BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kalam Sucks Butt

The rules are fineArgument(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists.(1) This is self-evident a priori. Everything we see has a cause. Diaherra, football, pain, hitler, but we don't see stuff like food, root beer, robots, chickens, hitler come out of no where with no cause. Everyone hopes 1 is true. Otherwise we could start eating a sandwitch and posion can just appear. Atheists hope the premise isn't true, but they all want it to be true unknowingly. Its a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.(2) Theres good reasons for to believe this. Like this sub argument2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. 2.12 An infinite temporal regress is an actual infinite. 2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.If I told you that you can get a candy bar if you snap your fingers an infinite amount of time would you ever get the candy? Nope!The available scientific evidence strongly suggests the universe has a finite past.*The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems suggest a universe with a finite past.*The 2003 paper by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin suggests a universe with a finitepast. An actual infinity can't exist, for it would lead to absurdities such as Hilbert's Hotel(3) Follows from above(4) There was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature"something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be: *spaceless because it created space *timeless because it created time *immaterial because it created matter *powerful because it created out of nothing *intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed *personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices) and how can an impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect? (5) God exists. Follows
Kalam Sucks Butt

Devil's adovcateThere was a time when I thought the KCA made God's existence virtually certain. Both premises seemed about as certain as it's possible to be, and the conclusion followed necessarily from the premises. I used to assign a 98% or 99% certainty of God's existence, leaving room only for the possibility that there was something I hadn't thought of.Although I still lean in favor of the soundness of the KCA, I'm not as sure of it as I once was. There are some problems with it that are difficult to overcome, and I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about them. I'm going to use this debate to bring up some of those difficulties and see if or how my opponent can resolve them. I'll also throw in a few other arguments for filler and fun. So while some of the arguments I'll raise will be actual objections (or reservations) I have, I will be playing devil's advocate to some extent in this debate.The resolutionThe resolution is that the KCA "sucks butt." Of course no argument literally sucks butt, so I interpret the resolution to be a metaphor meaning that the KCA fails to prove what it claims, namely that the universe has a cause which is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, and personal, which is what Con claims follows from the universe having a cause.Although Con didn't say so, I'm assuming the burden of proof is shared.StructureSince Con merely spelled out the logical form and premises of the argument, and the conclusions he draws from the argument, but he didn't attempt to defend any of the premises, I take it that it was not his intention for that to have been his opening statement. He was just telling us what the KCA was and what implications it had. So I'm using my first round for all these preliminaries. I'll make my actual arguments in subsequent rounds.RulesIt's not my place to make rules since this is not my debate, so think of these more as requests or suggestions. I also request that Con say in the next round whether he agrees to them or not.1. No new arguments in the last round except whatever arguments are necessary to refute what it said in previous rounds.2. Burden of proof is shared. I must show that the KCA sucks butt, and Con must show that it does not suck butt.3. Voters should vote on the content of the debate; not on your own opinions or arguments that you would like to have made; nor on whatever goes on in the comment section or elsewhere.
homosexual is wrong

I'm going to try to interpret the instigating argument here. Forgive me if I get what you just said wrong. You say that gay people are mean because when they come out to people they cause stress. They can't help it! Being gay isn't something that you choose! You can't just wake up and say "I'm going to stop being gay.". It doesn't work like that. And it's even meaner to them to keep them from coming out. When people come out, the people they come out to don't have to deal with that stress forever. If somebody doesn't come out, it stays with them until they come out. It's like having a huge secret that you can't tell anybody. It's just a terrible feeling overall. Forcing gay people to stay in the closet is just wrong!
Affirmative Action

The opponent said we should be trying to fix industrialized discrimination and we do: it's illegal to discriminate in jobs. Affirmative action helps by helping minorites into higher postions in society. Affirmative action programs are created in an attempt to make sure that all groups within a given society have the same opportunity to succeed. It adresses the imbalance groups in workplaces. Minorties in lower classes need this opportunity to succed and get a good education that results in a good job that brings in money. The escape of poverty is formed with the help affirmative action.(http://www.cheatsheet.com...) Affirmative action does not discriminate against whites and it doesn’t create quotas. Affirmative action does not put people who are not qualified in college. Affirmative action is a necessary policy in college admissions that combats racial discrimination and the lower class. (http://www.hlntv.com...)
Affirmative Action

