BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Cosmological Argument for God is Sound

I think I should first define universe for Con. Universe is all of space-time and everything in it. And our space-time had a beginning. Simply because there cannot be infinite chain of past events.Universe must have a cause, because everything has a cause. Contention is there are some subatomic events which occur randomly and spontaneously. Well, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause, and if you do some research, you would know that there various explanations for it (reason may be we are more illiterate about quantum mechanics than literate). And, also quantum mechanics doesn't work in the world of atoms ad molecules[1], so you can not just generalize events in subatomic level into whole existence. (That would be fallacy)And also, there is no empirical evidence for eternal inflation, and there are many speculations about eternal inflation, and eternal inflation leads to multiverse, and there is no evidence for multiverse.Fact is there cannot be infinite chain of causes, whether it is multiverse or quantum vacuum, or etc, at some point in the chain of causes there must be an uncaused cause. And if this cause is uncaused, it must be eternal. And because of this cause existed before space-time, therefore this cause is non-spatial, and atemporal. Which means this cause transcends space and time.Consciousness - I think you should do some research on consciousness (Hard Problem of Consciousness). Fact is consciousness is not a physical entity. And I do not know for chicken embryo, but we humans (or at least me) have consciousness, and we made of matter, the matter cannot give consciousness to itself, so our consciousness must come from somewhere else.[1] - http://dailym.ai...
A Cosmological Argument for God is Sound

One thing we all can agree is that universe had a beginning. If universe had a beginning, then there must be a pre-existing eternal transcendent cause.There must be cause because nothing happens without a cause, and it is an empirical fact. And this cause must be eternal and transcendent, because time and space started with the beginning of universe, therefore this cause existed above and before space and time.This cause must have some sort of consciousness (or self-awareness), simply because an unconsciousness things cannot give consciousness to itself (or material sum of universe cannot give consciousness to itself), and it is an empirical fact. But we as human beings have consciousness, and this consciousness can be given by consciousness being.Therefore the cause of universe is eternal, transcendent, and have consciousness, which indicates this cause also has a will.There may be an objection such as who created God. But it is non-sense. Because if you say what caused the cause of universe, then we can go ad infinitum, which means universe doesn't exist, but we know universe exist, therefore there must be an uncaused cause in that chain of causes.Other objections, such as multiverse, string theory is fallacious, because there is no evidence for them. Thank you for reading.
A Cosmological Argument for God is Sound

This debate is closed, leave a message if you want to accept.This debate is somewhat unique in it's format. Pro needs to present one, or at most two cosmological arguments for the existence of God, and then defend them over 4 rounds.The burden of proof is shared in this debate, although Pro has the responsibility of presenting the argument(s) he wants to use in use first place. Pro wins he he can show at least one of them is most likely true, and vice versa.I have designed timing and character limit to allow for more back and forth debating and shorter & more concise rounds, should be a more more fun than reading 6x10,000 character essays.The format is reversed, therefore Pro needs to leave the last round empty, as depicted in the rules:7,000 Words, 48 hours.Round 1: Rules, ArgumentsRound 2: RebuttalsRound 3: Rebuttals (No new arguments)Round 4: Rebuttals (No new arguments)Round 5: Rebuttals & Pro will type "No round"The format is to ensure the same number of argument/rebuttal rounds.Good Luck!
There is too much hate for pedophiles and they should be treated with more respect

Definition: Pedophilia: " a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."[1] A pedophile is thus someone who has that psychiatric disorder and is NOT necessarily someone who has sexually abused children. I believe most pedophiles do not do this. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Main argument Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Conclusion/state why you believe you won the debate Con will be taking the side that pedophiles deserve the hate they get, and don't deserve more respect. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
There is too much hate for pedophiles and they should be treated with more respect

Conclusion Nobody knows pedophiles that don't act on their attraction to children because unless they have come out as non molesting pedophiles (which they for obvious reasons wouldn't do) there's no way for us to know. Therefore, pedophiles who don't molest children are not judged. I won this debate because I proved that the only pedophiles we judge are those who molest children, which makes all of his other points irrelevant.
There is too much hate for pedophiles and they should be treated with more respect

