BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pascals Wager is not a logic fallacy

I am sincerely sorry that my opponent has given up. But either I have failed in communicating my point or my opponent simply choose not to address it.Issues of sin or deciding which got to believe in (in the sense of Case #2) are out of scope of the argument being discussed. While my opponent's reasoning in this area may be sound, the fact is, he must alter the argument at hand in order to reach that point. Doing so is basically an implicit admission that the argument, as-is, is insufficient.Other than that, I'm not sure what I can say, other than to reiterate and clarify my points.Pascal's wager, as originally formulated, fallse into the fallacy of the false dilemma, as it pits Christianity against atheism, ignoring all other faiths.If we interpret the arugment in such a way to eliminate the false dilemma (either theism vs. atheism, or Christianity vs. Non-Christianity) then the reward vs. loss component of the argument ceases to be valid.Wagering that God is no longer results in infinite gain vs. no loss as the god that ends up actually existing may not grant an infinite reward or may, in fact, punish me, and infinitely so. Consider: "5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."But, if I wager that, Zeus is, and I gain, what do I gain? Not eternal bliss as promised by the Christian god. Maybe some sort of neat artifact, some sort of demi-god power, luck in battle?If I wager that, Cthulu is, and I lose (even by being right!) I go insane, along with the rest of humanity.By incorporating all gods, all gods that have been conceived, all gods that are conceivable, cost-benefit analysis of the wager gets thrown right out the window. There is, literally, no basis for Pascal's assessment in this situation.
Pascals Wager is not a logic fallacy

Well…sigh. If any would like to challenge to me on this resolution in the future PM me and I will consider it. I’m not forfeiting this debate, but it seems like I suggest is the case with the consequences of atheism if its true whether you believe it or not, my arguments will be acknowledge with the same degree, whether they are made or not. I could put my heart and soul into trying to rearticulate my previous arguments better but ……just don’t see the point
Pascals Wager is not a logic fallacy

Since my opponent has clarified that we will specifically be talking about Case #2, where "God" is "any god," I will expand on the rebutal for that case alone.To reiterate:"5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."If "God" is "any God" then the inference referenced here is not longer justified."If you gain, you gain all."Since "God" is "any God" it is unjustified to assume that the god believed in grants infinite reward if believed in. Certainly this is the case for the Christian God (among others) but we are not limiting ourselves to that. There are many Gods who are indifferent toward their believers. What does Loki care of those who believe in him? Furthermore, there are Gods, such as Cthulu, who are not only indifferent, but explicitly antagonitistic towards all, regardless of belief.Once you open the gates to all Gods, you can no longer assume that you gain if the wager is correct, nor can you assume that the gain is necessarily infinite in magnitude."If you lose, you lose nothing."The flip side is true. Even if you believe in a God, you may still lose the wager if you believe in the wrong God, and risk eternal punishment. This completely turns the wager on its head. One believes in a God, wagering that "God is" and can not only be correct, but still lose, and lose infinitely so, all for chosing the wrong god.Game TheoryLet us analyze this from this field."Wager that God is"Since God is "any god" of which there are infinite possibilities, for each God that would reward believing in it we can conceive of a God that punishes for believing in it. The net result, then, is zero reward or punishment."Wager that God is not"Again, since there can be any god, we can conceive if an infinite number of gods that reward not believing in it as well as punish for not believing in it. The net result, then, is zero reward or punishment.Conclusion:By expanding the scope to any god, I have shown that neither wagering that God is nor wagering that God is not have any expected reward or punishment, demonstrating a premise of the wager to be unequivocally false, and rendering the wager itself as objectively pointless.
Pascals Wager is not a logic fallacy

