BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Belief in God is rational

Thanks con.Many of my arguments have been skimmed or dropped. My opponent simply argues past my previous round.If "Something must be the thing from which everything else came from" there is no double standard. I said: "What can reasonably be determined by the elimination of (1) and (2) is that there exists a necessary cause that began the chain of contingency. This thing must exist necessarily and be eternal to be the thing from which everything else came from."If something exists necessarily, that means that it had no cause and has always existed. My opponent's point that a necessary cause (such as God) must have a cause too is moot.My opponent dimisses my points as "mathematical babble" and spends a good chunk of his argument on a livescience article proposing an alternative theory to the Big Bang that would "completely exterminate any need for a creator." Two problems: (1) The Big Bang is the most widely supported and evidenced theory showing that the universe had a beginning.(2) There's no reason to believe that the universe has a necessary existence even if it was eternal. Everything that we observe in the universe is contingent on the actualization of a prior state of affairs. This means that it does nothing to rebut my argument. 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists. 4. The universe has an explanation of its existence. 5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God I've argued in the previous round that the universe wouldn't have an explanation by the necessity of its own nature and why the conditions surrounding the Big Bang shows God to be the most reasonable explanation. My opponent says that there is "no proof" of God. There are logical arguments for God's existence that merit rational belief. I've provided 3 in the previous round that went virtually uncontested.I've provided no "God of the gaps" arguments in this debate so his critique that belief in God is simply based on what we're scientifically ignorant about is not true.Extend all arguments.(1) God is the most plausible necessary cause.(2) God is the most plausible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe(3) God is the most plausible explanation for the origin of specified-complex information in first life forms.
NASA Funding is Reasonable

I admit it would be very nice to feed the suffering, although I assume you meant to type starving, but for only 52 days? What if global warming is real or some other environmental catastrophe devastates our planet? If NASA budget is well used then one day we'll have the Moon and a hopefully terraformed Mars to live on. If all goes as planned then we would be able to sustain human life on another planet for as long as it's possible, which in all likely hood would be until the sun died. So roughly...billions of years.
NASA Funding is Reasonable

17.3 billion dollars?!? Are we really going to settle and sustain life on the moon? After doing some research, I found that if we took that 17.3 billion dollars and used it for food, we could feed all the suffering people in the U.S for 52 days. Just imagine that. We obviously need to cut back on this funding. I know it is short, but I think I get right to the point.
NASA Funding is Reasonable

When you ask if it's possible to colonize the moon or even Mars, I think of the American continent after its initial discovery. The powers of Europe, especially England after the destruction of the Spanish Armada, sent ships and supplies over there and began building civilization. They managed to colonize a large portion of it at the time. Now while you may be thinking to yourself that there's a difference as they had an ocean between them and we have space between us and the moon, you have to remember how difficult it was for them to cross the Atlantic. Their journey took them months, five if I'm not mistaken although it has been a while since we covered that in American history, and then you need to consider the costs of the products needed for the journey and the products needed for the actual colony/colonies. The first trip to the moon, there and back, took only eight days. If we were to assume that a single trip across the ocean took five months, let alone entertain the idea of a return trip, then it would take a twentieth of the time it to took to cross the Atlantic to travel back and forth to the moon. You seem to insinuate that progress has been slow in terms of space travel, yet I would have to strongly disagree. The father of human spaceflight, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky first published The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices, one of his works that proposed the possibility of spaceflight in 1903. And in today's world, only 105 years later, we have several companies across the globe that are marketed as space tourist organizations. In just over one hundred years spaceflight went from a dream to entertainment of the rich. I would have to classify that kind of progress as exponential, and just consider the possibilities over the next 100 years! As for the budget, I think there is nothing wrong with appropriating the substantial amount they receive because of the future benefits that all of the world may one day be able to enjoy. In my opinion, I think it best to invest our money wisely in NASA for the purpose of expanding human society to alleviate issues of overpopulation and to create a safe haven in the event of some global devastation. PS In contrast, the War in Iraq as of June 2006 had been allocated over $320 billion! If we can find money to kill people, I see no reason why we can't find money to spread life throughout the universe.
NASA Funding is Reasonable

As all of the points you made were very infomative and intriguing, we have to wonder if all of that is really possible. Would that be realistic. Yes it would be nice to create a colony on the moon, but it doesn't look like that will happen in the future. With the point about NASA making safer aerospace planes, they don't look like they are making many advances. In the past 30 since the men landed on the moon, there have only been two real big POSITIVE moments. The first is the Mars rover, and the second is the Mercury passing. After just doing some very in-depth research for my class, I have not seen anything stating that an aeroplane is in the making. The final point I would like ot make is that we are not totally depleting NASA's funds. I just think that we need to cut it back a little. It is good to have NASA, but not when they are recieving 17.3 Billion dollars a year.
NASA Funding is Reasonable

