BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is is probable that the Christian God does not exist.

You know the saying that numbers don"t lie. However if those numbers cannot be proved then they are pointless it is like a plate of cookies on the other side of a brick wall and your stating how many cookies are on the plate when you are not for certain. That is how I know that the number of Gods you are trying to say there could be, is wrong. As the Bible states there is only one true God and the God in the bible is the one until you disprove it. As I have said, this shouldn"t be about numbers because you haven"t the proper evidence to disprove that a God, the "Christian God" as you put it, created the formation of this world, the organisms, and most specifically human beings. This is tough ground for me to dig through. I"ll have you know I am a 17 year old apprentice welder in a dirt roots town in Manitoba Canada. I have a firm belief in Christ and I hope to share this with the voters. This will obviously be a vote between believers and non-believers. I like the way you say the "Christian God" to try and make it less possible for there to be a certain God. But people, God is God. There may be different names for him but in the end he is the same. I being of first nation"s descent know him as the Great Spirit. Others may know him differently. I don"t like the way you try and put down religious text. Like the creation of the world. Are you saying that an omnipotent all powerful being could not have made the grass the animals and people? As science progresses we ourselves can even make organisms so why can"t another larger than life being have made us? Don"t get me started on evolution which has more gaps in it than a brick mansion. Many finds of what they say man evolved from is being disproved and inconclusive and no wonder with such little pieces they think they can make an ancient being that resembles a human that we evolved from. In the book "Icons of Evolution", by Jonathan Wells it argues to disprove almost all we know about evolution. Dealing with man fossil horses, Darwin"s tree of life, Haeckel"s Embryos, peppered moths Darwin"s finches and more. A very interesting read and if I must later I will bring up the topics to the debate. As for evidence the flood happened there much more evidence that it did indeed happen. I don"t want to fire into a debate about the flood, lets save that for another time. But look it up my friend, there is no doubt in my mind that it happened because of what the evidence suggests and it would make sense that the giants causing destruction were dinosaurs and the flood only affected the land dwellers that breathed in the air, not sharks or whales which also points that sharks are indeed from the times of the dinosaurs. But like I said look it up for yourself then decide. Both sides of this debate require faith. We simply weren"t there. Who knows, Lucifer himself may have caused this confusion. Anyways, I"ll stand my faith on the rock Jesus Christ and answer any question you have my friend. Thank you.
Is is probable that the Christian God does not exist.

Vestigia By Bliss Carman ---------------------------------------------------------------This poem has struck me as a thought provoking work of art that is saying I took a day to search for God,-------------------- That although we cannot see God he exists in the everyday world, in the And found Him not. But as I trod ------------------ ---beauty of a flower, the softness of the sod , the mountains, the birds, every By rocky ledge, through woods untamed, --------- single atom of the earth, every living thing reflects the love of God. My Just where one scarlet lily flamed,-------------------- opponent is stepping where he shouldn't be. I do not know where he is I saw His footprint in the sod. ------------------------- going to find evidence to back himself up considering I have a whole world Then suddenly, all unaware,----------------------------- of my evidence right now. And what is this about percentages? My Far off in the deep shadows, where -------------------opponent sounds unsure. God exists and that is my statement. A solitary hermit thrush Sang through the holy twilight hush " I heard His voice upon the air. And even as I marveled how God gives us Heaven here and now, In a stir of wind that hardly shook The poplar leaves beside the brook " His hand was light upon my brow. At last with evening as I turned Homeward, and thought what I had learned And all that there was still to probe " I caught the glory of His robe Where the last fires of sunset burned. Back to the world with quickening start I looked and longed for any part In making saving Beauty be " And from that kindling ecstasy I knew God dwelt within my heart.
Is is probable that the Christian God does not exist.

Full disclosure, I am debating this issue because I'd like to boost my ELO so that I am eligible to vote in the "better" debates. Also, I know this is a topic of importance, so I have no doubt it will be accepted. My position, as the resolution states, is that that Christian God is less likely to exist than it is likely to exist. In other words, there is reason to believe that the probability of the Christian God existing is less than 50%. Rules. 1.Burden of Proof is shared. I will present an argument showing why God likely does *not* exist, while the opponent does the opposite. 2. No trolling, semantics or kritiks. Debate the issue. 3. No forfeits. A forfeit without a reasonable explanation constitutes an immediate loss. Round Structure: R1: Acceptance. If Con needs clarification, ask for it here. Otherwise, no arguments. R2-4: Arguments/Rebuttals R5: Closing Remarks. You can address previous arguments, but don't offer new ones.
There Are Good Logical/Scientific Arguments to Justify Abortion

