BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is Reasonable- Atheism is Not.

//first of all I don't need to (give justification for valid reasoning)// Well, considering the catalyzing theme of this debate focuses squarely on reason. So it seems appropriate to justify the validity of your reason. //You really don't understand the BOP and who has it// You really dont understand that in dismantling your ostensible right for knowledge claims because of lack of justification for valid reasoning has served precisely as my BOP that atheism is unreasonable. Furthermore, I have given you justification why my position is reasonable, you just dont like the answer. I start with God as my necessary pre-condition for reason. I do not reason my way to God. As soon as I appeal to an outside source to authenticate the existence of the God of Scripture, that outside source has necessarily become y ultimate authority. I'm a Christian, and I wont blaspheme God like that. 1. //Science is the absolute truth// This ranks up at the list of the most absurd statements ever made by atheists. I have never heard any atheist ever at any time say something so nonsensical. 2. //I can rebuke this just by you ignoring the definition I gave last round since you didn't give one// How convenient. Had I known I was going to need to define every word in order to prevent you from avoiding questions that make you uncomfortable, I would have. What is the definition of definition? I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is... 3. //morals are objective as their written by laws and so are objective, because laws are objective// As it is always proper to give credit where its due, so should I here: you are excellent in the art of not proving a point whatsoever. What this sounds like, is that morals are objective because societal conventions have made laws that say so. Problem is, we have no right for moral indignation for the rape of little girls of a society passes a law that makes it "morally" acceptable. All you have done is moved the goal post. What is the moral standard in which we judge if a law is moral/immoral. 5. //I appeal to science// When you appeal to science to use utilize your reasoning to ascertain the methods of study? Stop obfuscating the question and admit you use your reasoning to justify your reasoning- we're running out of town. //Why do you think the world is 6,000 yrs old// Our debate is not about facts. Facts are facts by virtue of them being facts. Our debate is on how we interpret those facts, and the vehicle that will drive us to those interpretations are our presuppositions. This is why if a fossil is put in front of us I can say "a flood" and you can say "millions of years". Perhaps your faith relies too heavily on the Priestly Scientists. In short, Im not interested in mowing over weeds all day. If we dont get to the root, they'll grow right back. I believe we should learn to crawl before we walk. Until you can provide justification for valid reasoning on objective principles, we will remain on all fours.
Christianity is Reasonable- Atheism is Not.

I have to give justification for valid reasoning, first of all, I don't need to as as long as I make atheism reasonable I win, you really don't understand BOP and who has it. 1.Science is the absolute truth, as science is a subject of study, not a being and so can only tell the truth2. I can rebuke this just by you ignoring the definition, I gave last round since you didn't give one before which is a " formal installation in an office, benefice, or the like."3. Morals are objective, as they're written by the laws and so are objective, because laws are objective5. I appeal to science.Since you're tying your beliefs into this, I will as well. Since god doesn't exist, where do you take your valid reasoning from, you can't justify anything, because god doesn't exist. So explain to me where your justification comes from if god doesn't exist? You keep claiming god exists, but the whole point of atheism is he doesn't exist. Especcialy when i said earlier that lots of key parts were proven false by science, while reason is being proven by science. For example the bible states that the god created the universe, however eventhough science didn't yet prove the big bang happened, there's a big chance it did. Also the bible says, earth was created in 7 days, which is disproven, by how new planets are formed, and the bible tells us, the world is 6'000 years old, but the fossil record proved, we even existed longer than 6'00 years. [1] Thereby, the bible isn't reasonable from the definition and as it's the sacred scripture of christianity, thent follows that a: god is a liar or b: god doesn't exist. Since it can't be the former due to the bible, it has to be the lattter in which case it follows that christianity isn't reasonable as their god doesn't exist and their religion is based on lies. So answer me, why do you think the world is 6'000 years old and created in seven days, when science disproved both of them?
Christianity is Reasonable- Atheism is Not.

I can ignore pretty much everything you just wrote out of the gate as you have failed to give justification for valid reasoning. Hopefully you can do that for me this time? We'll see I guess. My beliefs are provided in the definition of Christianity that you provided. Somehow your definition for reason will suffice, but not the definition of Christianity I agreed to? I find that more than a bit curious. Perhaps challenging you in the form of some questions might move this sloughful horse along: 1. Can you give an account for absolute truth, provided you believe such a thing exist? 2. Principles of induction assume uniformity in nature, that is the idea that the future will be as the past. The most revered atheistic philosophers such as Bertrand Russell and David Hume were at least humble enough to admit that justifying assuming these principles was a hurdle they could never clear, given the atheistic premise that we are just highly evolved meat machines, that we are just time and chance reacting on matter. 3. Can you explain to me where we get our morals? Are they objective or relative and subjective? 4. How do you know you have valid reasoning? What do you appeal to to justify the idea the claim that you do? As a Christian, I can justify absolute truth, induction, objective morality, and valid reasoning. The proof that God exists, is that without Him you can prove anything. You may not agree with my justification, but as it stands, I have justification, and you have yet to provide one.
Christianity is Reasonable- Atheism is Not.

