BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Existence of God

Cosmological Argument: My opponent asserts that the same rules of causation apply to the Universe as they apply to God. The issue with this is that recent scientific data implicates that the universe began to exist. This does NOT mean that it lasted eternally much as the steady-state theory (or my opponent) implies. Even without scientific evidence its philosophically obvious that something physical can only exist in a finite sense. Another evidence that the universe had a beginning is the impossibility of actual physical infinites. Such infinites would cause mathematical impossibilities. For more information read on the absurdity of Hilbert's Hotel ^1. Therefore, since we established that the universe is not separate from its need for a cause the argument still follows that the cause of the universe must transcend time, space and matter. This is due to the fact that the universe encompasses all time, space and matter. Such a description leaves us with an excellent starting point for the existence of God. Teleological Argument The fine-tuning of the universe can not be due to necessity as it is both logically and mathematically possible that the constants can be different. The difference however, lies in the result of the changes of those constants which would end in the non-existence of life. The chance explanation fails when you look at the sheer unlikelihood. Such a possibility is less than one winning the lottery 7 times in a row. Now I ask you to play along with this analogy. If you saw an individual win the lottery 7 times in a row, which is more likely? It is virtually impossible that this occurred by chance and infinitely more likely that this person rigged the results. Therefore, if its not by chance and not by necessity it is due to design. Argument from Objective Morality My opponent seems to contest that objective morality is true. This is, to me, a properly basic fact. Certain things based on our own moral intuition are basically wrong, for example, cold murder, genocide, rape and torture. Other things like charity, love and generosity are basically good. It is the burden of my opponent to prove that morality is not objective as objectivity need only be demonstrated.
Existence of God

I will now proceed to refute his claims. ============================================================================ Kalam Cosmological Argument 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause (2) The universe began to exist (3) Therefore the universe has a cause (4) The cause of the universe must be causeless, immaterial, timeless, changeless and personal (5) This uncaused cause is a description of God (6) Therefore God exists I will begin by first disputing my opponent's second claim that the universe began to exist. If 'god' was causeless then the same can easily be applied to the universe. Argument's for god's causelessness usually revolve around time and space being constructs of god's, therefore god supersedes them. I contend that time and space are constructs of the universe as a whole and therefore prior to the existence of the universe(pre-big bang) time and space did not exist. Therefore the universe is in a unique position to not need a cause, for the same reason that god does not need a cause. ============================================================================ Teleological Argument (1) There are three possible explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe; necessity, chance or design (2) The fine-tuning is not due to necessity (3) The fine-tuning is not due to chance as the probability is vanishingly small (4) Therefore the fine-tuning is due to intelligent design My opponent has not backed up his claims as to why the alleged fine tuning of the universe could not be due to necessity so I will wait for him to prove that in the next round. My opponent has also not shown why chance could not be a cause. He only claims that there is a small probability. However, as my opponent pointed out there still exists a chance that fine tuning of the universe is due to chance. I will wait for my opponent to prove that it is impossible that chance is the reason for the alleged fine tuning of the universe. ============================================================================ Argument form objective morality (1) Without God, objective morality can not exist (2) Objective morality does exist (3) Therefore, God exist My opponent has failed to show why objective morality does exist and why it cannot exist independent of a god. I will also wait for my opponent to clarify in the next rouns. As of now these are merely baseless assumptions and need to be backed up with reason and evidence before I can refute them.
Existence of God

I'd like to begin by explaining my methodology. In this debate I will be laying out 3 arguments for the existence of God. These arguments will lay out a cumulative case for the existence of God. In order for my opponent to win in this debate, he must first tear down my three arguments and in place of those, erect his own argument for the non-existence of God. If my opponent is unable to do this then I think the voters should vote Pro. The first argument is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The premises of the argument are as follows: (1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause (2) The universe began to exist (3) Therefore the universe has a cause (4) The cause of the universe must be causeless, immaterial, timeless, changeless and personal (5) This uncaused cause is a description of God (6) Therefore God exists The second argument is known as the Teleological Argument which states that the constants for the universe are finely-tuned for the existence of life. The premises of the argument based on these findings are as follows. (1) There are three possible explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe; necessity, chance or design (2) The fine-tuning is not due to necessity (3) The fine-tuning is not due to chance as the probability is vanishingly small (4) Therefore the fine-tuning is due to intelligent design The final argument is the Argument from Objective Morality (1) Without God, objective morality can not exist (2) Objective morality does exist (3) Therefore, God exist I await to hear my opponent's refutations!
Libertarian Socialism

