BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Modal Ontological Argument Establishes God's Existence

However, I am afraid that almost the entire argument put forward by Pro is meaningless. This is because he spends the bulk of his round explaining the logical steps of the argument, and how each premise follows from each other premise. However, I do not contest the logic of the argument. The argument follows S5 modal logic just fine, and I see no reason to reject a whole branch of logic. The problem I am going to be raising is that Pro has not met his burden of proof with regards to P1 of the argument. Without P1 established as true, Pro has not met his burden of proof. Rebutting My Opponent"The premise one is the undeniable premise that a maximally great being (also called God within the premise of this argument) is possible to exist. " - ProThis premise is not undeniable, as it is the most controversial premise of the whole entire argument. As William Lane Craig states:"The principal issue to be settled with respect to Plantinga's ontological argument is what warrant exists for thinking the key premiss 'It's possible that a maximally great being exists' to be true. " - William Lane Craig[1]My opponent is going to have to do more than just deem P1 "undeniable", as that is not a sufficient defense of P1. We actually need warrent for P1 which Pro has not provided. "It's reasonable to assume this because it's absolutely possible and no evidence against it (which would be probability as opposed to possibility) has been presented so far"Once more, my opponent claims that a maximally great being is "absolutely possible" and runs an ontological argument based off of that, but does not support his initial premise. I could just claim that it's "absolutely possible" that a maximally great being does not exist, and run a reverse-ontological argument. "Plainly enough, if you do not already accept the claim that there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness, then you won't agree that the first of these arguments is more acceptable than the second. So, as a proof of the existence of a being which posseses maximal greatness, Plantinga's argument seems to be a non-starter. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Plantinga himself agrees. .. "[2]ConclusionThe resolution has not been affirmed, because we have been given no reason to think a maximally great being is actually possible (even esteemed defenders of the Modal Ontological Argument admit that this is a controversial premise). Pro just asserts that a maximally great being is possible without proper support for such a claim. Since Pro has the burden of proof, then in the context of the debate outline, the resolution has been negated. Sources[1] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[2] . http://plato.stanford.edu...
The Modal Ontological Argument Establishes God's Existence

IntroductionThe Modal Ontological Argument is as follows: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists.[1] No petty semantics. Similarly, If one accepts this debate then they accept the type of modal possibility relevant to this debate.Rules/ StipulationsThe burden will be on Pro to demonstrate that the Modal Ontological Argument is sound. The first round willnot be for acceptance, as my opponent will make his/ her opening argument in the first round. However, in round 4, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."Sourcehttp://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

Although Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth, he did not force anyone to believe in him and his teachings. The Athenians had the right to choose who and what they wanted to believe, which the jury failed to realize. Socrates' teachings were a matter of freedom of speech. Socrates lost this freedom when put on trial. He questioned Athenians because it was his duty from the Gods. Socrates states, "God orders me to fulfill the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through the fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods, if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death"" Socrates won't betray his orders. The gods ordered him to question the Athenians and to speak against the gods would mean he does not believe in the gods, which makes Meletus' argument inconsistent, thus proving an unjust trial once again. His teachings are already discredited by being put on trial. Once again, he does not care about what the public thinks of him he cares about whether he feels he did right as a philosopher. Escaping shouldn't have been the only option. The Athenians should have realized he was old and would soon die anyway. Overall, Socrates should have not drunk the hemlock because he would also be failing the gods and his duty.
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

It is true that is was entirely Socrates choice to drink the hemlock. He chooses to uphold his moral code, even if Athens" justice system failed him. Socrates" trial was not a just one and the jury had already made their decision before the trial had even started. However, if Socrates were to not drink the hemlock but instead escape from prison this would only reinforce the public"s bad opinion of him. In The Crito Socrates says to Crito that him escaping "will confirm the judges in their opinion, and make it seem that their verdict was a just one. For a man who is a subverter of law may well be supposed to be a corrupter of the youth and thoughtless". If Socrates truly does not want the public to think that he is guilty he has to drink the hemlock. Socrates would not want to further tarnish his reputation and discredit his teachings by escaping from prison. If Socrates escapes from prison the public would be led to believe that Socrates is not a moral individual with a sense of honor and justice. Socrates felt that his teachings and example of living was more important than his life and does not want it all to be tossed aside because of an unjust trial. If his teachings become completely discredited then the Athens" government truly wins. Considering that Socrates does not fear death it appears that he has more to lose by not drinking the hemlock.
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

