BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Looking to debate a Christian or atheist. You pick the topic (religious)

"God" is defined as an infinite creator Gods definition is this: God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshiped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe : a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshiped in some religions : a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired With this I must conclude that god is only defined as an infinite creator to some but not all people. If you look at the other definition god is defined as various beings or spirits or even just as a person who is greatly loved or admired. For the sake of argument I will agree with your definition to a point. Not as an infinite creator but as a creator. How the universe was created you said: "that the universe had a beginning and has a supernatural cause" ... "If God was the creator of the universe, He would have to be outside time and space since He created both. To avoid infinite regression He would have to be self-existent and uncaused, a Being of Pure Actuality and no Potentiality who logically could not not exist in order to be the uncaused causer of the universe." A universe has no fully known cause, although there are many popular theories. The big bang is theorized that the universe happened from almost a state of nothing. I believe you are assuming that something had to be the “pusher” or the person who started it all. Thing is there are many theories on how that may have happened and I believe polytheism could be considered a logical reason behind that “push” Take this example: a group project has started. Each member in the group has a specific duty. One has to create space, one creates time, the other creates stars, and so on. They have created a universe yet they are outside this universe. This group could have created many universes or just one. They have the power to change any thing they like within their “duty” and no one person can change everything. (polythism) (no one knows if the universe is limitless or not. so yes in this example this is a universe inside a much huger universe) This can be conjoined with the multi-verse theory and that one with say the Cyclic Universe (big bang / big crunch) theory. Although it is not likely, it isn’t illogical. In summary as it is confusing my theroy is: there are a bunch of cyclic universes, each one can create other universes wrapped up inside their own, their own universe had no initial push. Cosmic Evolution in a Cyclic Universe Paul J. Steinhardt, Neil Turok http://arxiv.org... ATTN: Wiki is Not A Reliable source for facts! For definition use of multi-verse only, Not to be used a a scientific source. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Looking to debate a Christian or atheist. You pick the topic (religious)

Hello. I am a Christian, and I wish to debate the topic: Assuming that the universe had a beginning and has a supernatural cause, Polytheism is illogical. which could be also called: Assuming the universe had a beginning and has a supernatural cause, that cause must be singular and infinite. These are my arguments: 1. "God" is defined as an infinite creator. 2. My definition of God is the only one that could have created the universe. This will require some evidence, obviously, so bear with me: a) "infinite" basically means "limitless." An infinite set of numbers is a set that never ends, one that has no limits;. For God to *logically* NOT be infinite, there would have to be something God could not do, some area that He was lacking. b) If God was the creator of the universe, He would have to be outside time and space since He created both. To avoid infinite regression He would have to be self-existent and uncaused, a Being of Pure Actuality and no Potentiality who logically could not not exist in order to be the uncaused causer of the universe. c) This Being cannot change. This Being must be without limits in order to be the cause of those same limits. Since God created time, He cannot be bound by it. Since God has no potentiality (potential to come into existence or potential to change) there can be nothing greater than Him (something with fewer limits), or else that Being would be the true uncaused causer. d) Quite simply, God must be infinite (unlimited) in regard to character qualities, (He must have a character since the Cause of a being with potentiality cannot endow what it does not have), space, time, and matter, as He was the cause of all of the above. Therefore, He cannot be limited. I am sorry if my above explanations confused more than they helped. 3) There cannot be more than one infinite God. This is because to be categorically infinite, as I said before, something must be without limits. Two objects with the same (lack of) limits are identical and there could be no distinction between the two. There must be something to separate the two. To support this point I bring up the example of two infinite lines. You could argue that as two different infinite lines can exist, two infinite gods could exist. You would be wrong. Two different infinite lines can exist only if they are differentiated by spacial dimension or plane. A Being outside of all dimensions and planes could not be so differentiated. To put this point more plainly, two infinite beings could not exist because to differentiate between the two one must have what the other lacks. But if a being lacks something it is not infinite. 4) This does not preclude angels and other supernatural caused "created" beings with potentiality. But they cannot be called Gods (as defined), and the result is that polytheism falls. Thanks for the debate. Please don't attack my Christianity. Just debate the topic as stated.
Looking to debate a Christian or atheist. You pick the topic (religious)

