BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RESOLVED: Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist

This debate will not precisely focus on providing evidence for God's existence, but establishing the philosophical groundwork for why God is likely to exist. I won't be using the Ontological, Cosmological, moral, or Intelligent design arguments. I'm going to be intellectually honest and admit that i see fundamental flaws in each argument. The Ontological argument fails mainly because it is based on reason alone and neglects observation and experience. First, i think that the Ontological argument is entirely subjective. The argument is focused on perfection and conceiving the greatest being to exist, but what is the greatest being to exist? You defined it as God with his attributes. In other words, you defined him into existence. The Cosmological argument also is flawed as it states that everything has a cause and that cause was God. Nothing leads us to believe that it was the Christian God or even a god at all. The moral argument assumes that all morals must have a moral lawgiver when nothing also leads us to believe that morals need a being to exist. Morals can arguably be simple social constructs coming from humans and not God. I move on to my next point in which God himself is not extraordinary. The concept of God has been around far longer than the ideals imposed by the Enlightenment and secular humanism. God existed since the dawn of humanity. Science has not proven nor provided a solid natural explanation for God. For this debate, I will present a relatively new argument still controversial among philosophers. This argument won't prove that God exists, but that he most likely exists simply by making inferences and conclusions on what constitutes existing in this realm. I think we can agree that we cannot be certain of the existence of reality, thus we will speak in terms of probability. I will present evidence for the Bible's reliability, but I will not be in depth as this is in the field of Philosophy. I may also compare it with other religions and attempt to make the Christian God the most likely explanation by ruling out all others. That being said, let's begin.
RESOLVED: Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist

Okay, so I've been talking to people on DDo, and they have, apparently, provided me a list of "good" judges, who hopefully, would vote from a rational perspective, without any prejudices, on such a controversial issue.With this said, let us move onto the debate present at hand here!RESOLVED: The Christian God is More Likely to ExistDefinitions:Christian God- A tri-omni like figure, whose powers include the following three qualities; omnipotence, omniscience, and omnivolence.Philosophically-Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Likely-In 51 or more of the possible worldsDebate Format:Con R1. IntroductionPro R1. Opening ArgumentsCon R2. Rebuttals, and Presentation of ArgumentsPro R2. RebuttalCon R3. Counter RebuttalsPro R3. Counter RebuttalsCon R4. Counter RebuttalsPro R4. Concluding RemarksCon R5. Concluding RemarksPro R5-WaivesGood luck, and have fun! ;)
Universal Health Care

(Yeah alive again!) \\\Universal Health care violates individual rights. "It is important that individuals be treated as free moral agents, accountable to their own actions, and not held accountable to the actions of others/// This is the UNITED states of America. Here we help each other. Here, if a fat man gets into the hospital, everyone pays for it. If the rich man gets into a car accident, everyone pays for it. Everyone helps each other! \\\The extreme of this argument is the circumstance in which a careless smoker is given the "right" to burden others for their expensive health care costs. /// This is a very extreme argument. The amount of money this smoker will burden the taxpayers with is minimal. On the other hand, the taxpayers WILL ALSO burden the smoker. The taxpayers have physicals, orthodontist appointments, Xrays etc. So saying that the careless smoker burdens the country is a BLATANT LIE! \\\There is a difference between rights and necessity's. It's not fair to those who are healthy to be burdened on and forced to pay for those who are unhealthy./// The people who are health pay maybe even more in physicals, Xrays, ETC. As I just stated. \\\The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of." /// First of all, since YOU are the instigator, you have the burden of proof. You have provided only one source and NO proof and/or examples. You have not state WHAT universal health care system we are debating and when it will be implemented. Therefore this point is invalid. (Bye the way voters, debatapedia is the wikipedia of debate, it can be edited by anyone, anywhere, anytime. So if you trust this source, that's your problem. Now to expand on this point and bring new points to the table. 1. Problems with current (presumably US) system Some 47 million U.S. residents have no health insurance, and the numbers keep growing. Because employers increasingly are moving in the direction of providing Wal-Mart-style health coverage by shifting health care costs to employees, America's workers struggle to pay higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments—if they can afford such coverage at all. Of the 47 million Americans without health insurance, 8.7 million are children. If we have Universal Health care, we will be insuring the lives of 8.7 million children. Not 8.7 million "careless smokers". This argument is small but I would like to see Sid refute it. I will bring up more arguments later.
Universal Health Care

