BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is irrational to think BOP is on athiesm

It’s so Fresh its Ancient A very good reasons it’s important to study the ancients in philosophy is because of their innocence’s and simplicity. It is common among for a casual philosopher to assume that because the ideas are old, that chances are they have been refuted, for that is mostly why they are over looked. It was once said by Whitehead that “the history of philosophy is footnotes to Plato,” in that much of philosophy since then, had often been reiterations of what Plato’s work but in different word. It was not long after for his very successful student and Philosopher in her own write, G.E.M Anscombe responded saying that all philosophy is footnotes, to “Parmenides”. Difficult Simplicity The Fool: I bring up Parmenides, often, just because the basic set of Rules to reasoning are so plainly put. They are so simple, that is makes it difficult to believe, that they are so power, have never been refuted, and also set down the entire Ontology a philosopher ever needed. Philosophers who have tried to make it more difficult have just spun off track. The technique here will simply to let Parmenides speak for him and The Fool will support the argument. Parmenides The Fool: Ladies and gentlemen give a hand for the legend, the Ancient Parmenides!!! (Applause) Wiploc: Hooray!!!! Woohoo! The Fool: okay shh, now! Parmenides: “ the Goddess received me kindly, took my right hand in hers, and addressed me with these words: Young man, accompanied by immortal charioteers, how reach my hour by immortal horses which bring you. Welcome since it was not and evil destiny that sent you forth to travel this road but right and Justice, There is need for you to learn all things—both the unshaken heart of well-rounded Truth and the opinions of mortals, in which there is not true reliance,. But nevertheless you will learn these too—that all things appear must genuinely be , being is always, indeed, all thing. Come now, I will tell---and bring my story safely when you have heard it—the only way of inquiry there are to think: the, one, that is, and that it is not possible for it not to be, for this is the path of persuasion which attends upon Truth. (1=1) (1=/=0) (is = 1) The other, that is not, and that it is necessary for it not to be, this I point out to you, to be the path of the completely un-learnable, for neither may you know that which is no, for it is not to be accomplished, nor may you ever declare it. For this is the same for thinking and of being. But gave upon things which although absent are securely Present in thought (aka IDEAS, absent in correspondence) For you will not cut off what is from clinging to what is, neither scattered everywhere in every way throughout the Kosmos (Absolute Universe) That which is there to be spoken and thought of MUST BE. For it is possible to be, but not possible for nothing to be. The Fool: There is a lot more but I think these are the necessities I need, and I will defend them in the next round and we will see how things fold together. Forever and always you’re Fool.
It is irrational to think BOP is on athiesm

The Fool: That is people who think BOP is equally on the non-existence of God, do so irrationally.Rational: coherence with logic. Atomic Law of Truth(Must be accepted!): Truth=Truth 1=1 (a entity itself is itself)Acceptence:-No semantic games. -the most likely interpretation of opponent is to be respected.-the most clear and distinct definitions are to be taken. Lets resolve this dispute once and for all or at least for a while!Note:this is a philosophical debate, citations still need to be defended with the actual arguments
In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind and unite them with Himself in Heaven.

Why do you say you refuted my reasons for my position. That is not your call to make. Are you so weak in your comments that you have to try to pursued people through suggestions? 1st Peter 4:6. IS talking about those in the upper regions of hell. Abrahams bosom it was called. Peter said, The gospel WAS p[reached to those who are dead. That is what Jesus did when he was raised from the dead. He went into that upper region of hell was, got all those old testament saints reborn and led that whole bunch into heaven and presented them to the Father as his family. Sons and daughters of the most high. There are now no one in that place. It was emptied when Jesus presented himself as the messiah they had been waiting for. They had already put faith in God's word.The bible says that Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Righteousness was put on his account for future use.Their were no reborn men in the old testament. And the new testament did not start till the book of Acts. The bible says that a testament is not in force till the death of the testator.The new testament says that Jesus was made to be sin, for us, that we might be made righteous.Not just put on an account for future use like in the old testament. All those in the lower parts of hell, where that rich man was that jesus talked about. They had no faith that God could act on. And never will have any.That place called paradise is now empty. We are now reborn men. Sons and daughters of God. We are now fit to walk in heaven.To come boldly to the throne of grace. Jesus said, many are called, but few are chosen. He also said that narrow is the road that leads to life. But broad is the road that leads to destruction.And those who took the road to destruction is a great gulf where they cannot cross over to life. Now if you want to believe that everyone will eventually be saved, you can do that. But that will not make it so. That limbo and purgatory nonsense is simply no where to be found in the bible.This is serious stuff. And watering it down will not do anyone any good.
In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind and unite them with Himself in Heaven.

