BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gods existence

Re Kca 1. No evidence can be intuition experience testimony or scientific there are different types of evidence. I have given you philosophical evidence you haven't refuted. Except by getting off topic and saying scientific evidence is the only valid type. Until you refute this I am not giving you any more evidence. 2. Physical laws are a cause. Plus this doesn't apply to the big bang because before the big bang absolutly nothing existed not a singularity. Re Ta 1. No I said design implies a designer how do you equate that to "If the argument is that everything has a creator, then there's no reason to accept that God need not a creator." No because the universe can't be the necessary being/desinger because the universe can't design anything. Re Ma 1. Morality can't be relative because if it were all moral criticisms would be meaningless eg the nazis were wrong. 2. Well do you mind giving me some e.g.s. of what these moral systems say about the origins of morality so i can refute them??? Re Rna 1. The fact that not everyone always feels this need is pointless besides. I would argue all do maybe some seek it more than others. 2. So people use practically everything as a tool its what people do. But most are also sincerely seeking. 3. "This in no way proves that we have a religious need, and again completely ignores my point that even if we had that need, then the creation of religion or organized religion as Voltaire pointed out would satisfy that need. We might want or need to believe in God, but that doesn't necessarily make God real." this is ridiculous people don't just create needs they just realize them. I apologize i didn't see your arguments before 1. The problem of evil. you say that an all good god would not create evil well he didn't create evil but he must permit it to create moral creatures like us. Because morality implies we have free choice to do good or evil so he could destroy it. But we would not be creatures in his image anymore. 2. inconsistent revelations. 1. is completely irrelevant to this discussion .that would be for a debate about the truth of christianity not existence of god. 2. omnipotence contradiction 1. god can do anything that is possible 2. its not possible to make a stone so heavy it cannot be moved 3. therefore its not possible for god to make a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted and i didn't copy your sources i used two of the same websites but for different articles
Gods existence

Re KCA 1. Ok by your definition of tangible evidence you sound like an empiricist. In other words you only believe a claim can be proven is if its verified by science (scientism). Not everyhting can be proven scientifically and thats not the only type of proof. 2. No your argument about quantum fluctuation is useless because. When it comes to quantum fluctuation you still have to have physical preconditions in order for the particles to come in and out of being. You haven't responded to that yet so iam saying it again. Re TA 1. alright fine but the question of who created god is not the point here. And you don't understand what the definition of god is by definition he doesn't need a cause. there must be an uncaused cause whatever that cause is. Re MA 1. This not regressive reasoning whatever that is???? the argument just says that morals can't originate with us. So they must have originated with something outside us god. Because he's a personal force moral law giver 2. I didn't say anything about ethical systems which try to figure out what these moral values are. I said where did they originate. Re RNA 1. The evidence is that there seeking spirituality. You know how many different religions there are in the world buddhism hinduism christianity islam to name a few. Thats evidence theres a need in us for something spiritual. 2. I never said we want him to be real i said we need him to be real you said that. sources 1. Wikipedia contributors, 'Kalam cosmological argument', Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 18 March 2010, 20:27 UTC, <http://en.wikipedia.org...; [accessed 20 March 2010] 2. Reichenbach, Bruce, "Cosmological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu...;. 3. Dr Norman Geisler Cosmological argument pgs 160-165 Kalam cosmological argument pgs 399-401 Baker encyclopedia of christian apologetics 2007
Gods existence