To conclude and summarize what I've said: Pedophilia is not a choice, thus we should not hate someone who didn't choose to have this attraction. There are examples of pedophiles being hated on, one instance of killing someone who was thought to be a pedophile(but no confirmed instance of child molestation occurred, and it wasn't possible to confirm they were a pedophile) and the comment TruthLoveAndGod put on this debate just proves even more there is hate for pedophiles(and not due to them acting on their attraction). And finally, while some pedophiles force it on children, most pedophiles only do stuff to children when they agree to the sexual activity. I believe I won this debate because I provided examples of people hating on pedophiles who have not done anything to children, while my opponent ignored them and kept on insisting without any evidence of their own that pedophiles who have not done anything are not hated on. Then I provided reasoning on why pedophiles should not be hated on, while my opponent has not provided reasons why they should be hated. My sources are quite reliable, my opponent provided no sources.
There is too much hate for pedophiles and they should be treated with more respect

I'm saying that the only people being hated on is the child molesting pedophiles, we can't say whether a non molesting pedophile would be hated on because we don't know non molesting pedophiles. Also, most children that are molested do not consent whatsoever, or if they do, it's because they are tricked into it. Children are easily tricked into whatever their molester tells them, and, molesters know exactly how to trick these children because they do it all the time.
There is too much hate for pedophiles and they should be treated with more respect

Why do you suppose most pedophiles don't tell people? It's because people will judge them if they did. I decided to ask a question on another website, Yahoo Answers to prove my point that coming out as a pedophile causes people to judge [1] One person thus far has said "this sounds like a question for the FBI" even though I didn't admit to molesting children, just that I merely am a pedophile. Please note that I'm not actually a pedophile, I just asked this question to make a point. I just recently asked the question, so there will probably be more hateful things said on the question. Also, you've probably heard of cases where family completely shuns a homosexual offspring, just imagine how much worse they would treat a pedophile. In addition, it's not always the case that the pedophile forces the child to have sex. In most cases, if children were considered the age of consent, they are essentially consenting to it by all means if they were just older. They're not being forced to it in most cases, and most child molesters do it only if the child is okay with it. [2] Some of them force it on the child, but most don't. I don't consider this as bad as someone who forces it on the child. I only brought this up since you said people are angry that they do it to "helpless children who can't defend themselves" but in most cases, the child agrees to it. Sources: [1] https://answers.yahoo.com... [2] http://www.paedofiles.com...
There is too much hate for pedophiles and they should be treated with more respect

Great point! But, we don't judge pedophiles that don't act on their attraction to children, simply because we either don't know they're attracted to children (most pedophiles aren't open about their attraction to children) therefore the only people we judge is the sexual predators who do act on these feelings. We judge them because it is morally wrong, it breaks the law, and the kids they are affecting are helpless children who can't defend themselves.
Driving on public roads is a right not a privilege.

In his last argument, my opponent made the claim that rights can be revoked if a person has broken a law. However, I would like to point out two things. First, that under his own definition of privilege, as well as mine, a privilege is defined essentially as anything which is not universal, and indeed, can be revoked. A right however, if it is distinct from a privilege, must therefore be considered universal, and therefore, irrevocable. If my opponent wishes to argue that rights can be revoked, then he is clearly not discussing rights at all, but merely widespread privileges. Second, driving ability can be revoked even without law breaking. A person who has driving accidents on their record can have their license revoked, even if the incident for which it was ostensibly revoked was minor. It is therefore not the incident itself which caused the revocation, but public danger that the history represents. And so because my opponent never actually responded to this, this provides yet another explanation of why driving on public roads is a privilege: it can be revoked for simply being a safety hazard, rather than for any specific incident which would cause revocation. To paraphrase, driving is a privilege because the ability to drive can be revoked if driving is deemed a safety hazard, and because anything which can be revoked is by his own definition a privilege, not a right, I urge a Con Vote. I would then like to take the time to thank HghDnsty for this debate, being both intellectually vigorous, and quick.
Driving on public roads is a right not a privilege.