Socrates, a man of old age, should not have drunken the hemlock simply because death was soon to come to Socrates' way since he was 70 years of age. All the while Socrates was wrongfully accused, he underwent an unjust trial. Socrates states that his accusers, after speaking against him, warned the jury not to be deceived by him since he is a skillful speaker. "I mean they told you to be upon your guard, and not let yourselves be deceived by the force of my eloquence." This statement had persuaded the minds of the jury of the kind of person that Socrates was accused of being, which points him guilty. Therefore, the statement shaped the jury's thoughts of Socrates before they even had the chance to hear him out, which made their decision in sentencing him a bias decision. Socrates stated he was going to speak truthfully, but instead of the jury taking Socrates' word, they judged him based on what had already been put in the jury's minds. It seemed to be that Socrates had no chance of gaining the trust of the jury to begin with. To Socrates, it was not about proving to the public that he was not guilty. It was about the Athenians who had something against Socrates, which persuaded the public's and jury's opinion of him. Socrates was thus left to defend himself in an unreasonable trial. Although Socrates had an agreement with the Athenian government to follow their laws because he was living in Athens, this agreement was basically broken when he was wrongfully accused of his "crime," which is evident to why Socrates shouldn't have drunken the hemlock.
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

Although Socrates was falsely accused and convicted of a crime he did not commit he still should drink the hemlock. Socrates chose to live in Athens, which means that he has agreed to the Athenian laws and by extent their justice system and how they administer justice. In The Crito Socrates states that in Athens "if any man of the Athenians is dissatisfied with [Athens], he may take his goods and go away whenever he pleases. [But] every man of you who remains here, seeing how we administer justice, and how we govern the state in other matters, has agreed, by the very fact of remaining here, to do whatsoever so we tell him". Socrates believes in living honorably and justly, and honoring his agreement to Athens would be the honorable and just thing to do. Therefore, Socrates has to follow the judgment that the jury handed down, which is a guilty verdict with a sentence of death. Socrates does not have to agree to the jury"s verdict, but because of his moral code and his choosing to reside in Athens he must honor the verdict. Socrates should not let his emotions cloud his judgment and stop him from following his moral conscience. This means that Socrates should drink the hemlock. Any other course of action would be violating the Athenian law and be extent violating Socrates" moral code.
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

Socrates was falsely accused of his crime, but he still should have not drunk the hemlock. The people of Athens assumed that Socrates was corrupting the youth, but there was no concrete evidence. Socrates told the jury that he was not formally teaching the people of Athens, but it was assumed that he was doing so. Everything Socrates supposedly did was assumed. This all started when the oracle of Delphi, someone assumed to be in communication with the Gods, said that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens. Although Socrates believes in living honorably and justly, he has the right to stand up for himself against the unjust ruling that was given. Socrates was not given the benefit of the doubt during his trial because of how the Athenians perceived him to be. Socrates was shocked to hear that he was named the wisest man and he sought out to prove the oracle otherwise. The fact that Socrates did not boast or celebrate what the oracle said proves the Athenians otherwise in their perception of the kind of man they thought Socrates to be. This should have given evidence to the Athenians and the jury that Socrates did not consider himself wise and therefore, he should have not been viewed as a man who was so full of himself because of the reputation that was given to him. Therefore, Socrates should have not drunken the hemlock. Although Socrates did indeed believe that death separates the soul from the body, it was never proven to be true. Socrates did not know for sure if this actually occurs. He simply believed it. Even though he did not fear death, the concept of the soul surviving the body's death does not logically give reasoning to why Socrates should have drunken the hemlock.
Socrates should have drank the hemlock