In their previous argument, my opponent said "My rebuttal is very simple: A fetus is a human life. Pro has given no evidence to doubt this claim. Therefore, Pro has failed to demonstrate why abortion does not violate the moral maxim against murder. The end."That is true, I never demonstrated how abortion doesn't violate the moral maximum, but at the beginning of the debate, my opponent asked me to give logical and scientific reasons for abortion, NOT moral ones. I have given three logical/scientific reasons for abortion that my opponent is failing to see.1. Overpopulation, which is a scientific reason that abortion could be a good thing. Not that I am saying ANYBODY should have an abortion to stop overpopulation, I am just saying that it is logical and scientific.2. People want to be free in their lives. They want to live and having a child might ruin their lives. This is a logical reason. It is not very moral of a reason, but it is a reason.3. Civil Rights. Why can the government control women's bodies? Why can they make a women give birth? If they can make them do that, they can make them do anything. This is a very logical argument for abortionWith those 3 arguments, I am proved that there are good logical/scientific arguments to justify abortion.The whole debate was for me to be able to give any good reasons that satisfy the resolution, and I have done so.I have not proved any moral reasons to justify abortion, but seeing as how that was not what this debate was for, I do not think that con should be able to use my lack of moral backing as a reason for me losingThank you for debating with me con, I very much enjoyed it.
There Are Good Logical/Scientific Arguments to Justify Abortion

Pro submits two more arguments. 1) People "want to have fun and be free, and not be restrained by a child." 2) "The government cant control women's bodies." == Rebuttal == 1) I have no doubt that people want to have fun and be free. Yet wanting to have fun does not justify ending a human life. Pro has not challenged the human personhood status of a fetus, so we must assume they accept it. Therefore, Pro is arguing that the desire to "have fun and be free" is enough to overcome the maxim that it is wrong to kill another person. Yet they give no logical or scientific evidence for why this is so. I should be able to rest my case right there. 2) The government can and does tell people what they can do with their bodies....... all the time. If you try to sell your body for sex, you will be arrested. If you try to walk down the street naked, you will be arrested. If you infect yourself with a deadly pathogen, you will be quarantined. And as Rachel Dolezal found out, you apparently cannot dye your skin brown and join the NAACP. Women absolutely have civil rights. But so do unborn children. It's called the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act and it states "If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall be punished for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." [1] Once again, Pro has given no scientific or logical evidence to disqualify the human status of a fetus, so we must accept it. Pro has also given not scientific or logical evidence for why a mother's civil rights should trump those of her unborn daughter. Furthermore, if the government has no right to tell a woman to continue her pregnancy, then it also has no right to tell a woman she must terminate her pregnancy. Yet, that is precisely the course of action Pro seems to advocate in Round 2 to control overpopulation. My rebuttal is very simple: A fetus is a human life. Pro has given no evidence to doubt this claim. Therefore, Pro has failed to demonstrate why abortion does not violate the moral maxim against murder. The end. [1] http://www.google.com...
There Are Good Logical/Scientific Arguments to Justify Abortion

Thank you Con.My first argument is based on young people who want to have an abortion, I'm think teenagers to early/mid twentiesA lot of people that age do not want to have children, having a child changes their lives completely. It sometimes means putting your career on hold temporarily or permanently. As soon has they have a child, that child become their primary focus in life, and sometimes that can ruin people. Normally, the successful parents are ones who try to have a child as opposed to people who accidentally have a child. Some of these people, who can contribute a lot to this world and who want to have lives and they want to be free and have fun and live their lives cannot because of the burden of having a child. I think this is a logical reason that somebody should be able to have an abortion, because they want to see what they can do in this world, and they want to have fun and be free, and not be restrained by a child. This may not be a moral argument, but it is logicalMy other argument is about civil rightsNot allowing women to do what they feel is right with their bodies is taking away their civil rights. The government has no right to tell women that they have to continue pregnancy until birth. That could also lead to the government not allowing the use of birth control or forcing the use of birth control. If the government can force a women to continue having a children, what's to stop them from forcing birth without and medicine. The government cant control women's bodies, its their choice and their bodies and nobody can control them but themselves. If they think abortion is in their best interests, then how can a government stop them without going down the slippery slope of overcontrolThese are my final two arguments, I will now allow con to rebuttal.
There Are Good Logical/Scientific Arguments to Justify Abortion