Awesome, a skilled opponent actually took my debate. And one who I know from mafia games we have played is a very logical thinker and I very much respect your ability to use reason Drafter. I look forward to this debate. From my experience on this site Pascals Wager is often the most mocked by atheist as a stupid argument from theist. But it most often refuted in such a way that shows a lack of understanding in exactly what the wager is supposed to show. Example “well the problem with Pascals wager is it does not prove god exist” Its not supposed to. The argument is one of what the most pragmatic rational choice is in face of choosing between 2 unkowns. In my experience most all atheist at the very least admit that God ‘could’ exist although it cannot be proven either way with 100% certainty; that God exist or that God does not exist. Pascals Wager starts from this point. We already kind of agree that I cant prove God exist to you and you cant prove the opposite. But one of us is right, either God exist, or he does not. With one of those possible truths, there are consequences to our choices in actions and beliefs. With the other there are no consequences in regards to the way we live and believe. To put it in gambling terms the way Pascal would like it, say a lotto ticket at the gas station cost $1. The odds of winning are 1 in 5 tickets of getting your dollar back. The odds are 1 in 84,000 in getting $888. All in all not really worth the trade is it? 4/5 chances you lose a buck and VERY bad chances at getting real money back. But what if even all the losing tickets gave you a dollar back? And the top prize winner gives you back infinite money? No matter what the odds are on that winner ticket (they could be 5 times worth than the megamillion & powerball tickets) you would still be a fool not to chance buying a ticket. Even more a fool if you know you might have to pay up a few bucks just to leave without getting a ticket. No matter what probability you put on the existence of God being true, when you weigh that against the infinite gain of eternal life…in heaven, and you take into account that this cost practically nothing that you don’t lose anyway (even if there is not god your going to die aren’t you no matter how you live your life). Now if you feel there is 100% proof there is no God then Pascals Wager cannot apply and does not give you reason too live as if there is a God. This argument purely applies to those who admit they don’t think they can prove God does not exist or that he does. From those 2 unknowns, even if its your position that the unknown that God exist is very unlikely and the unknown that he does not is very likely, there is potential infinite gain in believing he exist, and maximum loss for being wrong about his existing is ….well there no loss. Pacals Wager is a pragmatic decision in dealing with outcomes that you don’t know for sure whether you will get. And it’s a logical one.
Pascals Wager is not a logic fallacy

Pascals wager in short for this debate can be summarized as: "God is, or He is not" A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. You must wager. (It's not optional.) Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. and a link to it can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org... and here http://plato.stanford.edu... I will be argueing Pro that the wager is not a logical fallicy, and my opponent will be arguing that it is a logic fallacy. First Round is for accaptance only, the character limit has been set to 6,000 largely to force myself to challenge myself to say what needs said with limited space. I have set restrictions on who can accapt and understand that theres a little less than 2 pages of people on this site who qualify (ranked as high or higher than me) so if you really want this debate and dont qualify say so in the comment section and I will consider dropping it for you. I put the restriction just to block troll accounts that accapt debates and dont finish them. If when I look at your past debates and see that for the most part you dont forfiet then I will likely give this debate challenge to you.
Double Move Nuclear Chess

RULES -2 moves per round -If a piece takes another piece, then a 3X3 area of pieces will be taken, with the middle being the piece taking the other piece -The piece that is taking will be destroyed too -King cannot take anything, isn't explosion proof -Only the pawns are explosion proof. However, they will die when they take a piece. -All pieces move normally -You cannot move the same piece 2 times in a row in a round, but you can move the same piece 2 times in a row within 2 rounds Example of what is allowed: round one a4 Kh3 round two Kg5 a5 You cannot do this: Round one a4 a5 -The king can still be checkmated, in addition to being exploded to death Round one not acceptance, go go go. I'm white, your black R=rook no annotation=pawn Q=queen K=king B=bishop KN=knight E4 Knf3
God is real

Sorry Pro, but I think you missed the point on this one. I was asking you to read and hopefully even talk to me about my previous arguments- it's hardly a debate at all if you say "God is real, debate me on this", and then I make an argument and you respond "I will not debate previous arguments, BUT here are 8000 characters I copy & pasted from an article". Furthermore, not that there's much sense in trying to make this a debate at all anymore, the article you copy & pasted gave some truly tremendous facts about the world- and I'll agree that they are amazing, and the Earth is an incredible place- but I don't think it argued what you were hoping it would. That article wrote about things that are great and could (that's the key word) be explained by the existence of a God, but this has two consequences: 1. It in no way necessitates the existence of a Christian God (and I can only assume that's what the debate was supposed to be about, what with your opening statement centering around the bible). If it was actually a proof that a God exists, this would be an issue for the reason that if it appears to be proving every/any God exists (ie. if it's explaining both the existence of a Christian God and an Islamic one, or hundreds of others in any combination), even if we are unable to spot the problem in the premises it can be shown that there is one, because the existence of the Christian God is thought to be mutually exclusive. So in lamence terms, if it's proving the existence of two Gods there's a problem, because two can't exist at once. Therefore, we would have to reject it (again, if it was actual proof. See point #2 for why it's not). 2. Every one of these things also has an explanation rooted in science. Therefore, it's not actually a proof at all- the article you copy & pasted was just someone saying "this is an explanation! ". I guess that's it, if you'd like to debate again I would be willing to start off from my first argument if you were wanting to actually have a debate. If not, thanks for the discussion that we did have.
God is real