1. Universal Health care violates individual rights. "It is important that individuals be treated as free moral agents, accountable to their own actions, and not held accountable to the actions of others. Universal health care holds some individuals accountable for the actions of others." The main thing here is that "rights" should only protect individuals from harm from others and allow them certain freedoms, but a right to universal health care causes individuals burdening other members of society for things that are thought as needed or desirable. The extreme of this argument is the circumstance in which a careless smoker is given the "right" to burden others for their expensive health care costs. Also, food is necessary, but that doesn't mean its a right. There is a difference between rights and necessity's. It's not fair to those who are healthy to be burdened on and forced to pay for those who are unhealthy. People have a right to pay more for better health care. Froma Harrop said, "Canada's the wrong model for universal health care". Seattle Times. February 28th, 2007 - "There's also the freedom argument. People don't want to be told that they can't spend their own money on goods that would benefit them — and who can blame them?" Universal health care will have rules that decrease patient flexibility "Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?" Balanced Politics.org - "Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of." I have stated one argument, which has effectively refuted your one point and has stated my views. Thank you, and I look forward to what other points you have. http://debatepedia.idebate.org...
Universal Health Care

\\\You should get your facts right. What Universal Health care does (or at least the one proposed in America) is it requires people to buy health insurance. It doesn't give it to them for free. You have to pay it either directly or through taxes. The public option might be cheaper, but it still costs money, which some people don't have. /// My facts are right sid. You pay through it in taxes, of course. Chain of events: Your company does not need to give you health insurance because of bill, the company no longer loses money by paying for your health, therefore they can pay you more in salary. You brought up new arguments in your rebuttal, so I must refute those. .. *sighs* \\\Lenin said, "Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism. " The government should not be in control of medicine and should generally not be in too many features of our lives. It is both inefficient and an intrusion on our fundamental rights. /// First of all you quoted Lenin, second of all this is irrelevant because this does not influence the debate at all because it is one man's opinion who lived once upon a time in a land far far away called the Soviet Union. \\\We'll be depending too much on the government. What if the government collapses or becomes corrupt? We can't always depend on the government. The government should depend on us/// If the government collapses, I think the last thing we'll be worrying about is our doctors appointments. Business is already corrupt, better start fresh! \\\With fewer financial incentives, fewer individuals would decide to become physicians in the first place. Talent would be lost from the industry and the quality of doctors and health care would fall. /// You shouldn't use money as the reason you're a doctor, it should be for REAL reasons like compassion and caring. \\\The markets are better at providing quality; same with health care. The markets and competition generally help produce higher quality goods for the least money (the highest value). The same applies to health care. /// The markets can provide quality, but if you have: Pregnancy * Obesity * Diabetes * Arthritis * Depression * Fibromyalgia * Asthma * Thyroid Disease * Kidney Disease * High Blood Pressure * Cancer * Back Problems * Lupus then YOU WONT GET ANY INSURANCE AT ALL! The debate goes to the pro.
Should kids be able to have TVs in their bedrooms

I think kids should be able to have TV"s in their bedrooms because they are responsible. However, I only think kids 10 and above should be able to do this. Parents can put Parental Controls on their child"s TV if they don"t want their child watching just anything. They can also limit their TV time. It will be a fun experience for a kid to go through and they"La get to show how responsible they are.
Should kids be able to have TVs in their bedrooms

if parents can limit the amount of TV these kids are watching than its kinda pointless putting the television in their room because they don't get to show this sense of responsibility that you claim they have. but more importantly, even above the age of 10, these are still early ages for these children and they do not need another reason to avoid social contact and doing this will make them somewhat anti-social because they will be alone in a room. whether its watching television with their family or leaving the sitting room to go to play with sibling while parents watch something boring or watching sports with older siblings, these are important nudges that allow kids to grow in a social environment allowing them to develop vital social skills
Terrorism can be justified.

To conclude this great debate, here is a list of arguments Pro justification of terrorism, so that readers can have an overview and be able to decide for themselves which side they choose to vote for, all arguments stated can be found with a more detailed explanation under Main arguments – round 2. I will encourage Con to do the same in his conclusion, although he may decide to conclude it in another fashion. Terrorism is justified as an extreme, where no peaceful solution can be met.(Main arguments – round 2, lines 2 – 16.) Terrorism is relative (Main arguments – round 2, lines 17 – 31.) Terrorism can bring attention to a cause (Main arguments – round 2, lines 32 – 34.) This debate has been very successful and I am very grateful for getting such a dedicated debater to take the role as Con. I have seen some of the debates on here and quite frankly was a little scared that the debate might fail. Luckily it did not, quite the contrary, actually. Thank you and may the best debater win the votes.
Terrorism can be justified.