First of all, thanks for a first argument.As I first selected the definitions, my definition of reason stands.For christianity to be real, the bible must be reasonable and proven. However lots of key parts were proven false by science, while reason is being proven by science. For example the bible states that the god created the universe, however eventhough science didn't yet prove the big bang happened, there's a big chance it did. Also the bible says, earth was created in 7 days, which is disproven, by how new planets are formed, and the bible tells us, the world is 6'000 years old, but the fossil record proved, we even existed longer than 6'00 years. [1] Thereby, the bible isn't reasonable from the definition and as it's the sacred scripture of christianity, thent follows that a: god is a liar or b: god doesn't exist. Since it can't be the former due to the bible, it has to be the lattter in which case it follows that christianity isn't reasonable as their god doesn't exist and their religion is based on lies.Now for the rebuttals:The instigator, as he didn't state the BOP, typically the BOP is with the investigator, so I he has to prove without a doubt his case. Second of alll his premises aren't fully explained, why ca;t you know anything without god, especcialy as that is not true. So he is saying if you're atheist you can't know what 1+1 is as that is something to know. That's just deregotary. Then he doesn't explain why is god the pre-condition for reason, especcialy when science is the pre-condition for reason according to the definiton of logic and justification. Also how can't an atheist have sound reasoning and why is knowledge unattainable without god. The definition of logic is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct orreliable inference."[2]. A science, is not linked to religion in any way, so why can't atheists know science. Also the definition of induction is " formal installation in an office, benefice, or the like."[3]. So why can't an atheist have a formal installation. Morality isn't borrowed as we still have punishments, like the death penalty and prison, which we get, so they already teach us punishments. Also why do I need to borrow from your world view. How have I given up any justification for valid reasons. How is logic linked to religion. In conclusion I wrote my views and rebuked my opponents arrogant insultive views. Also he didn't give any justifications and somehow misleadingly linked logic to religion, when if anything it's the opposite, without giving any proof or examples. Also pro says i don't have knowledge of valid reasoning without explaining his statement. I ask con to explain his view[1]: Bible, Genesis 1[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Christianity is Reasonable- Atheism is Not.

Thank you for the acceptance to my challenge, and let me start by apologizing for not posting definitions. I agree with all the definitions above, although, I would want to rephrase the definition of reason; reason- ability to reach logical conclusions via cognitive faculties. Premise One- Without God you cant know anything. Premise Two- God is the pre-condition for reason. Conclusion- because without God, knowledge is unattainable, the atheist can't know that his reasoning is sound. Without knowledge of valid reasoning, Con has conceded the debate by accepting it. Furthermore, the atheist shows that he actually lives like he believes in God, because he must borrow standards in which his worldview cannot account for, standards such as; laws of logic, induction, and morality. He must borrow these from my worldview in order to raise any objection to my worldview. Since Con is unwilling to admit the Triune of God Scripture lives, he has given up any justification for valid reasoning, and he likewise has given up any right to make any knowledge claims- including atheism is a reasonable option. Considering all this, it logically (a Christian concept) follows that Atheism isn't just an unreasonable option, it is a blatantly absurd one, and Christianity isn't just a more reasonable option- it is the only viable one.
Christianity is Reasonable- Atheism is Not.

I accept, and as the instigator didnt create definitions i willAtheism:one who is not a theist, one who does not believe in any gods [1]Christianity:the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies [2]Reasonable:being in accordance with reason [3]Reason:a statement offered in explanation or justification [4]I hope for a good debate[1]:http://atheism.about.com...[2]:http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]:http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4]:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Eugenics needs to become mandatory