[[ Kalam Cosmological Argument ]] You'll notice that Pro has completely failed to respond to any of my claims. To clarify, by "tangible evidence" I mean that Pro must prove with empirical evidence (hard, scientific data or facts) that the universe came into existence. The reality is that Pro cannot prove this; the option of the universe simply always existing is still therefore a viable explanation and opposes Pro's claim. Moreover, my argument about quantum fluctuation is absolutely true and 100% applies to this argument. Pro, if you claim it's untrue, please attempt to prove that claim as I have instead of making a random false statement. This argument has been negated. [[ Teleological Argument ]] No, I am not mixing the TA with the KCA. The teleological argument as Pro has presented it states that all designs imply a designer, and since there is design in the universe, the universe must have a creator (God). So, when Pro says, "This argument is not about cause but design the question of cause is irrelevant to this discussion" then essentially he is making his own argument useless. Additionally, Pro continues to argue that the universe IS designed meaning he does believe in a designer meaning once again he is just arguing against his own premises in saying that the cause for design is irrelevant. Next time you copy and paste your first round, Pro, make sure you understand what you're saying. [[ Moral Argument ]] Pro states that the Euthyphro dilemma is false and explains that morality comes from a law maker (God) based on God's all-good nature. First, this is using regressive reasoning. Pro says that morality stems from God, but then uses morality to prove that God exists. This is logically flawed. Pro cannot prove that God exists and is all good, so he cannot prove that morality comes from God in the first place, nor can he prove that the existence of morality proves God. Saying that there are no good alternative theories regarding ethics are merely Pro's opinion. In fact, there are hundreds of theories regarding ethics that have little to nothing to do with God. For example: hedonism, stoicism, consequentialism, etc. In short, Pro has not proven that a moral law giver must exist. [[ Religious Need ]] As I pointed out in the last round, Pro cannot prove that human beings have an innate need for spirituality. In response, Pro says, "so you want proof ok my first evidence is that virtually every civilization believes in some sort of spirituality there seeking something." Not only is this statement grammatically incorrect, but it merely repeats his false assertion without one shred of evidence. Also, Pro completely ignored my argument noting that even if humans DID have an innate need to be spiritual, it doesn't imply that God is real - just that we want God to be real. [[ Conclusion ]] Pro failed to respond to the great majority of my rebuttal and all of my arguments. I find his blatant lack of regard for my points to be bad conduct. Please extend all of the arguments I brought forth in R1's conclusion, and the points I made in my rebuttal. Thank you.
Smoking is inherently violent/child abuse

I'll give you violence on technicality. It was poor choice of words. It is inherently harmful and does harm everyone in the company of it. Although not technically violent due to force, it is having blatant disregard for human life. Under this definition poisoning someone's drink to kill them wouldn't be considered violent either, as their is no physical force. http://www.no-smoke.org... 53.800 die every year from second hand smoke exposure. They did not die of natural causes. It can't be both ways. They were killed by Smokers. Rather you want it to call violence or murder or not, they were still poisoned by the smoking populace so they are responsible for these deaths. Saying they are trying to quit an addiction that they know is hurting their family, doesn't garnet much sympathy. Nobody is forcing them to smoke. If someone is addicted to something that harms other people, it doesn't mean it's okay to do it and it should be legal. Again, I retract the phrase "violent" only on technicality. But it does cause damage at any level. THIRD HAND smoke is also a problem: http://www.washingtonpost.com... So, yes I would characterize someone who does not have children as also having a lack of regard to human life. Simply breathing someones breathe can set off asthma attacks. It clings to hair, skin, etc. so anyone who is around the person for any amount of time is being hurt against their will.
Smoking is inherently violent/child abuse

I shall take up your challenge for this debate. I do believe that smoking is harmful and I am against the use of drugs however, I do not believe that smoking is in fact violence or child abuse. First off I would like to refute your arguments directly; taking part in the act of taking someone's life is very different than smoking around someone else. Smoking is not violent and to prove this I would like to cite the definition of violent: "using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...)". I do not think that the act of smoking would fall under this definition. As for child abuse what if the parent or guardian who you are accusing of child abuse is in the process of trying to quit. Also what if there is no child involved when someone smokes. Is it still considered violent? Also your last paragraph cites a surgeon general report. Could we please get a link or some actual evidence?
Smoking is inherently violent/child abuse

Smoking cigarettes is inherently violent especially in the company of children who have no other options or the legal ability to move out. I'm not going to bother providing sources because it's just common knowledge that it causes all sorts of health issues even before the child is born. If you poison someone's drink, that's murder. If you hit someone, shoot, someone that's violence. And so is slowly destroying someone's pulmonary functions. against their will. A surgeon general report has found that a single whiff of cigarette smoke damages the lining of the blood vessels. There is an immediate health hazard.
The Confederate Flag, among many other Southern symbols, should be left alone and preserved.

I find a deep misunderstanding in your arguments here. First, your claim that "the flag stands for oppression and ignorance...of the fundamental rights of all human beings to freedom..." is inversely the actual case of the intentions of the Confederate government. For instance, the fact that the government was a confederacy proclaims itself to support the fundamental rights of citizens: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, of which you may be familiar. The primary problem with your reasoning is that slavery was already an established fact during the outbreak of the Civil War and the Federal government sought no purging of it. It it was, therefore, already in practice in both the North and the South. If this was the case then why did the South secede? The simple answer is, taxation. It is unfortunate, however, that slavery existed during this time in both the North and the South. Sadly, the South receives the blame, because the South was making money for the Federal government and wanted to secede-thus why the North could not loose a large financial geographic area. Public school indoctrination will not teach you that. Indeed, taxation had been an issue for the South over 30 years earlier! Northern manufacturers and bankers elected a suitable candidate to garner money from the South. Lincoln then passed the highest tariff, to that point, in American history. Consequently, South Carolina became the first to secede. The most striking part of your argument is the fact that you made no comment concerning the hypocritical notion of not associating the American flag with slavery. Yes, the borders states will have continued slavery if it had not been for the passing of the 13th amendment. Therefore, to conclude my arguments, I will offer my opponent my few last words concerning the meaning of this symbol, and many other southern symbols. The flag, put simply, is the patrimony of the Southern people, who clearly are a distinct demographic within this nation. If that were not so, then the stereotypes of the day would end. However, the hypocrisy here will never end. Those who wish to get rid of this cultural symbol will not end with the flag, but will continue forever, until even Stone Mountain is blasted to bits. I thank my opponent for their arguments, and reiterate that the Lost Cause of the Confederacy (and its symbols) is not historical revisionism, but a modern problem. (If that were not the case, then the 2012 election would have looked a lot different). Good luck!
The Confederate Flag, among many other Southern symbols, should be left alone and preserved.

