BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Problem of Evil (LPoe will be addressed, not the EPoe)

Omnipotent God- 1. Would have the power to prevent all evils. 1a. Evil exists.1b. Omnipotent God can not exist. 2. Would have the power to eliminate existing evils. 1a. Evil currently exists. 1b. Omnipotent God can not exist. Omniscient God- 1. Would know when, how, why, where all evils come into existence. 1a. Evil exists1b. Omniscient God can not exist. 2. Would know how to eliminate all evils that come into existence. 2a. Evil is able to come into existence 2b. Omniscient God can not exist. 3. Would know the effects existent evil has. 3a. Existent evil exists and has atrocious affects on things.3b. Omniscient God can not exist. Omnibenevolent God- 1. Would want all pre-existent evil and existent evil to not be in this world. 1a. Pre-existent evil comes into world1b. Existent evil is in this world1c. Omnibenevolent God can not exist.
The Problem of Evil (LPoe will be addressed, not the EPoe)

Thanks to emospongebob527 for instigating this debate. I accept it. After initially making this debate only available for debaters who have partaken in 60 or more debates, my opponent has now issued me a direct challenge after some persuasion. My apologies to those who made comments in the comment section showing interest before me (Phantom, Philochristos, Clash, Mizra). But let me assure you that this will be a good debate (albeit an unnecessarily long one – 5 rounds?) and you will not be disappointed by my arguments. Mizra asked that the voting period be changed to one month long, but that is pointless, as after about three of four days of being in the voting period, this debate will have moved off the main page and debaters are not likely to notice it or care about it. A three day voting period is fine. I would, however, like to ask my opponent to please not put so much space in between his arguments in following rounds, otherwise this debate will be long enough to stretch around the world several times. I would also like my opponent to properly number his arguments. I noticed that he listed eight premises for the logical problem of evil, but rather than numbering them 1-8, he put a number one next to each of them. With that, I turn it over to my opponent.
The Problem of Evil (LPoe will be addressed, not the EPoe)

My resolution: The existence of evil refutes the possibility of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God.Rules-Please no trolling or semantics.Definitions- Evil- morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked.Omniscient- having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. Omnipotent- having unlimited authority or power. Omnibenevolent- unlimited or infinite benevolence.Problem of Evil- the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.Logical Problem of Evil- This argument is of the form modus tollens, and so is logically valid - if its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. However, as it is unclear precisely how the existence of an all-powerful and perfectly good God guarantees the non-existence of evil, it is unclear whether the first premise is true. To show that it is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on this premise, such as this modern example:[2] God exists. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists. Evil exists (logical contradiction). Evidential Problem of Evil- There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[Other Evidential Problem of Evil- Gratuitous evils exist. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists. Terms and Points to Follow-The existence of evil will not be disputed. The fact that such God used in this debate will have the attributes of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience will not be disputed.The Logical Problem of Evil will be addressed in this debate, not the Evidential Problem of Evil.Round Structure-1. Acceptance2. Main Arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals5. Conclusion/Resolution Reached ____________________________________________________________________http://en.wikipedia.org...http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Problem of Evil (LPoe will be addressed, not the EPoe)

emospongebob has (perhaps unsurprisingly) forfeited the last round in this debate. He has been doing a lot of that lately. I really thought he was going to see this one through to the end but some debaters would rather leave a debate altogether than gracefully lose. My Evaluation of the Debate conduct: con Pro forfeited without a reason. grammar/spelling: tie Each of us had proper spelling and grammar. arguments: con When I pointed out that his formulation of the logical problem of evil was missing the most important premise, he provided it in his next post but then I showed it to be false, which is the point at which he forfeited. sources: tie Purely philosophical debate; no sources necessary.
The Problem of Evil (LPoe will be addressed, not the EPoe)