I appreciate the insight given by my opponent but he/she has failed to address the issue at hand. Instead, my opponent has confirmed my argument by referencing the Second Amendment to the Constitution, stating that "American citizens are legally allowed to purchase and retain firearms. However, this has not prevented laws from restricting the use of those firearms, when that use is dangerous." From this point, we can take that my opponent agrees that American citizens have rights associated with ownership and the Bill of Rights. My opponent goes on to state the point that when people violate the laws (or create dangerous situations) those rights somehow become privileges. In fact, this isn't true either, those RIGHTS are taken away or limited to those offenders. This debate, as stated in the first round, doesn't contest the laws associated with driving. As with any laws, the RIGHTS of citizens can be revoked or limited if individuals break the law. If a driver breaks the law his/her RIGHTS should be revoked or limited and as such, this debate doesn't change how laws are enforced but rather, the fact that they are indeed rights vs. privileges. My opponent has not provide sufficient evidence to contest that the definitions of a right and a privilege set forth above. In the absence of refuting these facts he's instead lead the reader down an avenue that is outside the scope of this debate in an attempt to solidify a fact that is irrelevant. As such, I encourage you to again vote "Pro/For" the concept of considering driving a right rather than a privilege. Thank you.
Driving on public roads is a right not a privilege.

My argument is based simply on the difference between the right to have something, and the right to do something. Now, my opponents primary argument is based on the flawed assumption that, if we own or have paid for something, we have a right to use it as we wish. This is quite clearly flawed, as one can see from a simple examination of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Now the traditional interpretation of that amendment is that American citizens are legally allowed to purchase and retain firearms. However, this has not prevented laws from restricting the use of those firearms, when that use is dangerous. I, as an American citizens, am therefore allowed to own a gun, but not to shoot a person with that gun, when not in self-defense. There is thus a clear legal distinction between ownership and use, which comes into play when the use of an object could be dangerous to other citizens. Therefore, at the point where a particular person driving would be a danger to all of those around them, they do not have the right or privilege to drive on public roads, because to do so would be a public danger. Driving on public roads is therefore a privilege, because it is contingent on the exercise of that privilege not being dangerous. The moment it is deemed to be dangerous, that privilege is revoked. Such a thing could not occur if driving was a right. I await your response.
Driving on public roads is a right not a privilege.

State and local governments often quote driving as a privilege. However, this is in error. In fact, driving is a right for all law abiding taxpayers. Dictionary.com defines a right as "the interest or ownership a person, group, or business has in property...". U.S. citizens pay taxes that fund roads, construction and maintenance. As a U.S. citizen that pays taxes we thus have the right to drive on the roads we purchase. In addition, in purchasing our vehicles, we have the right to drive said vehicle. Furthermore, in paying registration fees, taxes and licensing fees we've further demonstrated that a fee has been paid by taxpayers (as a group) which have an interest in driving utilities (roads, vehicles, police patrol, etc.) As an example, suppose you hire a contractor to build your house (which you'll pay a mortgage on for 30 years). At the end of the construction, you've paid $200k for your house but the contractor (legislator) states that although you've paid for said house they are granting you the privilege to live in the house you've paid to have built. Under the definition of a right, you've paid for the house and have legal title and rights to the house. In comparison, the same concept applies to the utilities you purchase to make driving possible and the definition of rights has been fulfilled. Lastly, Dictionary.com defines "privilege" as a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich. Since public roads are open to "most" citizens that follow the laws (and the laws are not under dispute) it cannot be a privilege as defined. For these reasons, I encourage you to vote "Pro/For" the concept of considering driving a right rather than a privilege. Thank you.
It is the fault of rape victims that rape happens

DefinitionsPro says "I would like voters to use the definition which I provided and the one which I as the instigator intended for this debate to be about. "No definition of rape was provided in round 1. As such it was assumed that the general meaning of the word was being used. When it became clear that Pro was restricting what "rape" is and is not, through their definitions and arguments (Not revealed until round 2) then I challenged it. I provided a superior definition of rape that also has legal precedent. Pro has not being able to show why their definition is superior. Pro merely asserts that by some unknown fiat that his definition of rape should be used cause he says so. Pro blames the rape victimPro says "I have never argued that the victim is not allowed to resist being raped. I am merely claiming that it is because of resistance that rape occurs" Pro acknowledges that the victim is allowed to resist rape. This shows that the rape victim has NOT committed a wrongful act by resisting the rape thus can't be at fault for the rape, as pro defined Fault as responsibility for failure or a wrongful act. With the rape victim not committing a wrongful act by resisting rape thus they are not at fault for the rape, this refutes Pros conclusion that. .. "Conclusion 3: It is the fault of rape victims that rape occurs. "Have a nice day.
It is the fault of rape victims that rape happens