I'm am sorry Con, for missing that part. I will now begin with presenting my initial case1. Overpopulation My first point will be describing what is looking to be one of the biggest threats to our existence as a species.In 1999 there were 6 Billion humans inhabiting the earth. In 2013, there were 7 Billion. That is an increase of 1 billion people in just 14 years. Recent studies show that by 2050, we will need to equivalent of 3 Earths worth of resources to feed our growing population. By 2025, 66% of the Earth's population will not have enough water. All these problems are cause by the 2.88 fertility rate on Earth.We have several options to solve this problem. We can look for more planets, we can teach youth, we can try to find renewable resources, but it all comes back to people having to stop having children. It is not something we like to discuss, we would rather blame the big corporations that create climate change, but we also need to look at ourselves and what we are doing to the planet. We really need to stop thinking of ourselves and how we want to have a family and have kids and we need to focus on the greater good of the planet as a whole. It is not a pretty thought, but it needs to be discussed.I am not saying everybody who has a baby right now should have an abortion, but what I am saying is that the overpopulation problem is one way to justify abortions.Evidence: http://diplomacy.norwich.edu...
There Are Good Logical/Scientific Arguments to Justify Abortion

I think my opponent has stated all the definitions that we will need for the arguments to come, so I have no further evidence I would like to present at this time. I do like the concept of science and logic over morality, seeing as how different people have different ideas on morality. I also hope we can keep religious beliefs out of this debate, and I would enjoy it if we kept it all on proven science, not personal theories or conspiracies.
There Are Good Logical/Scientific Arguments to Justify Abortion

I am Con. Debate is closed, comment if you want to accept. The rules are simple - my opponent (Pro) will attempt to give logical or scientific evidence for why abortion is morally acceptable. I will attempt to refute such evidence. If Pro submits even a single piece of evidence that I cannot refute, they win. If not, I win. Pro agrees to begin by presenting their evidence in Round 1, and will only type "End of Debate" in Round 4 to equal out the entries for each side. Both sides agree to avoid discussing extreme cases such as rape, incest, and life of the mother, as these reasons only account for 0.43% of annual abortions [1]. Focusing attention on such minutia qualifies as a Red Herring. == Definitions == "Morally acceptable" - This is not a debate about objective morality. Let's just go with the generally agreed upon maxim that it is wrong to kill another person unless in self defense. This places burden on Pro to demonstrate how abortion does not violate this maxim, or, if it does, why it should be considered an exception. "Abortion" - the intentional termination of a pregnancy. This excludes "natural abortions" such as miscarriages. "Human life" - Go with whatever definition you want. It's on me to demonstrate why your definition is logically or scientifically inconsistent. "Good logical/scientific argument" - An argument that stands up to scrutiny and avoids fallacies. These should be all the definitions we need. Please no semantics. Good luck! [1] http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

1.I agree with your definition, it is a form of punishment that isolates and denies the basic human need to interact with others. 2.Although it protects the corrections officer, solitary confinement does not protect the inmate who goes into solitary. Putting inmates in solitary confinement can worsen their behavior and make even worse to the inmates who are already mentally unstable, violent and suicidal. 3.Yes there may be on several occasions that someone is dangerous or causing problems, but obviously they are going to be like that they are in jail struggling to live day by day because no one is ever really safe in there. Separating them is adding fuel to the fire since they will be coming out of solitary with all these mental health complaints. 4.Yes solitary confinement does cause mental health concerns and yes those inmates that are in solitary for a long period of time have already developed those mental health concerns for being in there for a long period of time. That"s exactly what I am arguing, that is why we should NOT put them in solitary confinement. 5.Another form of discipline is not letting them out of their cells, that"s another form of confinement within the prison. You are right dangerous behavior cannot be left alone for the safety of the inmates and corrections officers, that is why keeping them in their cells is less risky than solitary confinement due to the fact it cause mental health issues. 6.Prison should also respect inmates and vice versa. But being that they have authority over other people"s lives they should really think of healthy ways of punishment when instilling "respect". Preferably something that can"t cause them long term harm. 7.Building a Solitary Confinement prisons is too expensive to build, house, maintain and manage. We should be making educational facilities that are beneficial for education, we can build house and manage schools, hospitals or even math centers. That"s why the US should not put prisoners into Solitary Confinement. 8.In Supermax: Controlling Risk through Solitary Confinement , it mentioned that as it is known solitary confinement is to reform prisoners, but evidence showed "little proof that they were any more effective that other forms of confinement" (Shalev, 2009). 9.One article that discussed the psychological effects of isolated confinement on prisoners, written by a prisoner who was in solitary confinement for eight months, discussed how it was hard for him to stay mentally stable not knowing what day or what time it is (Lux, 1976). C. Therefore, the US should keep putting prisoners in solitary confinement.
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

