BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
is it likely that a god created the universe or not

The BoP is shared.I thank my opponent for accepting. I will be affirming that God is likely to exist, and therefore, likely created the universe... This is my first debate on this site. It would be reasonable to first define "God".God - "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe" (1)Universe - "All space-time, matter, and energy"(2)The first argument I wish to commend is what is commonly know as the 'cosmological argument from contingency'P = PremiseP1: All physical things have contingent existenceP2: The universe is contingentP3: The universe depends on something that is non-contingent and external to the universe to existC: It is likely God exists, and created the universeTo elaborate on my first premise, every physical thing that exists, depends on something else for its existence. For example, human life is dependant on our sun etc. This premise is valid for it is induced as a posteriori. (4)To elaborate on my second premise, it is logically reasonable to attribute the universe to having a contingent existence, for all of its' contents has contingent existence. Analogy: If a planet is blue, and exists completely composed from blue elements, compounds etc. It would be logical to induce that planet as a "blue planet".To elaborate on my third premise, if everything that we have observed is contingent, it means that it depends on something else to exist. If the universe is contingent, it relies on something else to exist. Since every physical entity has contingent existence, a physical entity could not of initiated the existence of everything else, for that would have to be dependent on another thing to exist. Therefore, the entity to initiate the chain of contingent entities, would have to be non-physical, and external to the universe. This being would have to be God. By this definition, this deity would have to be transcendental.Conclusion: Therefore, God is likely to exist, because from our current observations of the universe, everything has contingent existence - the entity that has to initiate it would have to be God, for the being would have to be outside space, therefore, transcendental.(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(3) base knowledge for this argument - http://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://www.merriam-webster.com...I have another argument or two, but I will refrain, for I don't know whether my opponent will respond or not.Nonetheless, over to you, Con.
is it likely that a god created the universe or not

i think that god is likely to have creeated the universe. Me and my friend were discussing this at school today. i am here to tell you what my view on it is.for someone to accept this debate, in round one they have to say 'i accept' (nothing else at all. really, nothing.) and nothing else, otherwise it will be an automatic loss on their side.round two, three and four are rounds for arguing. the last round is for a quick summary.good luck to anyone who accepts this :) i want a serious debate.
Guns should be criminalised on utilitarian grounds

Unlike the UK, the USA"s Second Amendment (1791) protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Which country has less gun crime? And does less gun crime make for society that better fulfills utilitarian principles? Guns have many negatives and (as far as I can see) little positives. Here is a list of the 25 deadliest mass shootings in US history. [1] Now the question is whether the suffering caused in these shootings and more outweighs the positives of owning guns. The positives of guns as far as I can see are for sport (although hunting is the only example of a sport which requires guns that kill, and this undoubtedly causes more suffering than pleasure). Then there is the positive of giving you the right to have the best form of self-defense available. This is the argument which has the most power against the utilitarian, however, I do not see it as showing that more pleasure is caused than pain. Self-defence requires tools that prevent harm to yourself. However, is a gun the best form of self-defense available? The best form of self-defense would firstly be easy to use, secondly be sufficient to defend you and thirdly cause the least amount of harm possible to the assailant whilst still preventing them. In all three of these areas (although it only needs to be better in 2 to be the better tool for protection) I believe that stun guns and tasers are superior to guns. 1.Tasers and stun guns are as easy to use as guns with just the trigger needing to be pulled. [2] 2.Tasers and stun guns are sufficient defence. "TASER devices will shock your attacker for 30 seconds allowing you to drop the device and easily get to safety." [2] They can be fired multiple times if needed. 3.Whilst tasers have been known to kill, cases of deaths are very low compared to deaths caused by guns. For a utilitarian society it is necessary to restrict some freedoms for the greater happiness of its citizens. Just as we have enforced speed limits on our roads we should have a ban on guns. The pleasure gained by going over the speed limit is not proportionate to the pain it can cause. In the same way this applies to guns and drugs. Furthermore, utilitarianism sees all persons as equal so why should you have a right to kill another in self-defence. Are they not of equal importance under utilitarian grounds? Regardless, guns are not the most utilitarian form of defence and have no other benefits that outweigh the negatives. Therefore, I believe guns should be banned. I look forward to your response. [1] http://edition.cnn.com... [2] http://www.stun-gun-defense-products.com...
Do Muslims Worship The Moon And Is Allah A Moon god? (In memory of Khalid Stainless Critic)

