flows mostly around the high and low pressure areas. This does not prove that God is possible. Just that we don't have control over 100% of nature. Lightning is produced in thunderstorms when liquid and ice particles above the freezing level collide, and build up large electrical fields in the clouds. Once these electric fields become large enough, a giant "spark" occurs between them (or between them and the ground) like static electricity, reducing the charge separation. The lightning spark can occur between clouds, between the cloud and air, or between the cloud and ground. Again. This is all perfectly normal. Nothing supernatural. Stuff like this has been happening for millions of years. This does NOT prove God.I do not understand your first supernatural argument. Your argument as a whole made no sense. Sorry if I misunderstood you.Back to con.
God is IMPOSSIBLE!

For this round, I would like to say my arguments and I will hold off on refutations until next round. As agreed with on the definitions that I provided, a God merely must be a supernatural deity which is controls some part of the world, or some aspect of our lives. In order for this to be "possible" (I don't need to show that it is true, only that it is not "impossible"), it the following need to be possible. 1) supernatural 2) controls some part of the world or some aspect of our lives. So lets look at these individually. 1) Supernatural Looking to the etymology of this word, we find that it simply means "above nature" or "greater than nature. " Is this impossible? We know that there are several teirs of power in the world, the highest known is that of nature. Nothing that we know of currently has authority greater than that of the natural laws. However, the very existance of multiple tiers, and the simple understanding that we are not omniscient (meaning we don't know everything), leads us to understand that there are things of which we don't know. And since we don't know what those things are, they could be anything, including an authority greater than nature. So is a supernatural being true? I don't know. Is it possible? Yes. 2) Controls some part of the world or some aspect of our lives. This one is simple to prove that it is possible. Are our lives 100% under our own control? No, not unless you control the lightning that strikes, the earthquakes that hit, or the wind that blows. There are things out there that control our lives to some degree other than ourselves. With these, I have shown that a generic god is not impossible. Thank you,
God is IMPOSSIBLE!

My opponent has not defined "God" so I shall do so now. Since there are many different Gods from different religions, and since my opponent never gave any inkling to any particular religion, we must assume that he ment the generic God, rather than a specific God. According to Princeton dictionary [1] - God - •the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions •deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force •a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men" •idol: a material effigy that is worshipped; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god" I believe that we should also go ahead and define "omnipotent" and "omniscient," since those will likely be the focus of the debate (even though many claim that God is merely the creator and need not be perfect to be God, and I also take that view, and will argue it, but I want these terms defined anyway) Omnipotent, "omni" = "all" and "potent" = "power", so Omnipotent = all power or all powerful. Omniscient, "scient" (old form of "scion") = "knowledge" so omniscient = all knowing. I will let my opponent begin his argument to prove that God is logically impossible. [1] http://www.google.com...=
In Terms of Public Policy Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Good President

I would like to also propose to pro that we do not use sites that have a clear bias for/against FDR. By this I mean that I won't use sources like redstate, fox news, etc, and you won't use sources like HuffPost, MSNBC, etc. I think this is useful as I would rather not nitpick at sources that I think have a bias, and just focus on the debate instead. That is all, good luck to you and I look forward to an exciting debate!
In Terms of Public Policy Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Good President

Franklin D. Roosevelt (a.k.a FDR) the 32nd President of the United States (1933–1945) and a central figure in world events during the mid-20th century, leading the United States Good as defined as "to be desired or approved of" - https://www.google.ca...Public Policy defined as: " the governing policy within a community as embodied in its legislative and judicial enactments which serve as a basis for determining what acts are to be regarded as contrary to the public good" this will include said policies, their analysis/effectiveness/impacts of those decisions. In short: for me to meet my BOP I must show that FDR's policies was desireable and/or approved of, similarily, CON must show opposite, that FDR's policies was not indeed approved of, or desireable. Standard DDO CC (Code of Conduct) shall apply here. (No semantics, ad homs, et cetera...)Con may either just accept in round one, or make his case in round one, he has his option. If he takes the latter (makes his case in round one) in round 4 he may only type in a goodbye of his choosing with "as agreed upon in round one" in the statement, failure to do so results in forefits. Goodluck and have fun
Rock vs Paper vs Scissors - Fight for Supremacy

So I'm trying this again since my last opponent forfeited early. Throughout the history of Debate.org, it has brought you many of the most notable debates on politics, religion, sports, entertainment, and many other fascinating subjects. Today, though, we tackle a new epic debate of which the subject matter has never been fully explored. There is one debate that has been raging throughout the years, re-enacted millions upon millions of times in far-flung reaches of the globe. It is fought over time and again in homes and schools, in burgeoning cities and in the serene countryside. After countless battles, this conflict is not one step closer to its final resolution than the day it first began. No side can conquer; no side will yield. Unchecked, it may well continue until the last human being on Earth has perished. This scourge must end. And it shall. Today, we bring the antagonists together for one deciding battle, to end the conflict that has torn us all, to proclaim a final champion. And so it begins with those time-hallowed words: "On three -- one, two, three!" Yes folks, it's Rock vs Paper vs Scissors in a fight where one must finally triumph and stand over his foes. As Pro, I will make the case that if any one of the three must become the Supreme Champion, it is Rock. Con must therefore present a convincing argument that either Paper or Scissors could win this bout. The first round will be acceptance only and the naming of either Paper or Scissors for Con to represent. The second round will be opening arguments and clash. The third round will be clash, and the fourth round will be clash and concluding arguments. Thank you for reading, and good luck to whoever accepts this debate.
Civil Disobedience should not be used as a form of political change

Thanks for accepting by the way. First off I would like to state I never meant to encourage civil disobedience, I simply stated it was needed in order for the United States to be what it is today. I cannot argue against the issues in Syria, for this is simply a case where "civil disobedience" has not worked. Yet if you look at the entire United States history, civil disobedience has helped create the country that we live in as I said before. Once again, if we had not been disobedient against the British, the United States wouldn't be a country. There was no peaceful or lawful way of starting a new country away from the British without civil disobedience. In some cases you are right that it may take a toll on social stability and economical stability, but sometimes in order to get rid of laws that are immoral or unjust and to achieve certain freedoms civil disobedience is the only tool in the box so to say. A democracy is for the people. You need to listen to the people. 90% of the people would never want murder to be legal, it is just illogical to put that scenario into place. But if 90% of the people wanted anything, the government should listen. If 90% of the people in the country are not getting their say (which would be why they would be marching) then clearly the government should give the 90% percent what they want. A democracy is for the people. There are indeed many alternatives to civil disobedience, yet there are not many cases in which any of these have helped out a country to as big an extent as civil disobedience has to India with Gandhi or the United States. "And if you were to tally all the actions of civil disobedience, you will find that it does more harm than good." Civil disobedience may have not worked out in more cases than it worked, yet the times it did work, the results changed everything, almost every time for the better of the people. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement clearly was worth the deaths of some of the people that died. It was for the better of the people in the end. Civil disobedience might come with a cost, but the importance of the outcome is all that matters. You are correct in saying that it can cause trouble, but if civil disobedience is used correctly it can be a great help to the government officials, who are sometimes blind. The purpose of a democracy is to reflect the views of the people and best serve the interests of the people. Since Democracy is flawed and government officials might not reflect the people, the people sometimes need to used civil disobedience. I am not saying it is something that should be encouraged, but if a majority of people in the country have an issue that is not being answered by the government in which they elected and nothing else can be done, what other choice do they have?