It seems I may have gotten a troll. I would ask con to re-think their approach and offer actual arguments in the next round.I also would like to point out that con is using baseless insults, and should be penalized by voters by voting for me for the point in conduct. I clearly stated in the first round "no ad hominem, personal attacks, insults". Now, moving onto my argument, I will keep it short since I suspect this is going to be a waste of my time since my opponent so far is not taking this seriously. Socialism is ideal because it is the democratic control of the means of production. If you hold democracy as a value, then it would make sense to support socialism. The common economic system we have today is capitalism, and under it you have business owners who get to make decisions about the employees without the employees having a say in it whatsoever. This is tyranny. An alternative to this, would be the cooperative ownership of the means of production. Worker cooperatives are democratic businesses owned by the workers. They basically are a business that is democratic and upholds our democratic ideals.Now, why libertarianism? The libertarian aspect of libertarian socialism is important because because libertarianism upholds the golden rule. You wouldn't like it if people forced their views on you, so why should you get to force your views on other people? Above all else, all of our rights should be protected, and in authoritarianism(the opposite of libertarianism) things are forced on people against their will. The state should not be trusted with too much power and authority, otherwise you start imposing your own view on other people through the state, which is wrong. I will turn this over to my opponent.
Libertarian Socialism

Rules:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, insults2) All of the rounds minus one should be used for argument, in order to keep the number of rounds used for argument even between us.If either of the above rules are violated, voters should award the point for conduct to the other person who did not violate them or who did so to a lesser degree.Definition:Libertarian Socialism: "a group of anti-authoritarian political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy, as well as the state itself. It criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace. Instead, it emphasizes workers' self-management of the workplaceand decentralized structures of political organization. It asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. "[1] While this is a long definition, it is a complete one. If my opponent objects to any of the above rules or the definition, say so in comments before accepting the debate. Otherwise, it will be assumed you accept these. We will then work out new rules and/or a definition. Source:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Which franchise has helped the world more? STAR TREK or Star Wars? I am a TREKIE!

Star Wars was born in cinemas while Star Trek only made the leap to feature films two years after Star Wars forever changed blockbuster filmmaking. After Return of the Jedi, the Star Wars franchise took a 16 year hiatus but Star Trek kept steadily churning out film after film. Now the count stands at 11 Star Trek Films to 6 Star Wars films. Despite Star Trek"s strength in numbers it appears the academy favours the consistently top tier FX and production values of Star Wars: the Skywalker saga has earned 25 Academy Award Nominations and won 10. Comparatively, Star Trek has 14 nominations and 1 win. Read more at http://whatculture.com...
Which franchise has helped the world more? STAR TREK or Star Wars? I am a TREKIE!

I will say who i choose to go up, the problem is taht i can't get the acceptance settings to work so i can't make it impossible to accept PRO (me) is for star trek while con (other/person who is wrong) lol is star wars. this debate is about whether star wars or star trek has contributed more to humanity. In this case it's mostly about tech but is also about philosophy and intelligence gain. THIS IS WHY I BASICALLY KNOW THIS IS RIGGED. Star Trek is made for intelligent people and star wars is a sci fi fantasy movie based on action and adventure. First round is acceptance, and an opening speech for your side of the argument, my opening speech will come first in the second round. OPENING SPEECH MUST HAVE NO PROOF OR SOURCES, NO EVIDENCE OR ANY DEBATING. The opening statement is to tell them why you're here and that you're here. 2: first arguments 3: rebuttals/more arguments 4:counter-rebuttals, fixing arguments, and the last arguments 5: closing statement. I (going first) will be able to make one last rebuttal but since i can't debate your rebuttal you cannot. So that it's fair as in first man in last man out So i get to farirly counter every one of yours the same way as you get to counter mine. DEBATE IS FORFEITED AND I WON. I have already won via a forfeit since I must redo this debate, con did not ask like I requested and therefore lost. Star Trek has better design, and I was talking about the real world, the first flip phones that started the idea of phones other than telegrams (basically started the better era of tech) came from kirk's communicator. The tricorder is being made even now, cloaking devices are being researched, phasers exist, and geordi's visor is being made today. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE AN ARGUMENT LIKE THIS ONE! !! : star wars has helped the world more because without star wars we would not have a conceptof cool weapons and star ships, far better than star trek that everyone thinks is noobs because they do Nothing on the scale of what star wars does heck we faught two wars in all the movies and it was awesome and in all the shows of trek they did nothing of vital importance thus the world has learned more about space and conflict from star wars than star treck.
what the absolute minimum needed to believe to be saved is not clear