Almighty Allah in the Noble Quran directly refuted arguments like this in the Qur'an : "Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Adore not the sun and the moon , but adore Allah , Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve. (The Noble Quran, 41:37) " https://quran.com... This verse clearly portrays that the moon is just one of the signs of the ALLAH. Muslims do not believe in worshiping idols or moon. No Muslim holds the belief that the reason why the Crescent is the Muslims' symbol on their flag is because Muhammad (peace be upon him) had cut the moon in half with his sword neither do Muslims believe the Crescent represent a god. That is a fabricated lie about Muhammad and Islam. The reason why the Crescent is the symbol on our flag is because we start our fasting month "Ramadan" when the Crescent appears, and we end that month when the full moon appears after 30 or 31 days of the Crescent's appearance. From another perspective, Imagine someone in the dark, having no light with him, when the moon appears, it provides light that guides such person through the darkness, The Moon here represents Islam that gives us light through the darkness of this world. We read in the Qur'an, "They ask thee Concerning thew Moons. Say: They are but signs To mark fixed periods of time In (the affairs of) men, And for Pilgrimage. It is no virtue if ye enter the houses from the back: It is virtue if ye fear Allah. Enter houses Through the proper doors: And fear Allah: That ye may prosper. (The Noble Quran, 2:189) ". https://quran.com... As we clearly see in the Noble Verse, moon is nothing but a tool used by the Muslims. It is not God Almighty to us rather a creation of Allah(SWT) nor do we Muslims believe it is an object of worship. No where was it written in the Quran that ALLAH is a moon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.godallah.com... https://www.britannica.com... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.answering-christianity.com...
Do Muslims Worship The Moon And Is Allah A Moon god? (In memory of Khalid Stainless Critic)

It has been a widely spread propaganda that Muslims worship the moon and that Allah is a moon god. It is then expedient that we listen to arguments that are being used to back this propaganda up, analyzing them one after the other and thoroughly refute the propaganda. Since the pro is the one making the claim against Muslims, the burden is on him to proof that we Muslims worship the moon and that Allah, in Islam is a moon god. RULES OF THE DEBATE First round is acceptance. The pro should just say "I accept this challenge" making no further comment Second round is for presentation of arguments Third round is for rebuttals The fourth round can contain further rebuttals, presentation of points and concluding arguments. NOTE: This debate is not about who wins or not. If possible, no one should vote. The main purpose is for students of knowledge to learn from it. The pro should read the rules and obey them. This debate is held in memory of Bro Khalid Stainless Critic, May Allah grant him Jannah. Ameen. "we are coming too Bro"
Why Basketball Is Better Then Soccer

There are many great reasons why basketball is better than Soocer! Reason 1 : Basketball is played on a higher intensity than Soccer! In basketball every possession is key and the presence of the expiring shot clock means that there is always something going on the court.The game of basketball is so back and forth that there is never a dull moment. One minute you"re playing defense and the next you"re sprinting up the court trying to get an easy score on the fast break. This is a great thing because that means nobody is walking around and everyone is doing something. Reason 2: Basketball has a lot less injures than Soccer! One reason soccer is not healthy is because of injuries. Of course, injuries happen in both sports. But soccer is a contact sport and basketball is not. You can slide tackle in soccer, and a bad slide tackle can easily injure the opponent. And sometimes, soccer players hurt their opponent intentionally. In basketball none of this is tolerated. The slightest contact is punished in basketball, making the sport much safer. Soccer is more dangerous than basketball. According to (men's) basketball, has 1 casualties per million, and soccer has 2 casualties per million. Casualty: Permanent Disability, or non-permanent brain/spinal cord injuries can all happen in Soccer.. These statistics come from high school sports in the USA. Other injures that happen very often in Soccer are Ankle injures, Knee injures and Back injures. Sometimes even they get injured on their head.
God Does Not Exist