Response-My missing premise is not relevant to my argument; Why? With an omnibenevolent being it is not a question, "Desire" it is a question of "Will".An omnibenevolent being would do this;Omnibenevolent God-1. Is the most loving, selfless, giving being to exist.1a. An omnibenevolent being doesn't have the ability to give anything less than relief from suffering, kindness, and love.1b. Evil and suffering occur and exist and are able to come into existence, thus removing any potential of an omnibenevolent being.1c. Since these do occur, the only thing a God is, is malevolent........ Extend to 2..............2. A God that has the highest and most infinite desire for good and relief from suffering, would not allow suffering or evil.2a. Suffering and evil exist.2b. A God that would otherwise withhold relief from suffering and justice to people, is malevolent............... Extend to 3...........3. Since said God allows evil and suffering to exist, he is malevolent.3a. An omnibenevolent being can not be malevolent.3b. A being that allows said suffering and evil is malevolent.3c. Omnibenevolence and malevolence cannot coexist.3d. Said malevolence has already been established with the existence of evil and suffering.3e. Omnibenevolence where malevolence exists is impossible.3f. Malevolence exists because evil and suffering exist.3g. An omnibenevolent being is impossible.3h. My opponent's argument from "Will to prevent evil" premise is defeated because said God is omnibenevolent. Thank you CTM.
The Problem of Evil (LPoe will be addressed, not the EPoe)

INTRODUCTION I'm glad to be back on debate.org. Fortunately I have gotten my power back. As there are no more storms headed my way, I do not expect to lose it again, so I expect that I will be able to finish the rest of the debate. In this round, I will respond to Pro's logical problem of evil. ARGUMENTS LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL SUMMARY Premise 1 An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God would have the power to prevent all evils, eliminate all existing evils, would know how, why, where evil comes into existence, how to eliminate or prevent all evil that comes into existence, would know the effects of evil, and would want all existent and pre-existent evil to not be in this world. Premise 2 Evil exists. Conclusion An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. And this is because of the fact that having the ability to do X and wanting to do X does not entail that one would or should do X. In short, the argument has a missing premise, rendering it invalid. The problem of evil, whether it be logical or evidential, must address four factors: Power It must show that God has the power to do what He is being asked to do. Desire It must show that God has the desire to do what He is being asked to do. Existence It must be shown that evil exists. Imperative It must be shown that God should act to prevent evil from coming into the world and eliminate evil that already exists. My opponent has addressed the first three factors, but all four are necessary in order for the argument to be valid. CONCLUSION The way that my opponent has presented the problem of evil is invalid due to its missing premise, hence the argument fails and the resolution is negated.
Intelligent People Are Less Likely to Be Religious

Your right there were many intelligent people from our past that contributed to our accumulated knowledge, Many if not all (going back far enough) were religious. However an intelligent person of that time would know of the consequences of disagreeing with the existing state of affairs, Particularly with regard to religion or political issues. These great minds of the past did not acquire this knowledge by embracing their religion, Rather they used other disciplines (as you said). The rise of highly intellectual thinkers was not because of their religion, But in spite of it. Our history shows that religion of the past (particularly Christian) supressed if not stop progress for 1000 years, Know as the dark ages. For the sake of this argument lets us call science a religion. Science unlike any other religion, Encourages intellectual honesty, Intellectual integrity, Critical thinking, Reason, Logic and doubt. The scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn't provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, But investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Your right that science like many religions has been wrong about a great many things, But unlike most religions, Science is self correcting and does not contradict our background knowledge. Religious Faith doesn"t bring us beyond reason, As amply shown by the fact that not a single problem " be it scientific, Philosophical or socio-political " has ever been solved or even mildly ameliorated by faith. On the contrary, Faith has a nasty tendency to make bumbling simpletons of us, To waste our energies, Time and resources on pursuits that do not improve the human condition. The greatest failing of religion is its certainty. Faith is not a virtue, It is a repudiation of one the few good things human beings have going for them: a little bit of reason. Science values your thoughts and experiences, Unlike religion which is dogmatic and has no use for your own thoughts and experiences making them valueless. So how does a person gain knowledge from dogmatic belief?
Intelligent People Are Less Likely to Be Religious