1) Solitary confinement is s a form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is isolated from any human contact, though often with the exception of members of prison staff. 2) As i stated before, solitary helps keep the correctional officer out of harms way. Being that correctional officers have one of the most dangerous jobs they should be allowed to ensure their own safety in whichever way they seem fit. 3) Even though prison is a dangerous place, inmates cannot be derived of their safety either. If there is an image that is dangerous or causes problems, they must be separated from the general population. 4) Even though information shows that solitary confinement can cause mental issues, a case can be made that those inmates that are in solitary for a long period of time already have mental issues and should be separated from the general population. 5) The inmates need another form of discipline within the prison if they keep causing trouble. Dangerous behavior must not be left alone for the safety of inmates and correctional officers. 6) The inmates must respect authority. They already come into prison with no respect and if it is not instilled in them then the prison can become a very dangerous place. 7) Solitary confinement is expensive, but the positives outweigh the cost of it. ________________________________________________________________ 8) Therefore, the Us should keep putting prisoners in solitary confinement
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

1) I agree for the most part they have their face covered, but its not always the instance. For example, a family member of mine was an inmate at Riker's Island who had to be sent to solitary confinement. After speaking to him, he informed me that during his stay in solitary while being transported through the jail he was not blindfolded or any other variation of something to cover his face. 2) I agree with you on the fact that we do not know why they're in jail, but that still doesn't change the fact that they disobeyed the rules in prison even though the inmate is already incarcerated. Solitary confinement may be detrimental to their mental state, but as i stated before some of these inmates are already going in with suspected mental issues which if not separated from the general population can cause a greater problem. 3) If the inmates already are in a bad state of mind, then they shouldn't be in prison in the first place they should be in a psych ward. I disagree that the inmates nowadays are thrown into solitary for years now because the average time spent in solitary is about 48 days. 4) The nature of the crime that they committed to land themselves in jail has nothing to do with them being put in solitary confinement. Its their behavior in prison that landed them in solitary confinement. Yes, the solitary confinement system is flawed, just like many legal and law enforcement systems, but separating the issue is definitely in the better of all the other inmates and correctional officers. 5) As i stated before, the system is flawed, but can you give me a better solution to disciplining an inmate who is acting unruly? I agree with the whole mental aspect of your argument but instead of trying to get rid of solitary a system should be implemented to monitor these inmates while going through solitary and after they get out as well. 6) Their liberties are already taken away after they are imprisoned. Yes, they aren't treated as well as the other inmates, but that was their decision to do whatever they did to land themselves in solitary. Yes, they are locked in a walled recreation are, but it is outside so their bare necessities are still being met. 7) Obviously keeping them in their cells isn't doing the job if they are still disobeying the rules of the prison. A discipline system needs to be in place in such a hostile environment like prison. The correctional officers are outnumbered so any inmate causing a disturbance must be separated. 8) This point cannot be argued without speaking to people who have been put in solitary confinement. 9) Not every case of people going into solitary confinement ends with someone coming out in a bad mental state. Solitary doesn't necessarily make their behavior better but prison doesn't either. What solitary does do is give the inmates a punishment within a punishment, reinforcing the fact that they can still suffer consequences for their actions. 10) Not ever inmate going into solitary are mentally stabled, yes solitary can make it worse but so can prison itself.
Should the US put prisoners in Solitary confinement

1) It is not always the case that the inmate in solitary confinement has his or her face covered while being transported to different locations. 2) A punishment shouldn't be beneficial because it is put in place to discipline the inmate. I agree that solitary confinement can have negative effects on the mental state of the inmate, but their mental state can already be questioned due to the fact that they committed some kind of act that got them landed in there in the first place. As long as the inmate is following directions, they will not be sent to solitary confinement. 3) As i stated before, i do agree that there can be negative effects on their mental states, but most of these inmates going into solitary are already in a bad mental state which can be dangerous to the people around them. 4) Obviously they haven't learned from the general confinement because they rare still causing trouble and being a danger to the people around them. 5) Yes i do agree that some correctional officers are corrupt, but even the corrupt ones worry about their safety and if there is a specific inmate causing trouble or is a threat to cause one of them harm they would still want to separate that inmate. 6) The inmate still gets their food, water, and their time outside in the sun and fresh air, all of their basic necessities are still being met. 7) It is true that solitary confinement is expensive, but can you put a price on the safety of the inmates and correctional officers? 8) As stated before it is a form of discipline, because most inmates think twice before they cause problems after spending some time in solitary confinement. 9) It can also make their behavior better or at least make them think twice before doing something that could possibly land them in solitary. 10) Prison itself is a depressing place, but they were not worried about depression when they committed the crime.