BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Ontological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.

Ave.Stating the ArgumentI don't want to bore the audience with a debate about logical formulation. Pro says that if I reworked my formulation, it would still be wrong because premise two is not correct. If premise two were correct, then the reworked formulation would be correct as well. From this, it seems to me that the most important topic of this debate will be the second premise of my counter-argument.For the rest of this debate, this will be the counter-argument, per Pro's suggestions.P1: Maximal greatness is a quantity.P2: You can always add to a quantity.P3: Maximal greatness cannot be added to.C: Maximal greatness cannot exist.Pro recommended that I add that third premise into my argument. I didn't think it was nessecary when I first typed it, as premise three is obvious. I still feel that it's a better formulation with the third premise added, though.P2 and the False AnalogyPro presents us with an analogy. He talks about a box that can hold twelve rubber balls at maximum capacity. In the same way that you could not put in a thirteenth ball, you could not 'put in' more greatness in the maximally great being.I think this analogy is flawed. The fact that the box cannot hold more balls is a limitation on that box. Limitation is a lesser-making property. If the maximally great being cannot 'hold' more greatness, than that is a limitation upon that being, in the same way that the box's capacity is limited. Pro's analogy would lead us to believe that a maximally great being has lesser-making properties, and that is impossible.If a maximally great being can not more great, then it is limited. Ergo, it cannot be maximally great, because it has a lesser-making property.Vale.
The Ontological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.

I wish to thank Con for taking up this debate against me.The Ontological Argument is certainly difficult to understand without a background in philosophy. It took me a while to begin to grasp it, and I'm still not sure I completely understand it (though I think I've gotten close). I am also not aware of this argument having been made before, so I am engaging it for the first time.The Ontological Argument follows logically from its first premise, following the rules of modal logic. It is uncontroversial in the field of philosophy, so the only way to truly refute the argument is to show that God's existence is not just improbable, but impossible. For as long as God's existence is possible, then using the Ontological Argument, we can see that God's existence is assured.Con's Conclusion shows the nature of God, that he is the greatest conceivable entity. For if you could conceive of a greater entity, that entity would be God.Let's look at the argument:P1: Maximal greatness is a quantity.P2: You can always add to a quantity.C: Maximal greatness can not actually exist, because you can always think of something greater.Technically, the argument is invalid. The most you could get would be "C: Therefore, you can add to maximal greatness." In order to reach the conclusion, Con would need to add a third premise, something like "P3: Maximal greatness cannot be added to." Then you could reach a similar conclusion, "C: Therefore, maximal greatness cannot exist, since every quantity can be added to."So let's look at Con's premises and see if they add up.Premise 1 -- Maximal greatness is a quantity.I don't see anything wrong with accepting this premise, with one caveat. Greatness would be the quantity, whereas "maximal" would be the amount contained in the quantity.Premise 2 -- A quantity can always be added by one.Here's a premise where we run into trouble. A quantity can't always be added by one. Say you're holding a box that can hold 12 rubber balls. You can fit the 12 rubber balls inside the box, but you wouldn't be able to fit any more rubber balls inside the box. Similarly, if God contains maximal of any quantity (that is, great-making property), that just means he has the most amount of it that one can have -- he has it to their maximal extent. He literally cannot contain any more of the quantity.Conclusion -- Maximal greatness can not actually exist, because you can always think of something greater.Technically, the argument is invalid. But even if we adjust it as I indicated earlier, the argument is unsound. This is because premise two fails. If you have a maximal quantity of something, then nothing more can be added to it.I thank Con again for his argument, and look forward to his rebuttal.
The Ontological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.