Eugenics has historically been a very controversial topic. From its conception in Plato"s Republic, to its formalization by Galton, it has always attempted to achieve one thing: make humans better. Does that sound like a bad thing? Of course not! The problem lies in its application. Romans applied it by drowning their deformed (or otherwise impaired) children, the USA built Cold Spring Harbor where they sterilized and euthanized the "unfit to reproduce," Germany had Auschwitz where the Nazis decided who lived or died, Canada had sterilized the mentally deficient, Eugenics genuinely is a great idea: reduce crime rates, decrease human stupidity, create beautiful people, but you must concede that there are some ugly-azz people out there regardless of race, increase human intelligence, increase human benevolence by researching the genes responsible for evil predispositions, cure health problems, etc. Sure, we"d be depriving imbeciles from their constitutional "rights and freedoms," but who the hell cares!? In these wonderful modern times, we have enough resources and knowledge to know exactly which genes affect which behaviors, and we have a sufficient societal history to know which traits we truly deem undesirable. The government should spend precious tax dollars in developing an extensive database upon which every single human will be profiled according to their IQ, psychological propensities, health, background, history, etc. Imagine a dating app where you can see your potential matches" complete genetic profile. People with truly horrendous genes should be sterilized. As a society we must decide our future, and our future is in our descendance. If we keep allowing for imbecility, deformed, zombie looking humanoid mutants and genetic diseases to exists, we are only dooming our posterity. People with truly remarkable genes should be put in government-funded breeding programs. Doesn"t it seem incredibly selfish to bring children into this world knowing that they"ll suffer from health problems and low intelligence? It"s not right to bring children into this world simply because you want them. As a society we simply can"t afford to keep letting the unfit deformed, mentally ill, zombie walking mutants continue breeding. fanboy out mic drop
Eugenics needs to become mandatory

The following story from CNN is exactly why we need mandatory eugenics. To eradicate this form of zombie deformities and illness, which incidentally is passed down through generations of deformed genes by people who should not be reproducing. These creatures/mutants born, need 24/7 supervision and care and cost millions of dollars to keep this ameba petry dish experiment alive through health care. At what point do we finally say enough is enough, I mean what's next are we going to keep a ball of hair with one tooth alive because it's a person, no it's not a person it's a deformed zombie specimen that should be aborted prior to birth or incinerated after birth as a deformed virus/zombie. https://www.cnn.com...
Jimi Hendrix is the Best Guitar player ever.

Lady or gentleman, I thank you for your time in debating this topic with me. My first point will be talent. Jimi Hendrix is the one who virtually remade rock and roll. No one has ever come close to his level save Eddie Van Halen. Still Jimi can make you truly feel like how he wants you to feel. My second point: Death makes the artist a legend. Hendrix is dead. And countless other legends are dead. This makes this magnificent artist a Legend. My third point is popularity. Everyone knows Jimi Hendrix's name. If you don't, you've been living under a rock for the past thirty years and need to get out more. Hundreds of thousands of people have gone to his huge concerts because of his popularity. The music industry continues to benefit from Jimi's name and style. Sorry, but if you disagree with me, you are a complete fool.
Jimi Hendrix is the Best Guitar player ever.

"The kind of music that he played was called acid rock, however you cannot write songs when you are impaired by the drugs. You have not addressed my other points about popularity. Santana is good, but he is not known and feared across the world as Jimi was." If someone demands authority by scaring people then that person is essentially horrible at what he or she does. It is because of this that Santana is better than Hendrix and will always be that way.
Jimi Hendrix is the Best Guitar player ever.

I am sorry cheekyhobo, but you are wrong. The kind of music that he played was called acid rock, however you cannot write songs when you are impaired by the drugs. You have not addressed my other points about popularity. Santana is good, but he is not known and feared across the world as Jimi was. The guitarist and brains behind The Who, Pete Townshend and Eric Clapton formed an aquaintence out of the feeling of being threatened by the popularity and sheer skill of Hendrix. If you listen to Hendrix's music, you can hear the technicality and skill of his awesome ability. The solos that he does are mind blowing as it is, but he does many variations of style that I have yet to see santana pull off; including playing with only his right hand (he was a lefty) and playing with his mouth. Jimi did do drugs, in fact, that is the reason he died, but he still was the man to beat when it came to his shredding skill. Really nobody comes close to playing as well as he does. If you would like to go to the following site you will learn more about the late Jimi Hendrix: http://philbrodieband.com... You will find that Carlos Santana is nowhere to be found. I anticipate your closing argument. I do hereby close by urging all who read this to vote Affirmative on this argument. Thank you.
Children should be allowed to vote.