Before I begin, I'd like to point out two things.1 - You still have not refuted any of my original proposition. 2 - I successfully refuted yours. So at this point, let the record show that my original proposition stands and your first attempt to stump me was unsuccessful.Regarding your current argument. "That is why Jesus told us in the 16th chapter of Mark to go into all the world and preach the good news. All that believe will be saved, those who don't,won't.Why would he tell us to do that if all will believe eventually anyway?"Your argument is thus: Jesus commanded His followers to preach the good news, therefore only those who hear it can believe, and not all will hear it, and others still won't believe it, therefore all will not be saved. This of course is ruling out the possibility of post-mortem repentance and faith, which the Bible makes a case for:1 Peter 4:6 "That is why the Good News was preached to those who are now dead—so although they were destined to die like all people,they now live forever with God in the Spirit.And don't bother arguing that this refers to a "spiritual" death and not a physical one. It's physical death plain and clear.And who preached that Good News? Potentially Jesus Himself.1 Peter 3:19 - After being made alive, he (Jesus) went and made proclamation to the imprisoned (post-mortem) spiritsSo if the gospel can be preached to people after they die, then why would Jesus command us to preach now?Simple.Say a foreign nation pays off all of America's debt. And say they only tell 12 people about it (imagine for a minute no internet, no TV, no phones). And the person tells the 12 "Go and tell all the people that their debt has been forgiven."Now, their debt is forgiven whether they hear about it, believe it, or do anything one way or another. But wouldn't it be awesome to find out NOW? How much different would you live? How many different choices would you make? Who knows, but the urgency is there. Jesus commanded the 12 to tell the whole world about what He had done so they could begin experiencing His salvation NOW. But this in no way refutes the premise that all will eventually believe and be saved, even if they don't hear the gospel and believe this side of the grave. I've established that the gospel can be preached to the dead, and I've given a motivation other than "that some might eternally perish" for Jesus to command His disciples to preach the gospel.Any other arguments? VOTE PRO!!!
In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind and unite them with Himself in Heaven.

O how I would that that were true. It would be so much easier to believe that. But it simply is not true. That is why Jesus told us in the 16th chapter of Mark to go into all the world and preach the good news. All that believe will be saved, those who don't,won't.Why would he tell us to do that if all will believe eventually anyway. Why put ourselves out on a limb now? Do you know why Jesus never preached and healed after he was raised from the dead.He could have walked down the streets of Jerusalem with his nail scarred hands up and got everyone to believe.And they all would have. But there would be no faith in their beliefs. Just when Thomas said that he would not believe till he saw and felt Jesus with his own eyes. Jesus came and said to Thomas. " Touch my hands and my side.Then he said he was faithless. No faith at all.And that will be the boat all people who die will be in. They will finally believe because they can now see with their eyes.And that will never change a spirit being.Never get them reborn. If you do not get that here, old partner, you will not get it there.
In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind and unite them with Himself in Heaven.

I am not asserting that all people will be saved eventually regardless of what they believe. I am saying that all people will eventually believe.And I am not saying that Jesus's sacrifice at calvary was insignificant in regards to salvation.I am saying that it is the ONLY way to salvation, and therefore of ultimate significance.So your argument is posed with a misunderstanding of my proposition. Jesus going to the cross is the ONLY way we are saved. I am simply saying that all will eventually come to a saving faith through it. In other words, everything Jesus said in Gethsemane was true. There was NO OTHER WAY to save mankind. But that through that very act all would eventually be saved.
God exists