Ave.IntroductionThis is actually my first attempt at debunking the ontological argument. I decided that I would ignore typical atheist counter-arguments and create my own. If this argument has been made before, then I am not aware of it.Please forgive me if this argument comes across as sophomoric, or as if I don't understand the argument. I haven't debated the argument over and over like Pro has, so I am at a disadvantage here. I hope that I can make this debate interesting at the very least.Stating the ArgumentP1: Maximal greatness is a quantity.P2: You can always add to a quantity.C: Maximal greatness can not actually exist, because you can always think of something greater.Maximal Greatness is a Quantity'Quantity is a property that can exist as a magnitude or multitude. Quantities can be compared in terms of "more", "less" or "equal", or by assigning a numerical value in terms of a unit of measurement.' [1]When we talk about a maximally great being, we are dealing with quantities. A maximally great being has more great making properties than other beings. A maxially great being has zero lesser making properties. All other beings are less great than the maximally great being. A maximally great being has more greatness than anything else. A maximally great being is equal to itself.[1] http://tinyurl.com...A quantity can always be added by one.Consider the number one. I can add one to this, and get the number two. I can continue to add one for an infinity. If I reach the number seven hundred thousand, I can keep adding one. No matter how high a number is, I can always add one to it.Maximally Great Being and Infinite RegressPro asserts that a maximally great being exists. Let's call this maximally great being A. I've shown in my first premise that maximal greatness is a quantity, and therefore, can be added onto. I can think of a being that is '1' greater than A. We'll call it B. B is now one greater than A, so B is the maximally great being. However, I can think of a being that is '1' greater than B. We'll call him C, and it becomes the maximally great being. Notice that I could continue this exercise on forever. The idea of a maximally great being leads to infinite regress, because one can always think of a being that is more maximal than the maximally great being.Vale.
The Ontological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence.

I wish to thank Con for taking up this challenge. We will debating the proposition "The Ontological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence." The formulation of the OA I will be defending is as follows:P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]Con seems to understand the concepts as laid out in the Ontological Argument, but for the benefit of the reader I will clarify a few terms.Maximally-great Being -- This is how God is understood in this argument. God is a maximally-great Being, meaning that he has all great-making properties to their maximal extent. A great-making property is any property in which it is better to have it than not have it (e.g. power, honesty, etc.). God has no lesser-making properties, which are properties that are worse to have than not have (e.g. corruption).Possible worlds -- This is a world in which it is logically possible that a certain state of affairs could exist. This does not mean another planet in our universe, or another universe. So when we say that unicorns exist in some possible world, we are not saying they exist on another planet or in another universe. They exist in some possible worlds because there is nothing logically incoherent about a horse with a horn.Actual world -- The actual world is the world in which we live. The world in which we live now is a possible world. So humans exist in some possible worlds, which includes this one. But to distinguish between this world and some possible world that hasn't been actualized, the term "actual world" is employed.There are three types of entities to distinguish:Impossible entities -- These are entities that exist in no possible world, because they are logically incoherent. For example, square circles.Contingent entities -- These are entities that exist in some possible worlds, but not others. It is possible that they could not exist. Humans are contingent entities.Necessary entities -- These are entities that must exist by their own nature, and must exist in every possible world. Numbers are necessary entities, and the Ontological Argument argues that God is a necessary entity.That should do it. I look forward to our debate.[1] Craig, William Lane, "The Ontological Argument," in To Everyone An Answer, Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland ed., (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 2004), p. 128.
People should be legally permitted to marry more than one person, in secular society.

Sorry for not posting argument in previous round, I was busy.Firstly, the racist argument - the person has a right to be racist, and it is no one's business. But the manifestation of racism as verbal, violence act becomes business of government (local or state)."I feel it can and does violate rights and morality," - CON. Tell us how conjoint marriage violates human right, and before talking about morality, prove that if secularism has any rational basis for objective morality.The nature argument is not primary argument, it is supplementary, and best of my knowledge, mammals do not have sexual intercourse with underage (except Homo Sapiens)."As you have not specified what form of group marriage to discuss I will use Polygamy as an example," - I did define. If you read first sentence of second paragraph, you would see "(polygamy - polygyny, polyandry; conjoint marriage)". Polygamy - one person has multiple spouses. Polygyny - man has multiple wives. Polyandry - woman has multiple husbands. Conjoint marriage - all individuals of group are married to each other (also known as group marriage, and polygamy is not group marriage). Check dictionary or wikipedia.Answers to Con's "arguments" against polygamy :1. Marriage Contract.2. There are plenty of Homosexuals, and Three men who couldn't find wife, can join any group marriage.3. The government has to take care of children anyway.4. Again, Marriage Contract.5. It is a fallacy.Answer to the "Statistics"1. Monogamy is also causes social problems. 2. Marriage Contract.Con did not show any rational basis for morality. And his argument was not sound or strong. My main argument is these type of marriages does not violate any human or individual rights, and hence, secular government does not have any rational basis for morality, then it cannot ban these type of marriages.
People should be legally permitted to marry more than one person, in secular society.