My opponent is talking gibberish now, and is not presenting anything in any logical format. I think my opponent is trying to make an attack on my argument when he/she says 'what must I believe to be saved?' As from the previous debate, my opponent has a knack for asking flawed questions. And so I must reiterate. To be saved, there is belief involved and there is practical work to be involved. The Bible lists 5 'steps' that must be done in order to be saved. Notice how only one of them is actual believe. All the others are different works. Hearing (Romans 10:17) Believing the Gospel (Mark 16:16) (Hebrews 11:6) (Hebrews 5:8,9) Repentance (Luke 13:3) Confess Christ (Matthew 10:32) Be baptised (Acts 2:38) I am fairly certain this is what my opponent was asking of me. Now, looking at what my opponent said in a completely unintelligible rambling: 'what if a person is just learning what must be believed? then your theory of believing everything would preclude them from salvation.' To start, it is not my theory because it isn't a theory, its a practice. Secondly, unless my opponent can justify how this practice of believing everything can preclude them from salvation, my argument will hold firm. I am under the impression that we are from different belief systems in Christianity and m opponent is going ahead and making assumptions about what I believe. Please don't. The rest of my opponents text does not contain any new arguments or notable material. I must ask him/her to please make a better structured argument in future as this is really hard to read and refute. My thanks.
what the absolute minimum needed to believe to be saved is not clear

you are missing the point of the debate. if someone comes up to you and says what must i believe to be saved? and you say "believe everythign in the bible", then you gave an unbiblical response. there are places in teh bible that give an appropriate response. eg, confess with your mouth that jesus is Lord and believe that he rose from the dead. ask any evangelical, and they will at least give you the "sinner's prayer". albeit each one varies to some extent and is moreso the essence of this debate comparing notes. what if a person is just learning what must be believed? then yuour theory of believing everything would preclude them from salvation. absurd. and you're also going beyond dogmatic, you're including in your creed of salvation everything in the book. no one would ever get it all. and what about honest disagreements within the book? is it okay to at least have some differences in belief while takign it all or nothing? and so we must conclude given what you said that a person is not at liberty to reject something that they think might be true, without condemning themself? that flies against all of christian belief, any religioin that's ever been known. so if they believe that Jesus is savior,thtey are a sinner, they believe in the atonement, that Jesus is God, that he rose from the dead etc etc... but they don't believe in teh trinity, that they are condemned? it's a novel belief, unheard of for sure.
what the absolute minimum needed to believe to be saved is not clear

Greetings affirmative team. I accepted this debate after making a bet with myself that I would or would not be able to decipher what you are trying to say. After reading through your slab of text I have concluded that the only sentence really worth noting is the last one. What one must believe is not clear or taught very well. The Bible makes a very clear cut as to what we are to believe: Everything. There is nothing in the New Testament that you can discredit without discrediting the lot. There is nothing the Bible claims as optional to believe. It only gives facts required for our benefit. The old testament gives historical facts about the Hebrew nation, the New Testament gives a historical account of the life and times of Christ as well as the first century church. It gives us the morals we abide by and the organisation and running of the church. I fail to see what my opponent asks when she states: 'what one must believe is not clear or taught very well.' I assume she is under the illusion that somethings in the New testament are not needed to be believed. If that is the case, I challenge my opponent to provide an example of such an incident. I predict that she will be unable to find any piece of information in the New Testament that can be discredited without undermining the entire Covenant. I am not saying that proving one part of the New Testament proves the lot, but I am saying that doubting one part means you are questioning the lot in its entirety. So moving back to the topic, 'The absolute minimum needed to believe to be saved' is a flawed statement. You must believe it all.
what the absolute minimum needed to believe to be saved is not clear