First off, thank you Con for this debate. I will now defend my arguments against my Opponents objections.Kalam Cosmological argumentCon states that this argument is based on "the strawman of scientific unknowns". Completely false. Indeed this argument is grounded in scientific law! Con ignores my analysis that something cannot come from nothing, thus conceding to it. Con states that the Univserse "could be finite or infinite" however, he has already conceded to my statement about infinity being impossible and thus this objection falls. Con also tries to offer several scientific theories to attempt to further his disbelief in God. This in no way invalidates God's existence, because he has not shown in his theories the Universe to be uncaused. However the Universe was created, since scientific law does not allow for things to be created from nothing, a power that can undermine scientific laws must exist, like God. This point stands.Plantinga's modal argumentCon only attacks premise three. Premise three stands because God is needed to create all worlds, therefore he cannot exist in only one world. Thus is God's existence is possible, than God exists. Objective MoralityCon concedes that morality exists. Remember, the dfinition of God I provided mentions God as "the source of all moral authority."Just by this, I win however I will further attack my Opponents objections. Con has never explained a plausible reason to explain morality. As a species, humans are unique in their possession of a consience, of morality. If evolution could properly explain morality, than humans would not be unique in their possession of it. I've contended that God is the only rational explanation for morality, and my Opponent has not disproven this. Even if you, as a judge, disagree with this argument, for the purposes of this round it is valid. I strongly urge a Pro vote for this debate.
God exists

Thanks Con. First I feel the need to apologize for my sub-standard argument, religion is certainly not my strong point for debating. =Rebuttal=Kalam Cosmological argumentCon makes a very weak rebuttal to this, suprisingly accepting all three premises. His only objections were raised on the second premise, which I will now respond to. Defense of Premise twoCon states that we "cannot rule out the possibility of any earlier events" unfortunatly, this does not answer the argument. Sure, the Universe could be in a big-bang big-crunch cycle, but that cycle cannot have been going on infinitely. Indeed, he drops my argument that true infinity is impossible, and thus concedes to it. Therefore this stands. He states that this does not point to God, however it does because scientifically something cannot come into existence from nothing. Therefore, the only way that the matter used to create the Universe could have been created would be through an entity that has the ability to undermine scientific laws, such as God. This argument stands.Plantinga's modal argumentMy Opponent offers weak objections to this as well, he states that its "debateable" that God exists yet provides no evidence nor logical analysis to support that. He conedes to premise two, and save for premise three, he drops the rest. Defense of Premise threeCon only states "the argument is invalid" however he shows no holes or weaknesses in it. It IS valid, because since God is an all-powerful being, he meets the qualifications to make this argument work. Until my Opponent actually shows weaknesses in this argument it is presumed valid, and thus stands as well.Objective MoralityCon asks for evidence of God being the only way to explain Objective Morality. He ignores my analysis of how moral values are commands and thus can only be given by a rational being, and thus has conceded to it. So I win on this premise. He tries to write off morality as a cause and effect thing, but that makes no sense. Yes, some moral values have practical purposes, but that doesn;t explain the moral aspect. Yes instinct would tell us to avoid killing if possible, but that does not explain the morality of it. An animal will not hesitate to kill another member of its species if it feels threatened, humans will only kill another in the gravest extreme. Murder is condemned in all religions and codes of ethics, and so we can rightfully assume that some moral values are objective. ConclusionMy Opponent has not provided any arguments against the existence of God. The only way he can win this round is to completely destroys every single one of my arguments, and leaves it clear that they do not evenly slightly suggest the existence of God. If even a fraction of one of my arguments still stands, I win because he has provided none of his own argument. Since he has not destroyed my arguments, I urge a Pro vote and greatly look forward to my Opponents reply.
God exists

Pro says: "For the purposes of this round, God will be defined as: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being[1]." By "being" I assume you mean a sort of existential consciousness, awareness, something that can think and act.. Pro says: "Clearly something like God cannot be proven/disproven, so this debate will be one based on logic." Technically logic is all about proof just without the necessity of evidence to attach the proof to reality.. If you want to give any rational reason to believe anything about reality, you need evidence.. === Argument one: The Kalam cosmological argument. === "1. Everything that began to exist has a cause." I will grant this premise.. "2. The Universe began to exist." Provided "the universe" is defined as "everything since The Big Bang", then yes.. But this seems pretty arbitrary.. The Big Bang just happens to be the earliest event we know of.. We cannot rule out the possibility of any earlier events.. Another more simple definition of "the universe" is "everything that exists", thus an umbrella term for which the property of existence doesn't apply, but simply refers to everything that _does_ exist.. With this definition "The Universe began to exist" wouldn't make any sense.. "3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause." I will grant the logical validity of this argument.. But it's application towards the existence of a creator god seems limited at best.. And explaining something inexplicable with something nonsensical is simply absurd.. === Argument two: Plantinga's modal argument. === "1. Its possible that God exists" That's debatable.. "2. If its possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world" yes, but not necessarily _this_ world.. "3. If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world" doesn't follow.. the argument is invalid.. === Argument three: Objective morality. === "1. Objective morality can only exist if a divine power mandates our moral values." Evidence..? "2. Objective morality exists." If it does, it is because there is a measurable outcome of our actions, which leads to an understanding of cause and effect, which in turn leads to morality.. "3. Therefore, a divine power exists. " Validity granted.. Soundness however not..
God exists