This is gonna be my first debate so I'm hoping to learn a lot from the community and I look forward to your responses! It's important to understand what intelligence and religion are before moving forward on this topic. First, Intelligence as defined by Merriam-Webster is "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations" or "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria. " Second, Religion is defined as "the service and worship of God or the supernatural" or "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, Beliefs, And practices. " I personally prefer the second primary definitions for both of these terms so I will be building my argument around these premises. My contention with your argument is you cite "research" as the source of coming to the realization that there is a negative correlation between higher intelligence and religiosity. History has proven otherwise dating back to ancient civilizations. Ancient native American civilizations developed complex mathematical and astronomical systems using religion as the their core motivator. Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese and Romans all followed strict religious guidelines and their philosophical and scientific discoveries paved the way for the rise of modern civilization. The Islamic golden age in the Middle East during the Middle Ages was as a result of religious thinkers interpreting their environment through religion. The Age of Enlightenment bore a number of important figures and revolutionaries across multiple disciplines in science, Mathematics, Philosophy, Government, Economics, Etc. Most, If not all of which, Were devout religious believers. Regardless of what current "research" states, The historical record of humanity clearly displays a positive correlation between religiosity and the rise of highly intellectual thinkers. To make the argument that this historical record shows that religiosity impeded intelligence, Or "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria, " does not seem accurate. On top of this historical argument, Using the second definition of religion, "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, Beliefs, And practices, " it would not be unreasonable to consider contemporary science a religion. Science has an institutionalized system of attitudes, Beliefs and practices found in the commitment towards the scientific method, Positing of unproven theories and the understanding that science has historically been wrong, And is subject to change as time goes on. I'm excited to hear your response!
If time stood still or ran backwards, we would not know it.

How do we mark the passing of time? We rely on memories and estimations and therefore our perception of time is unreliable. Imagine watching the second hand of a watch. When that hand hits the 10 second mark, the other 9 seconds are just memories. We presume 10 seconds has passed but in all honesty we have know way of knowing exactly how old those memories are. To a person who wakes from a 4 year coma it feels as though the events of 4 years ago have just happened. We mark the progress of time by comparing memories to what is happening currently and the future by what we expect to happen or don't know yet. If time stood still we would remain in that current moment. We would still remember the past and expect the future and to us it would seem that time was moving forward. Even if time ran backward and our memories were deleted one by one, it would still seem as if time was moving forward because we would still have memories to compare to our current situation and expectations of the future. Our perception of time is one directional, irrespective of what direction time is actually moving in.
If time stood still or ran backwards, we would not know it.

I will make my rebuttals of my opponents 2nd and 3rd round. Rebuttals1. 2nd roundI will rebut my opponents 2nd round first. My opponent says that we rely on memories, and our perception of time is unreliable. No it is not. We can always see the clocks, the dates, and if that is unreliable, we can always make a sun clock. In doesn't always need to be of memories. My opponent says that when 10 seconds pass, all the other 9 seconds were memories. My opponent says that there is no way of how we know that those are 9 seconds. My opponents argument is irrelevant. This doesn't give anything for Pro which goes on the topic of we don't know the time stops. We can count 9 seconds. My opponent says that for a person with 4 years of a coma, four years passed. This rebuts my opponents case entirely. My opponents side is, "If time stood still or ran backwards, we would not know it. " My opponent shows that if time passes we know it. This is irrelevant. My opponents says that we mark time by comparing memories. My opponent says that if time stops, we won't know because we remember the past and expect the future. Yes, but then, as I said over one hundred times, we can look around to see that time stopped. This is how you may know that time stops. My opponents logic is not always correct. Next, my opponent says that if time went backward, we would forget the past. Yes, but then, again, there are other different ways you may know that time went backwards or stay the same. DefenseMy opponent doesn't actually rebut my arguments. He just says another whole different thing that if time stops, no one can move. Then, this debate is a truism. You ought to vote Con for the truism, as it is bad conduct, and no one can rebut. This is why in my framework, I said that, "Not like in Sleeping Beauty, lets say that time stopped into April 25th for the whole world, but we can still move an experience things, and do whatever. " I purposely said that so it is not a truism. Because my opponent could not rebut my framework when I rebutted his rebuttals, vote for Con. ConclusionBecause BoP is on Pro, if one of his arguments or his side is untrue, or if he fails to rebut even one of my arguments, I win. So, Pro did not even specifically analyze my arguments, he just rebutted that we can't move if time stopped, which rebuts his arguments. Because my opponent's arguments are refuted, and my opponent failed to rebut my arguments, you ought to be votin Con.
If time stood still or ran backwards, we would not know it.