I acknowledge your views however I believe the flag stands for oppression and ignorance , an ignorance of the fundamental rights of all human beings to freedom , the government that used this flag as it's banner was a government that caused untold suffering because of greed, keeping this flag around sends out one clear message: that we as a society dress up these deplorable relics of an unjust government in a guise and try to call it heritage and say we should be proud of it but where is the pride in forcibly taking away another's rights? or of treating someone like an animal to be bought and sold at a whim ,no this flag belongs in a museum as a warning of the fate of those who would oppress their fellow man , that any government built on forced servitude will not stand but will fall and be consigned to the pages of history while a more just government takes its place As for slavery in the rest of the states may I point out that the union did not try and protect slavery as the confederacy did in it's own variation of the constitution and keeping the whole north/south divide alive isn't really contributing very well to a place that's supposed to be called the United States
The Confederate Flag, among many other Southern symbols, should be left alone and preserved.

I firmly believe in state's rights, therefore, it is solely up to the people of a certain national, regional, or state demographic to make decisions for their respectable nations. The South, being linguistically, culturally, and politically distinct from the rest of America, has this right. It is in my judgement, therefore, as a member of this demographic, to offer my views concerning the symbols of the former Confederacy, and why they should remain preserved and untouched. Many people claim that flying the Confederate flag or leaving remnants of Southern symbology within Southern institutions is a form of modern white supremacy and hypocrisy. It is, in fact, the case that flying the American flag could also associated with a society filled with slavery, and racial hierarchy, if one decides to make the connection. The American flag flew over state sanctioned slavery beginning in 1789 to December of 1865, after the Civil War ended. If the American flag is an adamant symbol of egalitarianism, or, at least, should be, then why did the government only end this institution when it became an issue toward the end of the war? The American flag flew over slave states during the Civil War- border states. Therefore, any claim whatsoever that the Confederate flag is a symbol associated primary with white supremacy is utterly wrong when one cannot say the same concerning the American flag. Lest I forget about the connections many make with the flag concerning treason. Again, the American flag flew over colonial revolutionists fighting against Great Britain- legally treasonous. It is, therefore, only proper and fitting to support this symbol from the point of view from that of a Southerner. Just like Scotland is a distinct nation once fighting for independence, so to is the Southern United States. This symbol, like many others, is ingrained into the cultural identity of a people who choose to keep it. I say, let them, let us, keep it. To lose it would be to lose an identity, and repudiate a living inheritance.
It would be better to Einstein than Superman

Hi ElderScroll, Thanks for accepting my challenge. The first argument I would like to put foward is the morals and values Superman has: "A life of honesty, morality, and integrity. Superman makes people strive to be the very best they can be, and that is something greater than any super power. "Superman has an aura of reassurance about him, it"s as though his presence alone can make the direst situation seem safer, as though you know everything will be alright. One of the best things about being Superman is his effect on other people. " He"s got all the power of a god, yet he doesn"t try to play one. He knows his place in the universe and doesn"t abuse his power. The man"s humble to a fault. He"s always there for his friends, and doesn"t depreciate anyone. He actually brings out the best in them, makes them feel special. Thank you.
It would be better to Einstein than Superman

Good Afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen, I am the negative team. I will restate the moot we will be debating today: "It would be better to be Einstein than Superman." My team strongly disputes this. The key words we identified in the moot are: Einstein, Superman and better. I would like to clarify the definition of the moot put forward by the opposing team. I quote from the Oxford English Dictionary that Einstein is defined as the German-born American theoretical physicist and the founder of the special and general theories of relativity. We do not accept the definition that Einstein is a synonym for "genius" as the moot states "It would be better to be Einstein" not "It would be better to be "an" Einstein". Superman is defined as: a US cartoon character having great strength, the ability to fly, and other extraordinary powers. The definition of the word "better" that will be permitted is: more desirable, satisfactory, or effective.
Today feminism is cancer