Looking to debate a Christian or Atheist only. Any topic to do with religion, you decide. You must clearly state the topic in the first round as well as your main arguments. This is an informal debate. As long as spelling and grammar can be comprehended they are fine. 5000 letters, 24 hours.If you are a Christian: the bible is not a valid source of facts, quoting the bible is fine but it cannot be your reasoning i.e.: "the bible says it so its true". (You must be debating about your [the Christian] god/beliefs.)If you are an atheist: please don't aim the argument at Christians specifically. For example "your bible is not a good religious text". I am not a Christian and I probably agree.If you are a voter: please note this is an informal debate. as long as the message is clear spelling and grammar should not be deducted. Forfeits are grounds for loss of conduct points.
Deism / Agnostic Theism should replace modern religion

I was a child and as a child i asked God to talk to me and nothing happened. You can go on and say "You didn't really try!" but that won't change anything. And there are plenty of people who used to be christian but now aren't (don't pull a no true scotsman fallacy). Once again, we know DNA and the atom exist and we are learning more about them almost daily and it's NOT proof of any god's existence that is just absurd just because we don't know everything doesn't mean God did it, that was literally the way religion came to be because there are some things we didn't know and we needed a way to justify things we don't understand. Atoms came to be after the big bang[1] and DNA came with the first organism forming from RNA[2]. Some even believe DNA existed before life began[2]. At least i actually provide sources for my claims which you have yet to do at all. Don't quote bible verses as they are of no use to your argument here. We aren't debating your holy book we are debating weather religion is still valid in the 21st century and you have not convinced me at all and most likely you have not convinced anyone. Your arguments are 90% rhetoric 9% bible references and 1% coherent arguments. Please answer the question that this debate is supposed to be about. Is religion still valid in the 21st century? Sources: http://scienceblogs.com...[1] https://www.newscientist.com... [2]
Deism / Agnostic Theism should replace modern religion

I have personal knowledge of religion. I grew up in a christian family where my father is the pastor. I've read the bible cover to cover and I think Jesus was a great guy and an excellent example of how we should be. I can call fallacies out where i see a poor argument and you must adjust your arguments accordingly. If your god really wanted me to know he was there he would have told me. I grew up in a religious family and i wasn't convinced. Regardless i don't need to be religious to tell you it's untrue or lacking in any evidence the same way i don't need to be a murderer to know murder is morally wrong. No fallacies have been committed on my part. No, DNA and the atom is not proof of your god. That's one of the most ridiculous arguments i have heard. I do not have to prove your God doesn't exist when you made the assertion that he does exist. Have you heard of Abiogenesis? The theory states that life could have arisen from non living matter[1]. I will provide a link to the wikipedia page (I have checked the sources) which will give you more information about the theory. Again, I am not here to prove your God doesn't exist I am here to argue that modern religion is outdated and fallacious. I will not argue for your god's lack of existence because i cannot provide evidence for lack of evidence. I don't have to be religious or even have religious knowledge to use simple empirical methods to disprove your arguments. Oh, The bible defines your God which is proof that we can understand and comprehend your God if he even exists. You cannot define God then say he is above our comprehension that is a fallacious argument. You have provided no evidence for your claims. I must also note no the bible is not proof for your God nor is the atom or DNA. Science and reason is all we have and you are using it to attempt to combat my arguments. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Deism / Agnostic Theism should replace modern religion