1) Affirmative action helps socially excluded groups to preferred positions in society. Affirmative action would not be necessary if there were no discrimination. This policy only helps minorities from their low socioeconomic statuses and makes education equal. With things such as legacy scholarships factoring one's chance to get in a college, it only makes sense to have AA. Because of discrimination legacy scholarships only apply to people with a higher statuses in the past because minorities could not go to such colleges .Additionally, AA does not just let any minority get into a school or have a job. It gives qualified applicants a chance that they will not have otherwise. Some people treat AA as a free ticket for minorities to get into college, but those people would not have been considered if they did not have good application. AA gives people the education they deserve, resulting in better jobs and in the end improving their life by making things equal. 2) AA helps with discrimination problems we have today While some may argue there is no discrimination, there certainly is. Black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison(http://www.dollarsandsense.org...).The events involving Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Jordan Davis, and Freddie Grey make it hard to deny that discrimination is a difficulty we struggle with today. AA only helps with this trouble we face with by giving these discriminated people a better life.
The Judeo-Christian God exists.

The Judeo-Christian God does not exist because there is no reliable proof of his existence. Hinduism predates Judaism; Jainism, Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism predates Christianity. Dozens of other religions which are now regarded as mythology also predate Christianity. Why didn't God introduce Christianity into the world before all of the other religions existed? If the first man and woman were created by God, why weren't they Jewish/Christian? Why didn't they teach their descendants to be Jewish/Christian? Why did Judaism/Christianity only officially become a religion 2000 years after Hinduism? If God is willing to stop evil and able, then from where does evil come? (In this case, evil can include natural disaster, disease, etc) If God is unwilling to stop evil but able, then he is malevolent. If God is willing to stop evil but unable, then he is not omnipotent. If God is unwilling to stop evil and unable, why call him God? -Epicurus Prayer does nothing. If God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, he would already be aware of every man's problems. Only he can decide when (if at all) he wants to fix it, as it is God's Will. Therefore, praying to God will do nothing, as he already knows of the issue and has already decided when he will solve the problem.
The Bible is Not an Authoritative Document

I challenge you to debate me on the topic of Biblical inerrancy. I hold that the Bible is vastly self-contradictory and filled with obvious mythology. I was a young-earth creationist for more than a decade before rejecting Christianity wholesale. I hope to draw you to the same conclusion. This debate will be about the Bible ONLY; not the existence of a deity. R1 - Acceptance Only R2 - Opening Arguments R3 - Question Round. R4 - Answer Round. R5 - Closing Arguments
Should sports-man be sent to jail for being racist

Essentially what we have heard from Pro thus far is ....nothing really. His claims revolve around the idea that racism in sports will increase unless we send racist sportsmen to jail. First of all, racism is bad. We know this. I know this. You know this. We don't need to debate that. Secondly, a sportsman saying something racist does not justify sending him to prison. We already have overcrowded prisons, and I believe on the Con side that sending a sportsman to jail for exercising his freedom of expression is a gross overextension of paternalism. Pro has stated that racism will escalate unless something is done - but where is the proof of this? Since the dawn of time there has been racism - does Pro believe that racism will somehow disappear if we send sportsmen who are racist to jail? What about the average person who says something racist? Will they go to jail too? Therefore, Pro has failed to demonstrate how sending sportsmen to jail will solve the racism problem
Should sports-man be sent to jail for being racist

So we have heard from Pro today that it is okay for us to send sportsmen to JAIL for racism, and yet he gives no reason as to why. First of all, sportsmen are just normal people that play sport. It isn't okay to penalize them with jail time because they exercised their right to freedom of speech. Yes, these sportsmen can be removed from competitions, but turning them into a criminal because they said something derogatory? Sending them to the same place we send murderers and rapists? It is the role of the government to protect the rights and liberty of the people, not to act as to make saying something derogatory a federal offense. If this motion passes, then sportsmen will effectively have a list of what they can and cannot say - which is completely unfair I await Pro's response.
Smoking should be banned

Well, guns are prohibited in the majority of countries already, where only police has permission to have them. I agree that cars and many other types of vehicles can cause death of many people. However, the invention of cars made our lives significantly easier and, if a person uses it carefully, it will never bring any harm. So their advantages for daily routine, economy, people's interactions, mankind in general are incontestable. The same cannot be said about smoking, which does not benefit to society at all, just making more and more people people addicted to it. Millions of people died because of cancer caused by smoking or, to be precise, their addiction to smoking and the lack of willpower to get rid of it. This everything could have been prevented if the smoking have been banned and people wouldn't have an opportunity to ruin their health themselves.
Smoking should be banned