"As part of Pro argument, they assert that the rape victim is at fault because they "resisted". Pro implies that it is wrong to resist rape ? On what basis does Pro make this claim ? Why doesn't the victim of rape have the right to self defense ? "I have never argued that the victim is not allowed to resist being raped. I am merely claiming that it is because of resistance that rape occurs. I would like my opponent to show me one example of rape as I have defined it where the person would have still been raped if they had not resisted. My opponent tried to define rape differently as he has seen that he has lost this debate. I defined rape as: Rape: any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. My opponent sees that he can no longer successfully argue that the victim is not at least partially responsible so he tries to add a different definition. I would like voters to use the definition which I provided and the one which I as the instigator intended for this debate to be about.
It is the fault of rape victims that rape happens

Definitions Pro says "I am arguing about the form of rape which I have defined." Pro did not provide definitions in round 1, so I couldn't even look at it and challenge it till round 2.Pro says " I realise that there is more than one type of rape but the one which I have defined is the one which I am arguing about. If I were to debate against the existence of the Christian god, evidence for the Muslim god would not be relevant."If you were debating the existence of the Christian God you would make that clear in round 1 with your debate topic + definitions + opening arguments.You made no such distinction about limiting "rape" to a certain "type" of "rape" in the first round.My definition is superior, as such my refutation of Pros argument stands.Countering Pros argumentsPro says..."It has been shown that by allowing rape to occur, the victim is at least partly responsible for the act. It has been shown that by allowing rape to occur, the victim is at least partly responsible for the act."Claiming that the victim of rape is responsible by allowing the rape is self refuting, as rape is an act that has not being consented too.As part of Pro argument, they assert that the rape victim is at fault because they "resisted". Pro implies that it is wrong to resist rape ? On what basis does Pro make this claim ?Why doesn't the victim of rape have the right to self defense ? As Wikipedia says..."Self-defense, self-defence (see spelling differences) or private defence is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property or the well-being of another from physical harm. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely." [1]As Pro has not justified that it is wrong to resist rape, and the rape victim is not wrong to assert self defense, this refutes Pros claim that "The extenuating circumstance in the case of rape would be that the victim is resistant". Without the extenuating circumstance the rapist is at fault.I kinda look forward to Pros reply.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
It is the fault of rape victims that rape happens

Definitions My opponent believes that my definition is flawed because it leaves out other forms of rape such as date rape where a victim may be unconscious or unable to provide consent. I am arguing about the form of rape which I have defined. I have no interest in arguing about date rape or any other type of rape which I did not define. CA: Premise 1: In order for a rape to occur, some form of sexual intercourse must be forced on to a recipient. From definition My opponent's only objection to this premise is that rape is not always forced as a victim may be asleep and thus be unable to provide or deny consent. I again will tell my opponent that I am arguing about the form of rape which I have defined. I realise that there is more than one type of rape but the one which I have defined is the one which I am arguing about. If I were to debate against the existence of the Christian god, evidence for the Muslim god would not be relevant. CA: Premise 3: To be a rape victim, one would have to be resistant to the idea of a sexual act with the rapist. Please refer to my last point which states that I am arguing about the form of rape which I defined earlier. Looking at my opponent's argument for why the victim is not at fault for rape, my opponent says: 1) A victim is not at fault for the crime committed against them As this is the premise which my opponent's entire argument rests on, I would ask that he defend it. I have already shown that by simply giving consent, all cases of rape as I have defined it would be prevented. Fault is defined as: Fault: [r]esponsibility for failure or a wrongful act. It has been shown that by allowing rape to occur, the victim is at least partly responsible for the act. With my opponent's first premise refuted, his third inevitable falls and his argument is refuted. The rapist is at fault for the rape My opponent in premises 2 and 4 says that they are true "absent any entenuating circumstances". The extenuating circumstance in the case of rape would be that the victim is resistant. Without this rape would not occur and thus my and my opponent's argument can both be correct. I await Con's response.