I will argue no more, for you have beat me with nonsense you have heard from other atheists and the internet. Only that (tons of opinions and nonsense I do not have time for to respond) have you beat me with. You have not changed my mind and I will stand for my faith in God and his one and only begotten son. I wish not to call myself a Christian, but a follower. When somebody says "Oh, he is a Christian." They expect more from you and the way you live your life, then just simply being called a follower of Christ. From man to man, what's the point of not believing in anything, and spending your life debating other Christians and other religions and "proving" they're wrong. Then what's the point of life then? You believe that we won't go anywhere when we die. Then where do we go? If you believe, at least, that we have souls (if you do) then where do those souls go? A frog? A bird? An ant? The point is, if you don't believe, if you don't get saved, if you believe we don't go anywhere when we die, then the life you're living is incomplete, and pointless. What's the point of being a human being, living life for 70 yrs, and then not going anywhere when your time is up, then what's the point? Anyway, head my warning, you better get your life straight and asking for forgiveness and get saved before the crap hits the fan. Or if you die before then, well, you will know a new meaning of pain and regret. Thank you for making me more of a follower, and may God bless and I will be praying for you! Bye!
God is real

This is how it will go down: Pro will have to give his introductory argument, back that up with proof there is no god, and more physical evidence or anything else that supports the initial argument. Like so: God is real. Simple. But not that simple in the eyes of an atheist. Some Atheists are flat out dumbasses that know nothing of what theyre talking about. (Even some other Atheists would agree!) They bring up pitiful sentences and arguments like : "If god is a perfect being, and he created Earth, then why is the Earth soooo imperfect? Therefore god is not real."(Answer: Sin, a curse, came along and made Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. Thanks Satan!) These are the "quick witted" but dont have any wits anyway, and when they run out of arguments, they choose a random thought and settle on it, like: " If pigs dont have wings, and purple is gods favorite color, and there is no such thing as Unicorns, then god is not real." The only evidence I need is the bible. The bible is a perfect book, no errors or anything inconsistent can be proven. It provides our origins, a life plan, our salvation, and the future. How you you go wrong in believing in a perfect being that loves you and cares for you, unlike these cruel gods that will torture you if you dont cook the steak to medium rare. (Also, if youre Atheist, and dont believe in anything, then you believe in not believing. You BELIEVE that there is no God or any supreme being or something that reigns the universe. You BELIEVE in something, then, dont you?)
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standard e

OK so going down the flow. My opponents Defn of Justice as i stated and he never addressed. Never states that these people are due rights more that the principle of giving rights in the practical worlds rights are better than the "Principle as he never addressed this argument. On his VC we give a better interpretation as to where a student stands on the basic educational spectrum. thus it would be better to maximize education with these exams. I stated "His contention......." in the 1st speech and again in the 2nd speech you can look at the records to confirm i never dropped his 1st contention I have several Cards to back it up as my opponent stated i didnt. Look at my speech i have cards. and evidence. In the real world we need to know standards and furthermore he dropped the argument about how someone who didnt pass this test had no way of passing the 12th grade. 2nd contention he never fully addresses solvency and buecause he cannot solve for dropouts his argument cannot be looked at. Exit exams test on basic 9th and 8th grade standards the students would not have made it to the 10th grade to take the test if they didnt know these standards 3rd contention again i have taken the test in California and the 1st Question was "What is -5+6" it is easy it doesnt create stress and it is neccisary to discren wether or not our students are learning. Now onto my case........ My oponent NEVER addresses my THIRD WARRANT IN THE 1NC. That the AFF inherently Values Quality Ed. and Quality Ed. encompasses justice, as we teach the principle of justice in several courses. VC key word SIMPLE my opponent uses this word. Yes they are simple he attacks none of my cards that say the net results measure schools thus by measuring schools we hold teachers and facilities accountable contrary to what my opponent says. Again on my 1st contention he never addressed my cards so he agrees we can use exit exams to measure schools teachers. so if he says they should have "mastered these skills" then they do not contribute to dropouts. 2nd Contention my opponent needs to read a general debate handbook i addressed his arguments by using cards he dropped ignore everytime he used the word "dropped" as he cannot know the meaning of this word as he probably barely read my 1NC. so again dropped cards and warrants are proving my case true he should not have been able to debate my case last round but he did regardless. he really needs to know what the word "dropped" means. For all these reasons and more i urge a negative ballot.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standard e