You cannot speak intelligibly on something for which you have no knowledge base. You cannot speak on religion unless you have personal knowledge of religion, you cannot call fallacy that which you have not studied. You simply do not know God exists because you have personally never sought Him. The 84% of religious people you cite could clearly make an argument, because they have been involved in religion studied it, lived it, but YOU? No. It is precisely because you personally have NO knowledge of God that you do not understand the 90/95%. If you go to church regularly you"ll begin to understand the high numbers. You my friend make fallacy relevant because you make a decree based on a complete and total lack of personal knowledge and study-that would be on the subject of religion. Second paragraph IS the proof that an intelligence (hereafter referred to as God) that far exceeds the intelligence that exists upon the entirety of the Globe! Prove he Does NOT exist without using DNA and Atom creation and you"ll see have quickly all your arguments come to naught. You simply cannot make any arguments for natural evolution without having to rely 100% on those two elements. You cannot use ignorance of subject matter as proof of nonexistence. That is neither based in fact, nor an intelligible argument. Prove that God DID NOT create the DNA strand and the Atom ". If you can, but stop saying God doesn"t exist based solely on unscientific data. You cannot speak to the subject of the supernatural, you"ve never studied it! Stop commenting on things you do not know from lack of study. Why are you ON a religious debate board if you personally have not researched the actual existence of God for yourself? (no I do not mean that maliciously, I"m appealing to your reason). So before you will accept the existence of God (for which you have not researched, looked for , reflected upon , sat through church services, read the Bible seriously, reviewed religious materials) you think God, The God should bow to your intellect. Do you NOT see the lunacy in such reasoning? As to submitting to God ". You most certainly stand condemned and at the end of your life, God WILL make Himself known too you! Don"t leave it like that. You don"t have too, God will prove Himself to you IF you honestly and with an open mind seek Him. It"s only to late, when you die or when Christ comes (that"s a different subject entirely). Because God is ABOVE you or sciences ability to understand Him is precisely WHY you cannot just throw the baby out with the bath water. You MUST look. Not decree based on man"s feeble knowledge. Do you not see the reasoning in this fact? You say you can"t prove it, and flatly refuse to SEE the proof that lies in plain sight ".. Look AGAIN my friend, open your reason and Look again. There IS ONLY ONE possible explanation for the creation of the DNA strand and the Atom. Just look and ponder on it! Can you not look at the evidence itself from your OWN prospective, stop looking at what the scientist interpretations are and start interpreting the data .... for yourself.
Deism / Agnostic Theism should replace modern religion

First, religion has been around for an extremely long time. So far back, it can't be recorded[1] And the concept of having a lack of belief never really took off until very recently [2]. I have no idea where you got the number that "At least 90-95% of humanity holds no loyalty to a God of any kind" What do you mean by this and where is your source? currently, the world is about 84% religious [3]. You cannot use such a small entity like debate.org to try and prove that very little belong to an organised religion. That's an argumentum ad populum fallacy and a facile argument at best. I don't understand your argument for the second paragraph. I will not assume what you are trying to prove with the fact that there are DNA and atoms does not prove the relevance of modern religion. Supernatural Reasoning is an oxymoron. I don't have to submit to anything unless your god comes down personally and tell me to. Unless you can study this "creator" and collect empirical data on it it either doesn't exist or is above the metaphysics and above our comprehension. You've provided no evidence that your god created the universe. Science is based off inductive and deductive reasoning and coming to conclusions based off empiricism. Science is what we have to study the natural world. It is based off axioms. Reason itself is based off axioms but you ironically are using reason to structure somewhat coherent arguments. So yes, we are, in a way, guessing. But you couldn't do better. I would prefer if you would write your arguments in a more formal and coherent manor without using flash words or euphemisms. I will await your rebuttle. Sources: http://www.answers.com... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.washingtontimes.com... [3]
Deism / Agnostic Theism should replace modern religion

Hello, I believe we shouldn't ascend from the dogma of religion to the ever growing dogma of gnostic atheism and fallacious reasoning. I believe we must have a middle ground by utilising inductive reasoning to determine the existence of at least one undefined creator. But, we must also leave modern religion to the sands of time for a better future and remain skeptical. Con must show me that religion still has it's place in a modern rational world. Definitions: Agnostic Theism: The belief that at least one diety exists but the basis of the proposition is inherently unknowable due to the limited scope of reality of humans or other reasons. Deism: belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
What is the point of life from the atheist's perspective