"If one was to refer to the broad definition, terrorism would indeed be ignoring basic human rights, but not only would “terrorists” be accusable, but the states of the world too. "That's true. But we are not discussing if governments perform terrorist acts. As a matter of fact, governments do perform terrorist acts, it's called state terrorism."If the narrower definition was used, terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and IS would stand to be accountable for acts of terrorism, whilst freedom fighters targeting their state and not the innocent people of their country, would not be put into the same ranks as what then some would describe as “real terrorist groups”."Resistance movements, or "freedom" fighters, don't just target the state but also the innocent population. Look at IRA, the Talibans, the Al-Shabaab, the Tupamaros, and so on. They all targeted civil population too."Minorities in most countries are heard and terrorism is by far not the only option they have to be heard, terrorism was to be the last resort (...) terrorism (...) was to only be used in the most extreme cases where all peaceful choices were deemed futile. Indeed terrorism may be a lazy method of expression..."Pro accepted that there are other viable ways to express discontent and that terrorism is a lazy method. He contended that terrorism should only be used when peaceful choices were deemed futile. Obviously, this parts from the assumption that peaceful methods are futile. But as Ghandi, Mathin Luther King, and many others showed to us, expressing peacefully can be as effective as violently. "It is true that terrorism can spark hate among people and cause attention being put onto it, but have it then not done what it was supposed to do?"No, they achieve the opposite of what they want. Freedom fighters want to complain about the state and to get support for that complainant. But what they achieve is hate and a depreciation of their cause. Look at the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Palestinians have a noble cause, but their terrorist methods caused a bad impression on people internationally, and now people think the Palestinian cause is wrong.Our human rights are natural and inalienable. There's no justification to take away the right of people. Even saying is justifiable because it defends the rights of minorities is contradictory: you defend the right of some violating the rights of some others. Terrorism can never be justified.
Terrorism can be justified.

Terrorism is, like Pro already told us, the use of violence for political ends, ignoring the human rights. So basically, terrorist ignores humans rights for the sake of their own benefit.Human rights are sacred. No one can determine which rights we can have and which we can, because right are natural. Every person that attempts against human rights, no matter the reason, is attempting against human nature, and thus can't be considered human. There's no situation in which ignoring human rights is justified. Human rights are part of the human nature. When we ignore them, we ignore our humanness. Terrorism is not a human action, but a beast's action.I understand minorities want to express themselves. However, saying terrorism is the only way they can express is lazy, and rather a way of masquerading sadism. Minorities can express in a pacific way. In doing so they would have the opportunity of making their voices sound without having to negate the humanity to people. Someone could say it is not an effective way, but they would be lying. There are several examples throughout history that pacific manifestations are effective. For instance, the movement leaded by Ghandi.As well as this, terrorism is counterproductive. Terrorist acts don't cause people to rethink their conception of that expressing minority. Instead, they generate more hate and a desire for revenge. If someone throws you a rock, you don't start to listen to what he has to say. You go and return the attack. Is this good? That's debatable, but what no one can refute is that it is the human tendency.Finally, wars always violate human rights. Wars are damaging and immoral. But at least there's some regulation to them. The Geneva Conventions give wars some sense of fairness, they make wars a bit less bad. But terrorism doesn't even care of this conventions. If wars are unjustifiable, then terrorism is worst than that.Terrorism is just another way of violating human rights. Anyone who accept and tries to justify terrorism is an immoral, because he/she is accepting the violating of human nature.
Terrorism can be justified.

Welcome to the debate.I am pro justification, you will be con.Format:Round 1 - Acceptance.Round 2 - Main arguments.Round 3 - Rebuttals.Round 4 - Conclusions.If you choose to accept, please follow the format and let us have a good debate.May the best debater win. Also, please do not waste your time to troll, there is no use in it.
Terrorism can be justified.