Hullo. I am not really against banning smoking, but this is the only debate that I have a position on, so I am doing this. I think smoking shouldn't be banned because smoking is a choice. A choice that a man (or woman) is allowed to make because this is a free country. If you have problems with smoking, maybe you should also support the ban of guns. Guns kill more than smoking. And what about cars? Car accidents kill around three thousand two hundred people per day, which in a year is about 1.3 million people. Then should be ban driving? No. Because all of these things are essential to our lives, and the risk of death caused by it is nearly non-existence ( Except guns ). Smoking is too. People can inhale second-hand smoke every day. But unless you live with smokers who smoke 10 packs a day, then I think you should be fine. Plus buildings are allowed to prohibit smoking.
Love is merely an action.

Ok. So is it an action or an emotion? E.g. I love that person. I loved that person. What i am asking you is do we need to like the person to love them. I can see you are not christian, so i'm not sure if this debate is for you. Because I am talking about something very specific to the christian faith. Not love as secular people would use it. Basically I am talking about this: Jesus tells us to love everybody. is this do loving actions to everybody or have emotional connections with everybody. I did say this in round one.
Love is merely an action.

This is a 4 round Debate. In mainstream Christianity love is just an action. You hear things like: "You must love everyone, but you don't have to like them." When people say this, they are implying that Jesus is only asking you to do good things for someone and that you don't need to like them. ---------- I believe this is wrong teaching. In my opinion God is literally asking us to have an emotional connection with everyone. That emotional connection would be the greatest emotion, Love. When a mother loves her child, she doesn't just do good things for him/her and likes him/her, she actually profoundly loves the child. I haven't really presented any arguments, I just wanted to give an opening statement and let the Pro/For begin. ---------- Anyone that does not agree is free to debate. I will have great pleasure in doing so and I am open to persuasion. P.S. This debate is directed only to Christians, because we would be in the same place and would be thinking in the same terms. Thank you.
Is bullet train a need for india

Thank you KartavyaD for starting this debate. This is my first online debate, a bit nervous. :) :P You say that we do not need bullet trains as our economy isn't developed. I simply question you-Why? I dont think that just because an economy is not developed, it should not have bullet trains. I think that to develop the Indian economy, bullet trains should be introduced as they are a sign of development. If you say that a 'not-fully-developed' economy should not have bullet trains or any other thing that accelerates its development, you are crushing its ability and its chances to develop. Taking the example of China, bullet trains have helped to develop its economy. So, according to me, India does need a bullet train to boom its economy, to accelerate its economic growth rate.
Sex before is marriage is okay.

My case: Claim 1- Sex helps someone keep their immune system up. "People who have sex have higher levels of what defends your body against germs, viruses, and other intruders. Researchers at Wilkes University in Pennsylvania found that college students who had sex once or twice a week had higher levels of the a certain antibody compared to students who had sex less often" (1) This matters since health should be something all humans value for the sake of well being. Claim 2: Stress reliever "Sex and intimacy can boost your self-esteem and happiness, too, Ambardar says. It"s not only a prescription for a healthy life, but a happy one." (2) Sex is not only good for health, but for the quality of your life. People who have sex, have higher self-esteem. People are happier when they have sex. Rebuttal: "The bible tells us that such acts are not appropriate to engage in." This presupposes that everyone believes in the bible as truth. People don't however, thus not a valid source without going into a bible debate which would be not on topic. Therefore disregard the statement. Now let's point out a inconsistency. My opponent says "Sex is a very important act. It is the creator of life", as if creating life and being pregnant is a good thing, but then later on states "how many teens would get pregnant if sex before marriage never happened? Maybe 1% of how many get pregnant now.", therefore implying that it would be better if less people were pregnant. My opponent needs to clarify which one he wants. "Also, abstinence until marriage would result in very little abortions and unwanted pregnancies" Where's the studies or statistics? There's no evidence cited, just conjecture. Disregard this statement on the basis that it's unwarranted. (1) http://www.webmd.com... (2) http://www.webmd.com...
Sex before is marriage is okay.