Introduction We both forfeited a round, which makes this, unfortunately, a two round debate. Rebutting My Opponent Con states: "Analogous to the given statement 'God does exist', substantiation in dismissal of theism is incorrect, similarly substantiation to the dismissal of atheism is invalid. In contrast, it is valid to assert that atheism is more probapabilistic than theism due to unnessecary presence of theological affirmation, upon which is testimonial to cosmological origin." - Con My argument is more strong than that however. My argument isn't that Atheism is more likely because theism is unnecessary, it is that theism is necessarily false; therefore, Atheism is necessarily true. My opponent gives a quote from Steven Hawking: "One cant prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary." - Stephen Hawking However, I am not using science to disprove God. I am showing that the concept of a timeless mind is logically incoherent. This has nothing to do with empirical evidence. My Opponent's Arguments "Demonstration of my premise is sustainable of theological possibility, by reference to cosmological occurrence, in which cause asserts definitional correspondence to 'God'" - Con The definition of the God that my opponent accepted by accepting this debate was: "The transcendent mind that created all of time and space" A mere "cause" is not sufficient to prove the God I defined in this debate. Failure to abide by rules, such as definitions is a no no. Hopefully, this is not what he is doing. Either way, this argument: "P1: Effect is Consequent to Causality, therefore X - Y P2: Cosmological occurrence is an event(Y) characterised by a cause(X) P3: By contrast to the validity of previous premises, due to neccasary inclusion of temporality for the applicability of a cosmological cause, in process X - Y is simultaneously produced. C: Causation and effect progress simultaneously, in which space-time is incident to causality." First of all, the argument isn't even logically valid. This means, it is a non-sequitur, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Either way, we cannot apply temporality to this mind (or "cause"), because the debate outline specifically defends God as a mind that transcends time and space. Thus, God has to be a timeless mind. However, I showed a contradiction in that notion that Con failed to sufficiently respond to. Therefore, my argument stands. Conclusion God, in this debate, is not just defined as a mere "cause" but the transcendant mind that caused all time and space. Thus, the mind has to be timeless, and not temporality can be applied at this atemporal state of affairs by definition. My argument against God stands; the resolution has been affirmed.
God Does Not Exist

I appreciate my opponents response and his/her selection of argumentative content. For the given argument I will maintain reference of the Big Bang Theory in support of my proposition. In the given argument my proposition proceeds to state: Analogous to the given statement"God does exist", substantiation in dismissal of theism is incorrect, similarly substantiaton to the dismissal of atheism is invalid . In contrast, it is valid to assert that atheism is more probapabilistic than theism due to unnessecary presence of theological affirmation, upon which is testimonial to cosmological origin. One cant prove that God doesnt exist, but science makes God unnecessary." ~ Stephen Hawking Demonstration of my premise is sustainable of theological possibility, by reference to cosmological occurence, in which cause asserts definitional correspondence to "God". P1: Effect is Consequent to Causality, therefore X - Y P2: Cosmological occurence is an event(Y) characterised by a cause(X) P3: By contrast to the validity of previous premises, due to neccasary inclusion of temporality for the applicability of a cosmological cause, in process X - Y is simultaneously produced. C: Causation and effect progress simultaneously, in which space-time is incident to causlity. Further development of my argument with concern to the presence of mental concioness prior to cosmological causality will proceed within the succeeding rounds. Sources http://www.iep.utm.edu... http://rationalatheism.tumblr.com... http://plato.stanford.edu... http://plato.stanford.edu...
God Does Not Exist

I think my definition of God is a fair one, and one that most theists who are philosophically inclined would probably agree with. What I like about my argument is that it tears down even a quite generic version of God, instead of just the specific omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient being commonly discussed about in the literature. The ArgumentMy argument is simple:P1: If God exists, a non-temporal mind can existP2: A non-temporal mind cannot existC: Therefore, God does not exist The argument is valid Modus Tollens ("If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P. "[1). The question that remains pertains as to what justification there is to believe the premises are actually true. Defense of P1If God exists, then sans ("without") the creation of time, God exists as timeless (non-temporal). Since God has to be a mind, then we can deduce that if God exists; a timeless, or non-temporal mind can exist. This seems to cash out from the very definition of God used in this debate. The issue will be surrounding P2 it seems. Defense of P2 This becomes evident once we unpack the concept of timelessness, and a mind; a contradiction arises. A sufficient mind must have thoughts. “A mind” without “thoughts” is like “room” without “space”; it is simply nonsensical. What are thoughts? Thoughts are the product of thinking by definition[2][3][4]. What is thinking? Thinking is a mental action/ process by definition[5][6][7]. An action/ process entails a jump from A to B. A jump from A to B entails a change: Change is intimately bound up with, and requires time:"So construed, the notion of change is obviously bound up with notions of cause, time and motion" - Change and Inconsistency (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)[8]"Change is intimately bound up with time. " - What is philosophy? (University of Florida)[9]This is because when a change occurs that presupposes time for it to occur; or else everything just remains frozen with no movement. This means that to have thoughts, these thoughts have to be temporal. Therefore, to have a mind, the mind must be temporal. Ergo, a non-temporal mind entails a logical contradiction, and cannot be the case. ConclusionI have showed that a non-temporal mind entails a contradiction. Minds must be temporal by definition, and due to simple metaphysical principles. Since a non-temporal mind would have to be possible if God exists, and it isn't; God does not exist. "How can a nontemporal mind think? Thinking at its most generic metric requires that this mind have one state and then transition to another. " - Ben Schuldt[10] Sources[1] . http://www.philosophy-index.com...[2] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[4] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[5] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[6] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[7] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[8] . http://plato.stanford.edu...[9] . http://web.phil.ufl.edu...[10] . http://richardcarrier.wikispaces.com...
God Does Not Exist