I wil be making my opening arguments in this round.FrameworkThe BoP is on Pro. We need to think that we can move when time stops, because if Pro says we can't, it is an absolute truism. So think of it that even though time stop, we can move. Not like in Sleeping Beauty, lets say that time stopped into April 25th for the whole world, but we can still move an experience things, and do whatever.Argument 1: A boring chemistry lectureLets take an example of when you are in a boring chemistry lecture. First of all, what do most people do if there is a boring chemistry lecture? They mostly bite their fingernails, dose off, or look at the time tick by. However, in this case, if time stopped, then that means that the clock stopped also, which people can always know. This is one reason why people can know if time stopped, they know it.Argument 2: Day or Night?If time stopped, then that means that the process of the sun setting will not be there, and there will be no day and night. This is a way which Pro cannot rebut, because if day and night stopped, and it was always day, that is a pretty good reason to prove that time stopped.Argument 3: The Same Time or Date?When time stops, that means that in our digital clocks, the time will appear like that for the whole time. First you may think it is broken, but you can't fix it. That shows that time stops. Also, in your smartphones, the date will never be fixed if time stops. Then you will know that time had actually stopped.ConclusionIf time stayed the same, we will definetly know it, as I showed in my three arguments. It is the same thing if time went backwards, but we can not remember our thoughts, which is another way we know that time has ran backward.For these reasons, vote for Con. I will rebut my opponent's case next round.
Disney

Now le's get on to the arguments! >>>The title cover of Little Mermaid has a hidden picture in it<<< All my opponent did was reaffirmed what I already acccepted: that there was a "penis-looking object" on the original VHS cover. However, he failed to refute my arguments corresponding to this topic. All he did was supply a picture. Until I get an actual rebuttal, I will extend this argument to this round. >>>Lion King<<< "Note that the last line of the "E" is bent at a crooked angle. " ----> For animation purposes. Having the stars move in such a majestic, celestial way makes it look nice. This is probably the reason for the "suscpicious crooked angle". The thing with conspiracy theorists, ranging from Apollo moon landings to Disney sexual innuendo, is that they come from the conclusion and arive at a fact. They find little details and distort it from reality. When people normally see the "crooked angle", they don't interpret it to be the subtle formations of SEX, but rather pleasant animations. Again, my argument pertaining to Occam's Razor still stands. So does my argument of why it doesn't matter anymore, when future editions right now delete this part of the scene. >>>Hanna Montana<<< My opponent concedes this point - may this be a big sign for the voters. >>>The Rescuers<<< This is actually the only legit example. Yes, a photograph of a naked woman is in one of the windows. However, there are several points to be made: 1. Who cares? The future editions have taken this out, so why does it matter now? 2. At normal speed, it's so fast that most people can't even find it. If you watched the entire movie without previous knowledge of this innuendo, would you really have noticed? 3. A proposed theory concerning this example is that perhaps someone put it in for sabatoge. Around the time the movie was being released, it was predicted to be a success already. Similariy, Walt Disney had died, and tensions were high[1]. =====Conclusion===== My opponent has failed to refute the notion of Occam's razor, possible other explanations, or why if these allegations were even true that it should be the reason for Disney's demise. Many things have been left unanswered, and one of my opponent's arguments has even been dropped. ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Disney

Ok, first off, I will agree that YouTube is not correct all the time, nor are the other sites. Since you pointed out that it would be better if i linked my points, I will this time. >>>The title cover of Little Mermaid has a hidden picture in it<<< Ok, the penis isn't really that big, and it is very camoflauged in Neptune's palace thingy, (don't know what it's called), but it's possible to see with the naked eye, a favorite scenario by subliminal advertisers. http://images.google.com... link for the Little Mermaid scandal. >>>Lion King<<< whether it says SEX or SFX it's still sort of subliminal. I learned last year from a teacher that students will try to disguise letters on spelling tests (lowercase "A" will look like lowercase "O" (a,o), in this case capital "E" will look like capital F" (E,F), lowercase "I" will look like lowercase "J" (i,j) and other things. everyone's handwriting is different, and it won't be rare to find that one little failing student that will do that. http://www.youtube.com... Lion King message, the user even says it was eithier SEX or SFX. Note that the last line of the "E" is bent at a crooked angle. >>>Hannah Montana<<< Ok, I don't have very much excuses for this arguement, but the shows and movies like Hannah Montana I HAVE watched alot of, I've seen alot of that. (HSM 1's hidden moral suggests disobeying your parents for the things you REALLY want to do, a.k.a Troy quitting basketball and pissing off his dad to join the high school musical.) >>>New Arguement<<< Ok, outside of LK, LM, and HM,there's an old movie called "The Rescuers" that has a scene where 2 little mice are flying in something around a city, and it goes too fast to clearly show a naked woman in one of the windows. http://www.youtube.com... Note: this movie was not made in English, so the scene is around 0:30.