I would like to begin with few definitions. Human rights are moral principles that set out certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in national and international law.[1]Individual rights is associated with equality before the law and protection from the state.[2]In secular society, state does not have any right to dictate the rules of marriage, because it does not have any rational basis for moral values. Hence, in liberal-secular society, the married couple can have sexual intercourse with third person anytime they want, and they won't be accountable for these action. But for the state not allowing such relation(s) to be legalized is absurd, and has no rational grounding. If these relations does not violate any human and individual rights, and if several persons agree to be in such relationship (polygamy - polygyny, polyandry; conjoint marriage) and they are not going to be accountable for such relation, therefore the government does not have any right for not to allowing them to legalize their relation.Also such relations are natural and found in nature, and Homo Sapiens are also part of Nature, so denying polygamy is denying Nature. Polygamy was practiced over human history. Monogamy, however, is a Roman invention (but Romans had slaves and they were allowed to have sex with slaves), later was adopted by Christians (by Catholic Church, and it contradicts the Law) and after rise of secularism in Europe monogamy was adopted by secularists, as several other Christian moral values were adopted by them as universal values (but they don't admit it). And monogamy as a moral value has no rational basis, has no natural basis (nature is sexist), and it violates individual rights.[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
People should be legally permitted to marry more than one person, in secular society.

Both sides must justify their views. This is debate about secular society, so do not bring forward your religious beliefs. First round is for acceptance, no argument is posted.Definitions :1. Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.2. Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

My opponent does not fulfill BoP. Here is why. "the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea" "the unlimited paradox states that an immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. the fact that it cannot exist at the same time, shows that the unlimited truly doesn't exist." Which pro never stated what about the 'unlimited paradox' was false in the first round, or the topic. An immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. This is correct, thus proving me right. The statement itself is correct, because if the immovable object can be moved, then it is not immovable. If the unstoppable force can be stopped by the object, then it is not unstoppable. The only logical way to vote on this debate is con, because pro has not fulfilled BoP, has used incorrect grammar, and is rude. Pro needs to provide evidence to fulfill BoP, but no evidence to fulfill BoP has been introduced, therefor I win this debate in all aspects.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

well con finally responds to the debate after somehow arguing that he doesn't need to, but does any way. con does not understand BOP and especially the debate format. even if someone isn't fulfilling a BOP, con should still respond as to why, and such. the debate structure is no different than the God paradox. how is it not? if the unlimited is truly unlimited, it should be able to create an immovable rock. if the unlimited is truly unlimited, it should not be limited by an otherwise immovable rock. if the an unlimited force creates an immovable rock for five seconds, the unlimited force cannot create an unstoppable force and thus move the rock in that five second time frame. notice 'cannot'. thus the unlimited is not truly unlimited.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

Pro has not fulfilled the BoP with the opening statement, and likely will bother to do so in the final round, therefor losing the debate. In fact, I engaged the argument by stating, that pro does not fulfill the BoP. Does pro even know what the BoP is? Pro has not provided any evidence that would require retaliation, thus not fulfilling BoP, thus losing the debate. An immovable object and an unstoppable force cannot exist at the same time, because it would require one of those to be a false statement, such as the immovable object into a movable object, or an unstoppable force into a stoppable force, which causes the paradox. Pro should lose points for good arguments and correct grammar.
should animals have rights

Should every animal have rights to freedom? I think that every animal should have the right to freedom i mean if it weren't for us humans they would be in the wild living there normal life. i wouldn't like to be caged up in a zoo all day while people stare at me. i could understand that if it weren't for us some animals would extinct. but what about the lions and giraffes or all the other wild animals that live in freedom? if animals could talk i would give them a choice to be free or not. some animals love the attention and some not and some animals live to entertain. so thats my opinon whats yours?
islam is the bestest religion in the world!

My opponent says that Islam is the best religion in the world, yet he has failed to prove why. He is arguing against all religions, but by using nothing else but verses from the Qu'ran. His example of Christianity proves nothing at all. I could say the same thing about the Bible. Jesus says that he is the Son of God. He does not say that he is Allah's prophet. Though, this does not disprove or prove anything against another religion. You have made no valid points, however since this is a five round debate I will give you another chance to argue before I start posting my refutations.
islam is the bestest religion in the world!

islam is a very good religion you know why because it teaches us respect.think about your religion example:christian they belive in jesus us we believe that jesus is a prophet of god and only there is only one god . its say in the quran: "ALLAH is HE besides Whom there is none worthy of worship, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. HE has sent down to thee the Book containing the truth and fulfilling that which precedes it; and HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgement between right and wrong)."—Qur'an, Surah 3:3-4 : and also jesus said these it's in the quran: "Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' Jesus said, 'I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet; 'And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live; 'And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless; 'And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.' That was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth concerning which they entertain doubt."—Qur'an, Surah 19:30-35 he siad his the serven of god so that means jesus can't be godn some say he is and some argue about it the goes to whom ever is my apponent you better bring explaination and sorry if these is rude
islam is the bestest religion in the world!