God will be defined as: "The transcendent mind that created all of time and space" This seems to be the most popular view of God, and the one held my known defenders of Theism like William Lane Craig (who believes that God enters time at the first moment of creation). I am going to attempt to show that God does not exist, and that there cannot be a transcendent mind that created all of time and space. The first round is just for acceptance; no arguments shall be made in the first round. Failure to adhere to the rules, and the definition of God will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit.
Obese people should go to prison

First off I would like to mention that prisons are so severely overcrowded. In fact, about 115 countries have grossly overpopulated prisons. US prisons are already overcrowded. Prisons should be saved for criminals, not bad eaters. And secondly, how would you monitor if somebody was trying to lose weight? And thirdly, prison is meant to pay back your debt to society, not to get in shape. Finally, it costs 31 000 dollars to put someone in prison. These numbers just aren't realistic for obesity.
Obese people should go to prison

I think that fat people should be put to prison. I think this because in prison they would be forced to loose the weight. They are also eating all the food in America and that should not be allowed. Obese people means over 300 pounds by choice. If you are 300 pounds and trying to loose weight, you are fine. But if you are over 300 pounds and doesn't try to loose the weight, you should be put in prison. That should be the new law for the United States: If you are 300 pounds or more and not trying
College Football is better than NFL football

I will be arguing that NFL (National Football League) Football is better than College Football (Division I, II, III). [1]Contention 1: Athletic SuperiorityNFL players are faster, stronger, bigger, more agile, more technically gifted, and possess more game knowledge and experience than their college football counterparts. Unlike college football, NFL football is solely focused on just that: football. There are no longer distractions that college campuses distract student-athletes with and no exams that require studying. NFL players live, work, and play for the game itself. "Most NFL players are bigger than college football players, and this is because they have more time to dedicate to working out. They have trainers and doctors and other professionals on call to help them perfect their minds, bodies, and performance. Additionally, NFL players have access to gyms, other facilities, and products as most college football players do, however more resources go into this for a professional team than most college football teams." [2]Contention 2: College Football Should Be Banned College Football, unlike professional football played in the NFL, takes place on university campuses. The primary purpose of university and college campuses is to educate students, not to host football programs, but sadly the emphasis points toward the latter. The net effect of these football programs is to actually decrease funding for other university programs, distract students from their studies, to raise tuition costs, and to contort the meaning of higher education into a worship of football, rather than a preparing of students with knowledge and connections to get them ready for the 21st century American job market and doing high-level research to progress the human species. [4] University-age students are in a highly formative and cognitively demanding point in their lives, yet the emphasis lies in them going out onto the field every saturday to get their heads smashed in, dramatically increasing their chances of developing chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a brain condition that leads to early deaths. [3] RebuttalsMost of Pro's arguments are sentimental and emotional rather than factual or logical.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://www.hogmonster.com...;[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://online.wsj.com...;
College Football is better than NFL football

College Football is something that a solid amount of Americans enjoy on a Saturday afternoon. The same goes with NFL football on Sunday. The difference between the two, is the passion of the fans. For me, an Iowa Hawkeyes and Notre Dame fan, I enjoy watching these teams a little more than I do watching my favorite NFL team, the Chicago Bears. Now, don't get me wrong I adore the NFL, but there is something about college football that makes it better College Football has a much different feeling than NFL football. It is something a lot of Americans can get into because they may have attended the school they love. For me I like the Iowa Hawkeyes because my father attended that school and my entire family is from Iowa, they also root for them as well. My point is that it is easier to like a college football team rather than an NFL team because you can say that you attended the school. I myself can say that about the college I will be attending in 2 years. The passion of college football beats the passion of the NFL.
Ben Rothlesberger is a better quarterback than Tony Romo

Tony Romo may be a better passing QB than Ben Rothlisberger but theres more to it than that. Ben signed an 8 year contract in the 2008 offseason. He has won two super bowls with the Steelers. He has a 92.4 passing rate which is pretty good. He has 51 wins in five seasons witch is the best in the NFL. This season alone he has 35 completions, 54 attempts, 559 yards and an average of 10.4. The Steelers are 5-1 http://www.steelers.com...
Ben Rothlesberger is a better quarterback than Tony Romo

Tony Romo has a Higher Quarterback rating for his career than Ben Roethlisberger Romo QB Rating= 95.5 Big Ben QB rating=92.4 Quarterback ratings shows how a quarterback did in his career in regards to pass completions and Touchdown interception ratio. Romo has a higher passer rating so he is a better passer than Ben Roethlisberger.