what the absolute minimum needed to believe is not clear. this debate is beyond the "faith v works" debate and is simply in the realm of what faith is required to be saved. i am not saying this in terms of seeking to do or believe the minimum such as to "do as little as i have to to get saved". i ask christians and they say "believe in jesus". then i point out that the devil does as even the bible says. so they say believe he's your savior. then i point out that some believe that different people see that differently... a good message or atonement etc. a fundamentalist would say a good message is not sufficient. so... you have to believe in atonement is one element. but then there's various beliefs in atonement, "christus victor" v "substitionary" etc. but then the bible has lots of places where it says what to believe. "confess with your lips that he is lord and believe that he has risen and you will be saved". that doesn't really define what "Lord" is though, thoug h in any case all this atonement stuff may not be necessary after all. but what if they do beleive in atonement and all this other stuff, but dont' know to believe that he was risen? or what if they find that piece of evidence insufficient for belief but believe everything else? most christians just say "believe he's savior and you're good". and what if you don't like this "savior" stuff given it's a loaded word. what if you just "relied" on Jesus instead, and acknowledged that you're a sinner, wouldn't that be enough? well it's not confesing and beleiving all that stuff, though no one said that was teh end all be all of what's required. some don't believe he's god... is that okay? a dogamatic would start to list things you must believe. then i point out that that's dogmatic, and most would shy away from that. if it's too short though, they don't like the vagueness or the possibilities they are forgoing for the sake of an easy answer... it's a brutal issue when you get down to it. they want to have their cake... easy answer... and eat it too.. not giving a clear answer. you have people who are new to the religion and one wouldn think couldn't be held responsible to everything to a T, and you have those who have honest disagreements over what doctrines should be belieeved and what shouldn't. and even if they knew of one doctrine and rejected what tehy knew... what is the minimum they'd have to believe? they can do the "confess with your mouth" stuff and reject say the trinity and be condemned for it? basically everyone is at different stages. it seems the right conclusion is it depends on hwere you are in your walk. so... beyond the whole faith v works debate.. even in terms of faith... what one must believe is not clear or taught very well.
what the absolute minimum needed to believe to be saved is not clear

I would like to start by attacking my opponents claims that you don't have to believe everything in the bible in order to be saved. To start, my opponent failed to reason why you don't need to believe everything in the Bible. That was directly after I questioned her about it. All throughout this debate I have been arguing that the absolute minimum amount that is needed to be believed to be saved is everything. There is nothing in the Bible that gives you an option of believing. History doesn't work that way. So time and again I still have to say, this resolution is flawed. My opponents arguments are flawed because she works from the assumption that the resolution is correct, which is what I am debating against as Con. So Since this is the final round, I've technically gotten all my arguments through for free since she has been debating something completely different. The resolution is that the absolute minimum to be saved is not clear. I have been debating that the bible makes it explicit that everything must be believed in order for salvation. Doubting one part would mean you are a very, very flawed sect of Christianity. my opponent has been arguing that it isn't clear what must be done for salvation. She mentions prayer from evangelists and other random things that don't tie in with the topic or any of her arguments (not that she has any). The prayer which she mentions in her arguments is a prayer devised by people and is completely unbiblical. I think she is confused with the different things that you can do to be saved simply because of an exposure to multiple religions. These religions directly contradict one another though so I can forgive my opponent for being confused with all the different things out there. Assuming you want to be saved via a sound, biblical salvation, it stands to reason that you would use the Bible as your source. I've reiterated my arguments here, argument two is the biblical steps to salvation. Not man-made creeds and doctrines like those Prayers she speaks of. 1) Choosing not to believe something from the Bible undermines the book in its entirety. 2) The things you need to do to be saved are clear: Hearing (Romans 10:17) Believing the Gospel (Mark 16:16) (Hebrews 11:6) (Hebrews 5:8,9) Repentance (Luke 13:3) Confess Christ (Matthew 10:32) Be baptised (Acts 2:38) So how can my opponent say that there is a minimum that you can do to be saved? You cannot do more than others, and you cannot do less. Everyone does the exact same amount to be saved. I was really disappointed to see that my arguments were not refuted, maybe in a next debate things will flow more smoothly.