I believe that sex before marriage is not okay. The bible tells us that such acts are not appropriate to engage in. Sex is a very important act. It is the creator of life. If we act like it some normal everyday activity, it will fall out of control. In the United States, how many teens would get pregnant if sex before marriage never happened? Maybe 1% of how many get pregnant now. Also, abstinence until marriage would result in very little abortions and unwanted pregnancies. Like to see what others think on this.
God Exists

R1. Rebuttal to "Argument from incoherence" The "Argument from incoherence" was mostly targeted at the term greatness being subjective, this is redundant and irrelevant. Greatness is merely a term given to god by his creations. Since god is capable of creating and destroying what he creates at whim, he is clearly greater than anything he creates. Thus in comparison to the universe(his creation) he is immensely great. It would be redundant and irrelevant to say that god could not be considered great if he didn't create anything. This merely proves the obvious that god may not be considered great if he were to create nothing. This doesn't prove that god does not exist, just that it is possible for him to not be considered great. But this is irrelevant because he did create the universe and can, if it was his will, completely control or destroy it, and as such can be considered immensely great. R2. Rebuttal to "Impossibility of a caused universe" Causality is a very robust term that can exist independently of the arrow of time, and even in reverse of it. While for most practical application it moves with the arrow of time, that does not mean that it is exclusive to it. For instance, there are experiments that suggest that the future can cause the present state of a quantum particle. Since the future was causation of the present quantum particle, clearly "causality" is more robust of a term. In addition during a moment of time, something can cause another, this is also independent of the arrow of time. Thus it is certainly possible, and in my opinion more likely than not that god caused the universe. R3. Rebuttal to saying it is impossible for god to be omniscient My opponent has made the claim that for god to be omniscient, that the future must exist. I disagree. Since god has to be void of physical properties(otherwise he could not create the universe) he also has to be void of time. Him being void of time means that he can be at the future and past at the same moment. This does not mean that the future exist, merely that an omnipotent does not have to wait for it to happen. R4. Rebuttal to block universe My opponent has made the argument that the universe is in fact a block universe, instead of a presentist view. I have even given some evidence to support this argument. Unfortunately the evidence comes out to that the universe is not a block universe. This is evident from the fact that even when the future supposedly causes a present event, it does not mean that the future exist in that matter. In the actual quantum experiment, the knowledge of the future and past of the particle merely gives a 90% probability of guessing it. If the universe was truly a block, it would have been practically 100%. One could argue that this 10% difference could indeed be the future not being set in stone. While the effect of the future could cause something in the present, the future does not yet exist, thus could fail to exist after this cause.
God Exists

My argument will be in two parts. The first part will explain how is it possible for a god to exist and how he would exist. And my second part will be why is more likely than not this god exist. Also as a side note, I will be using the pronoun "he" to describe god, this is technically incorrect since a god cannot be a gender or a sex, I am merely using "he" because it is easy to use. Part one. Exactly how would a god exist? How could it have created the universe? Well there are obvious things that a god could not be. So a few things god could not be, is anything bound by space and time. Since space and time do not exist independently from the universe. Thus could not exist before hand, therefore a god cannot be bound by them otherwise he couldn't have created them. So now all known matter is crossed out. Well next question, how does a god have complete control of the universe(a requirement for being omnipotent)? Well he would have to interact with the things in the physical world, without being physical? Well one possibility is that he can break the laws of physics, which makes sense since he is omnipotent. But what if he didn't want to say break those laws for personal reasons, well he could still interact with probability. It is given that an omnipotent being would have control over probability, and quantum mechanics deals a lot with probability. Something that had a 1/10^99999999 of happening quantumly naturally could be guaranteed if an omnipotent god wanted it to. Part two. Why is it more likely than not that a god exist? Well that comes down to the nature of physical things. Everything comes from another thing, and another thing, and another thing. Now we can trace this to a point we call the big bang(I prefer to call it the great spacial expansion). But then why did this happen, nothing physical just happen without a cause. Well the only explanation is something that doesn't need a cause was the cause. Such a cause could not be physical in nature otherwise it would have also required a reason to exist. Also why is the universe the way it is? Why is it something instead of nothing. Why do the laws of physics work the way they do? Why is gravity related to space, time, and the speed of light? While we can say well this causes this, so that is why, it still doesn't explain why does that cause that. This question of why keeps on going until you use circular logic or you run into a road block. The only possible explanation is that something that does not need explanation is at the source.