For the final round let's make a sort of summary and an ending conclusion...There's no justification to violate human rights. Ignoring human rights is like taking away humanity from people, but leaving your own humanity at the same time. Rights are part of the human nature, ignoring them is ignoring humanness. There's always a peacefully way. There are plenty of historical examples that show this, you can have a revolution peacefully.Violating the rights of others in order to defend your own rights is illogical end selfish. The old rule of thumb: do to others whatever you would like them to do to you.Every definition of terrorism denotes the same problems I pointed out. Terrorism brings only bad attention. Terrorism creates hate and a desire for revenge within the population. People see terrorist as killers and bastards and ignore their cause.Thanks for this debate. Yeah some people here are not up to a true debate, but Pro showed reason in his arguments. Good luck!
I can't decide whether to be for or against abortion - Convince me to be pro-life!

I feel like this debate has now focused exclusively on in vitro fertilization (IVF) rather than abortion at large. But, I'm happy to keep the conversation going...You pose many valid questions. But, you still have not answered my main question - why should a fertilized egg not be considered human? What evidence can justify denying human status to a fertilized egg?Forgive me, but some of your claims are quite shocking:"This method does not kill fertilized eggs" - Really? That is exactly what it does! Unused frozen embryos are not preserved forever, they are eventually disposed of. This disposal causes them to die."The eggs that are discarded would never have been anything anyways." - If that is true, then how did the non-discarded eggs become babies? Doesn't each egg hold the same potential for life? Why are used eggs given special status over unused eggs, simply because they were randomly selected from the batch? Obviously the discarded eggs will never "be anything".... because they were discarded! If they were not thrown out, they would have just as much chance to make a life as the other eggs."Think of all the people that are living today because of this method, and tell me that it is morally wrong to use it." - I would turn this back on you: think of all the people NOT living today because their fertilized egg was "discarded," and tell me that it is morally fine to do this. The whole premise of your statement is that a fertilized egg holds human life, which is exactly why it's morally questionable at best to use some eggs and discard others. "I would like you to consider the lives we create are worth it" - Yes, but I would also like you to consider that the lives we destroy are worth it too. "Are the fertilized eggs better off never have been fertilized?" - I would say the fertilized eggs are better off not being killed.... "...it is their only hope of having a biological child." - That is true, sadly. However, it is not the only option for having a child. Throughout the world, there are millions of orphans who will never find a loving home or a better life. They will never find these things because not enough people are willing to adopt them. It is estimated that there are 18 million orphans across the world. It's sad that some people cannot conceive a child. But it is also sad that 18 million already living children will never find homes because we simply want to pass on our own genes. The only way "discarding" fertilized eggs is not wrong is if those eggs are not considered human life. But all the scientific and logical evidence says they ARE human. There is not a shred of evidence to justify why human life does not begin at conception. Therefore, destroying an unborn child, at any point in development, whether through IVF or abortion, must qualify as destroying human life. I am happy to keep this conversation going. Feel free to private message me or challenge me to another debate.
I can't decide whether to be for or against abortion - Convince me to be pro-life!

Let me get this right, you would suggest NOT to vitro fertilization, because the chance of not all eggs being used? I hope you realize that this method is being used by couples that do not have a chance, or have very little chance at conceiving on their own. It is not used as an alternative to something else, it is their only hope of having a biological child. I want you to think of all the people that are living today because of this method, and tell me that it is morally wrong to use it. I would like you to consider the lives we create are worth it, because these people would never have been alive otherwise. Some people owe their lives to this method, and the eggs that are discarded would never have been anything anyways. This method does not kill fertilized eggs, it gives someone life, a life that would not exist without it. I find it incredibly amazing, that one would rather not do this method because they think more of the lives that never have a chance anyway rather than the one's that do. This is my last round, even though I would love to reply to my opponent. Are the fertilized eggs better off never have been fertilized? And what would we then have achieved, and what did we lose?
I can't decide whether to be for or against abortion - Convince me to be pro-life!

Once again, I would tell your friend that discarding 5 unused embryos is abortion. I know it seems harsh and uncomfortable to say that, because in vitro fertilization is done when someone wants a child, and traditional abortion is done when someone does not want a child. But regardless of the motive, it is the same result - a fertilized egg with unique and complete human DNA is being intentionally destroyed through artificial means. This is why many people refuse to do in vitro fertilization, because of the possible moral consequences. I will, once again, emphasize that there are no scientific or logical reasons why a frozen embryo is not human life. If you doubt this, I would challenge you to find any. I look forward to any other arguments you wish to present.