Socrates should have drank the hemlock. Socrates had only had two options, either drink the hemlock or escape from prison. For Socrates escaping from prison was not an option and would have gone against his moral code. Socrates believed in living honorably and justly. By living in Athens, its citizens agree to follow its laws and accept its methods of administering justice. Socrates lived in Athens for many years and consequently this means he agreed to their laws. Had Socrates escaped from prison he would have been breaking the law and not been living honorably. In addition, Socrates had no fear of death. Socrates felt that there was no sense in fearing something that one does not know to be evil. Death is the ultimate unknown; therefore one can never know it. In order to fear it, one would have to know that it is evil, which would be impossible. Socrates" has also stated that death is the most desired state of being for a philosopher; a true philosopher is always pursuing death. Death separates the soul from the body. One"s body is a constant impediment in the quest for wisdom, and death allows the mind to obtain the purest knowledge. Thus Socrates has no reason to fear death or to not drink the hemlock.
Resolved: Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

if anyone cares in short my arguments were going to play devils advocate just a little and claim morality does not exist then as a secondary argument in case the first was not convincing; if morality exist it does not exist for a political state or governing body of any-kind, the idea of morality is an individual concept at best. and should that look like a terrible argument I would further still have one more back up case to retreat to; should developed countries have moral obligations at all, its certainly not to control the weather. That's just stupid sounding. last time I checked project H.A.R.P. was still considered just a conspiracy theory http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com... . the government does not have the power alter global warming or what the scientific establishment is talking about these days if you actually have been paying attention to the climate change news is that we are headed for a general global cooling, possibly to lead to another ice age. when you consider it all together it really seems like the the gun was jumped with predicting the earth was going to become much hotter because we drive cars and power plants burn coal, and that the same gun is being jumped with global cooling too. The earth goes through cycles its really not that scary.
Remove the Qualifications for President

- Now each of these has a reason. The reasin you have to be born here is b/c that nonborn here cittizens are firstly citizens of another country and might have other prioritys than what are best for our country. that is what a Presidents job is; to do do what is best for our country. + It should be the citizens of America who decide that. Look at Arnold Swarzwenegger, he was born in Europe and has done a great job at governer of California but will never be able to help the American people as president. - The citizen is b/c of dual citizenship. A person might be vacationing from france here in...Las Vgas. And they have a baby there that baby is a dual citizen. When its 18 it will choose what country to live in and then it will get naturalized. + I don't understand your point. I should not have to respond to something that I cannot understand. Anyway, if you are born here, you are a citizen. This qualification is irrelevant and Americans should be able to decide. - And the 35 is for maturity reasons. The job of president is a really IMPORTANT job the most important in the country. And for our country we want the best suited for the job. A 25 year old person who just got our of college and isn't fully matured isn't best for the job. you need experience for the job. Now remember the President runs the country for atleast the next 4 years. Alot can happen when a inexperienced, younggun is living in the White House. + Explain why Americans cannot decide this. There are some 10years old that are more mature than some 35 year olds. Look at Bobby Brown, OJ Simpson, etc. People don't just suddenly become mature when they are 35. When you are 34, why not be allowed to run for president? - your last statement,: " the beginning of America, the president discriminated as well, blacks, women, non- protestants, and the poor were barred from running." Now the only thing i have to say to that is it isn't "the beginning of America" anymore. Just look at the two leading Democratic runners. A black, muslim man, Obama, and a woman, Clinton. + I agree. Discrimination should stop and you just conceeded that! I win!!! I win!!!I win!!! -Now for your last statement,: " if a younger person wants to run for president and stand for youth rights, they should be allowed to" That young person should... run for congress(which the age limit is 25) Then for Senate(The age limit is 30) and if he still desires run again for president this way he/she would have more experience and be more mature to be our leader. + Why should that person be forced to choose? HEY!!! HE WONT BE FIGHTING FOR YOUTH RIGHTS IF HE IS NO LONGER YOUTHFUL!!!
Remove the Qualifications for President