Sorry for the delay in answering this debate. My opponent has made the following points: 1. Child intelligence depends on many factors and does not depend completely on age. 2. Brain Plasticity, in a nutshell, is how the brain is less able to add and store information as it ages. Therefore, children, if taught politics at an early age, will understand them fluently. 3. Even though our society doesn't function like this, laws can benefit the curriculum by adding topics in politics and economics to our textbooks. 4. People of all ages may be influenced by their surroundings, not just children and their parents. 5. Kids, unlike adults, have time for politics and are generally motivated. 6. Eleven-year-olds are old enough to become serious about the political world. 7. Since children have not yet paid taxes, their opinions would be unbiased. My apologies for an unspecific debate, but I believe a small number of children below 18 are allowed to vote. However, this also means a majority of them cannot do so. I'm sure my contender will agree with the following: little children (ages 1-10) are, indeed, too immature to vote. They not yet have the ability to make decisions. But this fact does not mean the right of voting should be given to everyone below age 18. Pro describes serious, business-like children in his arguments. It is unfortunately a widely known fact that some American students don't have exactly "top-notch" grades in school. Even if curriculum is changed and politics and economics are taught in schools, not all students may take things seriously or understand the material completely. Second, even if some students understand the political world, not all of them would be interested in the subject and might not vote altogether. Therefore, Pro, who believes in allowing every single child in the country to vote, bases his opinion on a small group of children in the United States. Though his arguments are true about some youths' competence in politics, voting, and decision-making, Pro fails to recognize that, by allowing all children to vote, is bringing in a handful of serious politicians and a truckload of some non-interested people. The "time and resources" Pro suggests that teenagers possess are usually taken up by sporting events, parties, movies, etc. With extra time in their hands, the default action of many Americans is to have fun with that time. Maybe, if there is some extra time, a child may make a quick decision about something just for the pleasure of voting. Therefore, I hereby agree to the 26th amendment to the United States Constitution. I enjoy my contender's seriousness about the topic, and I congratulate him on his high chances of winning this debate.
Children should be allowed to vote.

However, I will be using Internet sources for the sole reason that they are easier to access. "People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote – a very different thing. " – Walter Henry Judd (American Politician/Statesman) According to the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (section 1), the minimum age for voting is 18, and that makes sense. Throughout the years, petitions, organizations, and other actions have endorsed the right for children to vote, yet all of it is based on a misconception. Kids are too immature to vote. Sure, they could be surfing the Internet for politics and watching the news for the next president election, but nothing gets in the way of the fact that many children misunderstand what happens in the political world. Sometimes, they may vote for the wrong reasons. In fact, some may vote just for fun. Kids are subject under the supervision of their parents. Growing up with someone means knowing them closely. Parents who agree with a particular political idea will have children that share the idea. If juvenile voting gets in effect, ambitious politicians will have the tendency to take advantage of this. Sometimes, adults vote because they are subject under taxes and other government drawbacks. Children have not paid taxes. Neither are they intelligent enough to reason like adults until the age of 15, according to developmental biologist Jean Piaget. The youth do not have jobs; they have not experienced working conditions. Even teenagers with jobs need some time to get used to the labor world. Does this mean that kids are unequal to adults and do not deserve the same rights as an adult? No. Does this mean that children need experience in social security, health care, or taxes before they can run this country and take adult issues? Yes. If we give children the right to vote, we might as well let them run for president. Our country is a delicate responsibility, and the hands of the youth should mature before they can hold the world of voting and politics. As stated in the agreements, both sides are allowed to copy from sources they have made themselves. Therefore, I have used much content from an article I have written beforehand. (1) . https://casualtimes.wordpress.com...
Children should be allowed to vote.

I accept the terms as my contender has laid them out and gladly accept the challenge. I will be arguing on the Pro/for side of the debate. I will argue that age restrictions have no place in our voting system. I will use resources including only scholarly articles and textbooks, which I will access through Indiana University Libraries. Not only will I conclude that humans under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote, but I will argue that it may be beneficial to their cognitive/social growth. Let the fun begin :)
Children should be allowed to vote.

Basic Rules and Agreements: 1. No vulgar, slang, or racist language is allowed. 2. Intentional spelling or grammar errors are not allowed. 3. The first round is for introduction and agreement purposes. 4. If sources are used, they must be cited with URLs or titles of books and authors. 5. Debaters cannot vote for themselves. 6. To support the brevity of this debate, the character limit of each round is set to 5,000 characters. 7. Plagiarism is not allowed unless it is from one's own source. In other words, you can copy off yourself, but you have to paraphrase other works. The topic of this debate discusses whether or not children, meaning men or women below the age of 18, should be allowed to vote for president or other political offices in the United States. According to the twenty-sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." I will be taking the Con/Against position of this debate. I believe that only people above 18 years of age should be allowed to vote. I wish good luck to my contender in this debate. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...