"Tragedy, is the best ending to stories." -Unknown "Ann, just put the gun down." Innomen said. "We can get you help, but you must pay the punishment. Don't make it worse." He never did like when the law was upheld, not even by Ann and the gang. Ann thought for a moment, and slowly nodded. As she was laying the gun down, LaissezFaire scream, "NO! I WON'T GO TO PRISON AGAIN!". He grabbed the gun out of Ann's hands and shot at Innomen three times. "Yes...!" Said the bank teller, "Anthor evl lib is ded...!" Poor, poor innomen... @_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@ "Father Freeman," Mattrodstrom said, looking humbly upon the catholic priest. "forgive me father, for I have sinned." Freeman looked over at mattrodstrom and shook his head. "What have you done this time?" "I have done many things. For example, yesterday I killed a man," Freeman nodded giving him a comforting smile. "And the day before that I blew up three buildings," Freeman again nodded, still smiling. "But, last night, well, I hung out with Cerebral_Narcissist!" Freeman stopped smiling... @_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@ OreEle was sitting in Cody_Franklin's bakery. He was staring at the menu that Cody had just put together: * Try our new Nihilistic brownies, though it doesn't matter if you don't. $1.50 * Nihilistic coffee, it doesn't matter if you don't like it. $1.00. * Nihilistic cupcakes, who cares about icing? $2.00 * Make a nihilistic donation, you'll get nothing, but that's the case with everything isn't it? OreEle put down the menu and thought. 'Why did Cody go off the deep end with this Nihilism?' Cody walked up to him and asked, "What'll it be?" OreEle thought for a moment, then said, "Anything, it doesn't matter." @_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@ J.Kenyon once again opened his eyes. This was it. This is what Mirza had trained him for. He walked into the building and saw Freeman yelling at Mattrodstrom. Freeman said something along the lines of "Do you know how illegal that is?" Freeman and Mattrodstrom looked over at J.Kenyon. J.Kenyon was ready to except his destiny. For to long he was an agnostic. Mirza had taken him in, and showed him he light. He muttered under his breath "Kill them where they stand." ***BOOOOOM*** The end.
islam is the bestest religion in the world!

Once upon a time, Koopin was walking down the road with Mirza. As they were passing the run down bakery Cody_Franklin owned (Poor Cody, he had so much potential) they passed Insertnamehere and juvanya kissing on a park bench. Mirza, who was enrage at the situation grabbed the gun that him, Jharry, and mattrodstrom built. Sadly, he shot juvanya three times, one in the arm, and two in the head. Koopin subdued Mirza, but not in time... juvanya was dead. Insertnamehere jumped up and screamed! Blood stained the blue and white dress she was wearing. Mirza ran over to her and took the poor girl off her feet. He then proceeded to run three miles down town to the only person he could trust, m93samman. m93samman let him in, not knowing what else to do. "Mirza," Insertnamehere said, catching her breath "why have you done this? WHY!?!?" "Because, because I could never let you become a jew! My first love could never be a jew!" Insertnamehere nodded her head, she understood. And at last, they were finally together! @_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@ Koopin did not know what else to do, so he decided to go visit lovelife. He walked up to her pink and yellow house and rang the doorbell. Lovelife answered the door, looking a bit nervous. "Lovelife, what's up, may I come in?" Lovelife shook her head and said "Um, no. I am really busy cleaning the house." Koopin noticed she was now sweating, he knew something was wrong. "Let me in." He pushed himself in, overpowering her. There, he saw I_am_a_Panda, who was filling up a glass with another bottle of wine. Lipstick kisses covered his Irish face. Koopin was disgusted, but not surprised. Lovelife looked at Koopin "It's not what you think, Panda is a changed man!" Koopin just shook his head and left. @_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@_@ "GIVE ME THE MONEY!" annhasle screamed at the bank tellor. She was accompanied by LaissezFaire, and Anarcho. They were all crazy Anarchist and feeling extra crazy that day. They were on a mission to rob all the federal banks in the USA... but little did they know, that political Innomen....was watching. PART TWO COMING SOON!!!!!