thank you for challenging me to debate i hope it goes well, First of all you are correct on the ways America was built but it is nessisary for the good nature of our country that we have regulations so that our country doesn't pick a incompatint leader. First of all let me state the regulations for who can be president: Must be born here. Must be a citizen for atleast 14 years Must be atleast 35 Now each of these has a reason. The reasin you have to be born here is b/c that nonborn here cittizens are firstly citizens of another country and might have other prioritys than what are best for our country. that is what a Presidents job is; to do do what is best for our country. The citizen is b/c of dual citizenship. A person might be vacationing from france here in...Las Vgas. And they have a baby there that baby is a dual citizen. When its 18 it will choose what country to live in and then it will get naturalized. And the 35 is for maturity reasons. The job of president is a really IMPORTANT job the most important in the country. And for our country we want the best suited for the job. A 25 year old person who just got our of college and isn't fully matured isn't best for the job. you need experience for the job. Now remember the President runs the country for atleast the next 4 years. Alot can happen when a inexperienced, younggun is living in the White House. your last statement,: " the beginning of America, the president discriminated as well, blacks, women, non- protestants, and the poor were barred from running." Now the only thing i have to say to that is it isn't "the beginning of America" anymore. Just look at the two leading Democratic runners. A black, muslim man, Obama, and a woman, Clinton. Now for your last statement,: " if a younger person wants to run for president and stand for youth rights, they should be allowed to" That young person should... run for congress(which the age limit is 25) Then for Senate(The age limit is 30) and if he still desires run again for president this way he/she would have more experience and be more mature to be our leader.
Remove the Qualifications for President

America is built on the basis of its people being allowed to vote on who it sees fit to lead but the founding fathers made an error when applyig limits. These limits make it so that the American people can not choose who they see fit. It also takes away the right to lead by citizens. Many foreigners would like to run for president but are barred for the position. Also, age, if a younger person wants to run for president and stand for youth rights, they should be allowed to. In the beginning of America, the president discriminated as well, blacks, women, non- protestants, and the poor were barred from running.
The problem with the world is the absence of leadership.

Having a good leader in power is only a temporary solution. A good leader or their successor could easily become corrupt. So while it sounds positive - the idea of a good individual working with a population to achieve something desired by all - it is only a short term solution. The Founding Fathers were generally not corrupt, good people who fought for what was best for our country. But not everyone after them has been/has done the same. Before this debate ends, I would like to say this. We should keep an eye on the leaders we currently have and the leaders who follow them before we create new leaders. As I stated before, the problem with the world is not the absence of leadership; it is the abundance of it. Thank you.
The problem with the world is the absence of leadership.

Thank you for bringing up Pol Pot; now you say that he took power, not to save anyone or fix anything, but for his own personal gain. I completely agree with you. You also stated that you agree with me on my opinion that Truman was a good leader. Obviously, I agree with you on that. Let me ask you this, though. Is EVERY senator, representative, Supreme Court justice, or President that came after Truman good? And the answer to that question is clearly no. Corruption follows good leaders everywhere. Having what is considered a good leader is only a temporary solution, and what I mean by this is that when you give someone power, it will corrupt them. If it does not corrupt them, then it will corrupt whoever succeeds them. I'm sure we can both agree on that. I mean, whether or not you support Hillary Clinton for president, you have to agree that her email scandal makes her seem very corrupt and untrustworthy. Let's say that in some alternate history - some alternate universe - Pol Pot is a good leader according to your standards. But you can't deny that either he or someone who reigns after him will become corrupt. Just as I said before, corruption always follows good leaders. You can have a thousand good leaders one day and the next, they are all replaced with corrupt individuals who care only for themselves. If you need an example, look at the Founding Fathers of the United States and compare them to the people 'leading' the United States today.
The problem with the world is the absence of leadership.

i understand where you are coming from, but consider this, my example of pol pot, he didn't have anything to try to fix or save he did it because he wanted power and had a thirst for money and celebrity. he killed millions of people because they were not following by his insane rulings. and constant to your belief i do think Truman is a good leader he had to make a choice about what was right, and i'm sure it wasn't an easy choice to make but he made it with the thoughts about what would be best for your country. but their is a line you cant cross, leadership need a good leader not a poser at the helm, waiting for something bad to happen and then not doing anything.