I appreciate my opponent's insight on this issue, and I agree that this is a stretch to call this a debate, so let's just throw that concept out of the window, and I wish to remind everyone that this is more for my education about a group of people. Now, as a person with a love of anthropology, I would appreciate it if pro would go more in depth about the different moral outlooks of atheist's (e.g. Nihilism, etc., etc.). But, it is my understanding that you're saying that we have a biological-moral responsibility to procreate our species, which I can agree with to a certain extent, but what then of homosexuals? Are they then in moral wrongdoing if they choose to live and only have sexual relations with those that are of the same gender? They obviously aren't propagating the species right? Now I'm not a homophobe but the question has been burning on my mind since I read your argument. I generally agree with pro's idea of the point of life on a personal level so this argument can be terminated Now on to morality. Though Pro has said that it should be disregarded in this discussion, I strongly disagree. Morality is, I believe anyway, very linked to the purpose and meaning of life from any perspective. No matter who you are or what you believe, moral choice and morality itself are involved in many, if not most, of the social decisions we make. A soldier probably didn't sign up to just kill people, no, that is not the point of his life, he probably believes it is his moral obligation and, to a certain degree, his purpose in life during his years of service to defend his loved ones and the country he loves. Now I give the argument back to Pro.
What is the point of life from the atheist's perspective

For example, in Christianity, the point of life is to grow in faith and worship God through works and prayer until death or the endtimes. Another is in Buddhism the goal is to balance one's Chi both bad and good until you pass on. But I'm confused when it comes to atheism, because there is no supernatural being or power in the universe, then what is the reason for morals? In the wild we see that, in general, an animal/group of animals tends to act out of selfish desire or greed with their decisions, so why should us humans be any different? And remember this is meant to be a philosophical discussion and not a battle between any two theological ideals, though I may ask questions about my opponent's reasoning I'm just trying to better understand a group of people and I hope the audience learns something from this as well.
existence of god

In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. Definitions: God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe. Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods. Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods. Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future. Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything. Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Rules: First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals. A forfeit is an automatic loss. My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round. Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist. Merriam Webster
Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) should be abolished in its current form.

I am going to argue two different things in this round:1) My original arguments that my opponent attempted to refute 2) My opponent's arguments1) Original arguments (i) Banning all nuclear weaponsMy opponent dismisses the banning of nulcear weapons as "fairy tales". However, many countries have signed treaties to limit the production of nuclear weapons and are working towards an all out ban. The comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans all nuclear explosions in all environments for military and civilian purposes. [1] A total of 182 countries have signes it and 152 have ratified it. [2] (ii) Imbalance of powerMy opponent calls Iran and North Korea "evil." However, he does not provide sources to back up that claim. If this debate were taking place in Iran or North Korea, I'm sure that some people in those countries will call the US "evil." I don't believe that calling them "evil" is a legitimate argument. However, if my opponent provides sources in the next round, I am willing to argue this point further. But for now, there is no reason that there should be an imbalance of power. (iii) Responsibility of the USThe only country that has used Nuclear weapons in the past is the United States. We used them for extremely destructive purposes against Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [3] Keeping that in mind, it is hard to understand Con's assertion that "we are the responsible powers" when no other nation has ever used nuclear weapons. Not even the nations that my opponent conveniently calls "Banana republics."2) My opponent's arguments(i) "Irresponsible" nations with "Autocratic" leadersMy opponent calls Iran and North Korea "irresponsible" but doesn't explain why. The Japanese would call the United States much worse than irresponsible after the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I am not an anarchist, anti-american liberal but it seems like the US is the only nation that hasn't shown any restraint. Also, provide at least one source which says that a nation is autocratic. In 2011, nearly all countries have a democracy.(ii) Revising the NPT to allow India, Brazil etc to joinMy argument was that the NPT in it's current form should be abolished. Obviously, there are ways to make it better, such as allowing new states to join if they meet certain safeguards but that would actually make the treaty fair and in this debate, I am only looking to argue against the current, unfair treaty.(iii)"For example, the president of the U.S. cannot wake up one day in a bad mood and decide to attack Sweden with a nuclear bomb because damn it Sweden had it comin'. " Okay, in which country can the leader wake up one day in a bad mood and decide to attack Sweden with a nuclear bomb because damn it Sweden had it comin'? Almost all countries have their own safeguards which protect their nuclear arsenal. They may not be the same as the United States but they exist. Sources[1] http://www.un.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://history1900s.about.com...