OK so moving Down the Flow. Throughout this debate my opponent misquotes me and addresses virtually none of my arguments as i will address Ok so the four warrants my opponent placed are new arguments which should not be looked towards however to avoid dropping them I will refute them. These Warrants do not fit my opponents Definitions of justice "a principle of right action." he speaks about having rights which would infer that people are due rights, however the principle itself is what his definition infers and while giving rights may follow the principle the principle itself does not state wether or not people are due rights. His VC Maximizing Ed Equality he cannot uphold this as he is revoking chances from special needs students by holding them to the same standard you would hold a 4.5 student with extra cirriculars this is why exit exams fail we are all different but they are all the same. My opponent Drops my argument on his 1st contention by specifying i dropped his argument because he never looked closely at my words "I address and negate his contention by saying they do not measure intelligence but basic educational standards thus his argument does not stand. furthermore if a student cannot pass a measure of basic educational standards they would not have received the grades of high achievement and even if they fail they can retake the test any number of times." Se extend that he agrees with me by hoping that by sweeping this arguemtn under the rug he can get away with it. On his 2nd contention i stated the IF WE REMOVE EXIT EXAMS HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS WILL NOT BE ELIMINATED. I don't have to provide evidence or elaboration it is a solvency argument he has to justify that by removing exit exams we provide solvency for dropouts 3rd contention he does not address my argument that if they cannot pass this exit exam they dont pass high school because it tests 8th grade english 9th grade math. and that furthermore these test make sure that the students meet basic educational standards not test how smart or advanced they are but that they know the basics. Now on to my case. He argues my Value but drops the warrants under it more specifically the warrant that states the aff already inherently vales Quality Ed. and how important a quality ed. is. Furthermore an education encompasses justice because education teaches its "principles" adopting my opponents definition. As for my Value Criterion. It NEVER has to relate to the resolution it relates to my Value which relates to the resolution if he believes his criterion relates to the resolution he has the thought wrong and you must look to my case. He argues my contention but fails to address my cards silence is consent he agrees that they teach educational standards and this is preferable and so forth. thus he can no longer argue my contention nor do any of his arguments apply His argument on my second contention is Void considering he dropped Cards on the first that say the opposite. For all these reasons and more I Urge a Negative Ballot.
Anyone who accepts this debate is stupid

Up the stairs and down the stairs and penrose stairs and in my ladies chamber. And Jack and Jill went up the hill and came back down some while later with a bottle of vinegar and chips in paper. What a caper. Maris Piper double fried he cried. And succulent Cod from the deepest depths, over the counter in glorious perspiration and hot oil swelter What a belter. Penrose, Plumrose, pork ham meaty succulence Salty jelly, tasty treat, yum yum sandwich filling, in the tin out the tin, slap on the mustard and then, Trifle custard. High tea low tea, cake and pastries Saturday bake up wonder Oh dreamy, fluffy, jammy, creamy and all explosions of sweet sticky mouth ejaculation temptation Cake fellation And stupid is as stupid does and tea and rhyme and fish and chips. Penrose pro and primrose Pat and people mat and me for this and you for that and tit for tat And Jess the Cat.
The Bible states women should be less important in society than men

PLEASE NOTE: I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you find a way to accept this debate, you forfeit all 7 points. If you wish to debate this topic, please inquire in the comments if you meet the criteria, listed below.Criteria1. You must have in-depth knowledge of the Bible.2. You must have completed AT LEAST three serious* debates.3. You must have won AT LEAST ONE of these debates.If you do not reach this criteria, I am afraid I cannot let you accept this debate. If you do, please express your interest in the comments.*Casual, satirical or humourous debates will be assessed to see if they classify as "serious debates".DefinitionsBIBLE - Both the Old and New Testaments. When quoting, please use either the NIV or KJB.MEN/WOMEN - Referring to adults, NOT children.LESS IMPORTANT - Occupy a smaller role in society.SOCIETY - Modern day society.RulesFor Debaters1. PRO will be arguing that the Bible states women should be less important in society than men. CON will be refuting their arguments.2. Therefore, PRO has full BoP.3. The round format is as follows:Round 1: PRO is to begin their arguments immediatelyRound 2: RebuttalsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Final rebuttals and closing statements; no new arguments are to be presented this round.This may not be changed throughout the debate.4. Forfeits result in all 7 points going to the other debater.5. No insulting or offensive remarks and no trolling.If you wish to change any of these rules, inquire in the comments before PRO has submitted their arguments for Round 1.If either debater breaks any of these rules, all 7 points should be awarded to the other.For VotersConduct: This field should remain unvoted unless either debater breaks rule 5.S&G: This should not be voted on unless either debater's argument is completely incomprehensible.Better arguments: This should go to the debater who presented the best arguments.Sources: This field should remain unvoted . In case of a forfeit: All 7 points should be awarded to the other debater. Any deviation from these rules will be considered a votebomb.I look forward to a very interesting debate!! Please inquire in the comments if you wish to accept.