For the purposes of this round, God will be defined as: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being[1].Clearly something like God cannot be proven/disproven, so this debate will be one based on logic. For my case, I will present three arguments and reserve the right to present more (other than in the last round).Argument one: The Kalam cosmological argument.1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.2. The Universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. Modern scientific theories such as the big bang support this argument. But why must the cause of the universe be God? First, we must look at the definition of God where he is defined as the creator of the Universe. Furthermore, before the Universe existed, there was nothing. How something (the mass used to cause the big bang) could come from nothing is scientifically inexplicable, so the only logical explanation would be a power that has the ability to undermine scientific laws, such as an all-powerful God. The Universe, and the matter within it, could not have existed for an infinite amount of time because true infinities are impossible. For example: infinity-8=infinity. This is mathematically impossible, yet at the same time IS possible. This is paradox, and since paradox cannot exist in scientific law, time cannot be infinite. Thereofre the Universe has not existed for all time. This does not defy God's existence because prior to the Universes creation God existed, but not in time. God created time. Argument two: Plantinga's modal argument.1. Its possible that God exists2. If its possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world3. If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world4. If God exists in every possible world, then God exists in the actual world5. If God exists in the actual world, then God exists6. Therefore, God existsIf it is possible that God exists, than by the definition of God all of the following points are logically valid. Since the concept of God is coherent, than it is possible that he exists. Argument three: Objective morality.1. Objective morality can only exist if a divine power mandates our moral values.2. Objective morality exists.3. Therefore, a divine power exists. The first premise is justifiable in the fact that since morality, unlike instinct, is commanding. Thus if objective morality exists, it can only be explained by a divine power who commands our morality, and God's definition includes this. If my Oppoonent disputes the existence of objective morality later, I will argue in favor of its existence. Those are the arguments I will present for now, good luck to my Opponent and I look forward to a fun debate!Source:1. http://www.google.com...
The discussion of politics belongs in the bar

First, I want to say that I actually agree, in part, with pro. I am not much of one to debate against pro's position considering I have discussed politics in bars plenty of times, much to the irritation of my friends. Bars have actually been some of the more acceptable locations that I have discussed both politics and religion. That being said, let me see if I can offer up a good con to this proposition. In an ideal world, everyone would be able to discuss both politics and religion in all kinds of company. In an even more ideal world, everyone would know what they were talking about too. Unfortunately, we don't live in anything close to an ideal world. These maxims exists because of their practicality and understanding of human nature. If you know the people you're talking with well, then you can talk about whatever you want. You know what the response will be. But in company that you don't know all too well, you have no idea what reaction you might receive. First impressions are everything, and you wouldn't want to blow it by getting into a discussion that very easily can lead to an argument where you could very possibly call into question everything that your company believes. Politics and religion tend to be the two most deeply held beliefs that people have and do not usually react well to head-on debate, especially when your company is most likely not there to debate such things. This assumes, however, that they are even into politics and religion in the first place. If they are, then either they agree with you and there isn't much of a discussion; or they disagree with you, thus potentially leading to a heated argument when the social situation didn't call for it. If they don't care about either, then you bringing up religion or politics will fall on deaf, and increasingly irritated ears. Transfer this into the bar setting, where the alcohol is flowing freely. Either you're going to start up a conversation that will die quickly or spark a potentially heated argument with someone who, as time goes on and they get more heated, they're also getting more drunk as well. Alcohol and questioning core beliefs almost never go well together. Or, the people you're trying to talk politics with don't care, and are just there to have a good time. In this scenario, you're nothing more then a Debby Downer and no one will want to talk to you. Either way, it's best to just leave both at the door when you go to a bar and try to enjoy yourself discussing other, more trivial things.