"cancer (KAN-ser) A term for diseases in which abnormal cells divide without control and can invade nearby tissues. Cancer cells can also spread to other parts of the body through the blood and lymph systems. There are several main types of cancer. Carcinoma is a cancer that begins in the skin or in tissues that line or cover internal organs. Sarcoma is a cancer that begins in bone, cartilage, fat, muscle, blood vessels, or other connective or supportive tissue. Leukemia is a cancer that starts in blood-forming tissue, such as the bone marrow, and causes large numbers of abnormal blood cells to be produced and enter the blood. Lymphoma and multiple myeloma are cancers that begin in the cells of the immune system. Central nervous system cancers are cancers that begin in the tissues of the brain and spinal cord. Also called malignancy." - https://www.cancer.gov...
Today feminism is cancer

Third wave feminism has turned out to be mean, vindictive, sociopathic, man-hating movement and it makes me sad its gaining popularity in USA, UK and other developed countries. Like seriously? feminists are asking for girls having equal rights to join BOYS SCOUTS. Like look at the first word it says "BOYS". If you wanted your daughter to join scouts then there is GIRLS SCOUTS too. Women now have equal access to education, equal access to the workplace - they get paid the same for the same work. 'A female Harvard economist attempted to establish the existence of a wage gap last year and failed to do so. Just as the term 'bitch' used to mean a female dog, every word can change over time and I think feminism has.
The 5 questions believe quizz.

1. The Universe would be a singularity consisting of all matter. It would remain in this state until something triggers expansion. 3. My understanding is that before science, people needed an explanation for everyday occurrences. Also, they wanted to believe that a powerful being was watching and guiding them. 4. Man is not a sophisticated, programmed machine. However, a programmed machine would likely act in the best interests of its peers, because whoever programmed them would probably have them working toward a common goal. 5. Logically prove it. Then I will consider becoming Christian. 6. Neither. Acting in accordance to what a supposed "higher spirit" obligates does not make sense to me, and obviously, I don't act according to my disbelief in God. 7. It is not a question about Christians or atheists. It is rather a question of religion itself and atheism. Religion has and always will be a source of conflict, fear, and persecution. I believe that an atheistic society would be safer. 8. Yes. Now let me ask you this: could a single being be powerful enough to create such a system? It doesn't add up. 9. No. My theory for the disappearance of Jesus' body is that the Romans moved the body because it was decomposing and creating a horrible stench. 10. Micro evolution and micro evolution are similar in that they evolve by the same processes. However, micro evolution is in a small group, while macro evolution is over a large population. Sorry if I borked the evolution explanation. I had fun debating. Good luck!
The 5 questions believe quizz.

Score: I think you won the last round. Questions: 1. Suppose the universe had never existed. Apart from God, what ultimate difference would that make? ningless? 3. . If there is no God, then why does every society have a religion? 4. What viable basis exists for justice or law if man is nothing but a sophisticated, programmed machine? 5. If I prove the Bible is true would you want to become a Christian? 6. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)? 7. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why? 8. Can you honestly say that you believe this system so vast, complex, and orderly could have made itself? 9. Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead? Why not? 10. Can you explain the difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution? Just so you know just cause I copied my questions it doesn't mean you can copy your answers online. I' allowed since lots of teachers get some of their questions online as well. Anyway, thanks for letting me waste your time. It was fun.
The 5 questions believe quizz.

1. What "miracles" are you referring to? There are scientific explanations as to how "supernatural" occurrences happened. Researchers found that a wind blowing at approximately 67 MPH could blow part of the Red Sea away and partially expose a reef for a short period of time, which allowed Moses and his followers to escape form Egyptian soldiers (1). 2. My understanding is that complex chemicals were the precursors to single-celled organisms. Eventually these simple cells evolved into the complex life we have today. Similar single-celled organisms exist to this day. 3. Yes, if there was actual solid evidence to prove his existence. 4. Our Universe is in no way "fine tuned". A misconception is that the Earth is perfect. In fact it is not. Calculations show that an asteroid 1 mile in diameter could wipe out most life on Earth (2). That asteroid would have the power of 10 million Hiroshimas. 5. How would the galaxy "destroy itself"? When it collides with Andromeda? I do not understand your question. If that is what you mean, then I am not certain of the effects such a collision would have. Again, it depends on our technological capabilities at the time. (1) - http://abcnews.go.com... (2) - http://science.howstuffworks.com...