But think of it like this: if we were to put that money back into the system and use for tax breaks or to increase funding to other programs, wouldn't it incur severe repercussions? First off, consider all the employees involved in NASA and its affiliates, not to mention any company working with the administration. Take away their funding and they all lose their jobs or their contracts and many companies could lose revenue. So, while we may have helped a certain amount of starving people, we just put countless people out of work causing them to be starving unless they were all able to find jobs in the aerospace industry. Don't just think of the scientists and astronauts either, what about the janitors? They too would be put out of the job and the little money they did have to keep them and their families from starving is gone. To answer your arguments: let's assume that we don't bring everyone up to the moon or to Mars, because that wouldn't be necessary. If we even sent a small percentage of our own population, and assuming that the two celestial bodies are terraformed and able to support plant life, those people would be able to become self-sufficient in time. Therefore, resources on Earth would be less spread out amongst individuals and families; meaning there'd be more food for less people (not to mention money). Your second issue was the fact that the shuttles would be dangerous, but yet that's why NASA is being paid so much: so that they may develop the sagest possible form of aerospace transportation. Let's also think for a moment about the possibility of a new and emerging technology, the aerospace plane. With the advances in technology over the last century being so massive that it could only be described as exponential, isn't there some possibility that going to the moon or Mars could be as easy as flying to Orlando? Maybe not today or tomorrow, but somewhere in the near future. Also you made a third point about pre-establishing some sort of support network in various forms: food markets and hospitals. While this is true, it would not have to be on a massive planetary scale. A hospital or two and a supermarket or two would suffice for let's say the first small group of people to emigrate from Earth. As population increases, of course there would need to be an increase in facilities. The United States did not come pre-built, the settlers from Europe began a process that has been going on even today as new facilities are built somewhat in accordance with public demand/need.
NASA Funding is Reasonable

I did mean the sstarving. Lets think about this logically. Are we going to build a bunch of space shuttles, take 300 million people up to the Moon and maybe Mars, and then just act like it is our home? There are two problems with that. We can't build enough space shuttles for 300 million people with 17.3 billion dollars There is the high risk that some of the shuttles will explode or in some way the people aboard the shuttle will either be critically injured or killed. If we were going to go ahead and settle on the moon then we have to send people up first that will build hospitals, food markets etc. Budget cuts are the best thing we can do for this nation. We could well use that in education, defense, or border control. Those are just some of the possibilities.
Death Penalty

Thanks to the opponent for challenging me, this should be fun. I accept all of the opponent's definitions and I look forward to him making the opening contentions of this debate. Here are some rules I suggest for the debate.~=~= Rules ~=~=1. Please refrain from making insulting comments that may hurt the feelings of the opponent or someone in the audience. 2. All forms of resources can be used such as; videos and links.3. Since we both accepted this debate, I look forward to finishing it as well.4. Have fun and be creative. I love to learn and debating makes it fun, therefore I conclude good luck and let the debate begin.
Death Penalty

I would like to challenge PomegranateHamster to a debate regarding the death penalty. In my first round I will post definitions but not an argument. If my opponent wants to do the same that's fine or he can post his argument if it is ready. If the latter is the case I will respond to it in round 2 and post my argument there. Death Penalty: "The punishment of execution, administered to someone convicted of a capital crime."[1] Capital crime: "A crime that is punishable by death"[2] I reserve the right to add more definitions later. [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.google.com...
Death Penalty

I agree with the rules but don't copy pasta tons of stuff, cite it. The overarching reason why capital punishment should not be allowed is due to the fact that it is just unnecessary. Point 1: The death penalty is NOT a deterrent. For example, in 1976 there were 0 accounts of the death penalty being issued and the murder rate was 8.8. Now we jump ahead to 1979. There were 2 accounts of the death penalty and the murder rate was 9.7. (These are ratios) Moving ahead to 1990. 23 executions and a 9.4 murder rate and so on and so forth. (ACLU #1) I could go on but I feel I have made my point regarding deterrence but if need be I will pull more evidence in. Point 2: It is actually more expensive than locking someone up. For example, in California "The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons w here those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate."[2] The costs of the death penalty system are about $137 million per year whereas a new reform where a maximum life sentence would be issued would cost $11.5 million per year.[2] This is a huge difference and shows the massive costs associated with the death penalty. Point 3: It is entirely possible that one could kill the wrong guy. If this is the case there is nothing you can do. He is dead and cannot be brought back. All that the state can do is say "Whoops, my bad" and give money to the grieving family whereas if the person is in jail and they then see he is innocent, he is still alive and can live the rest of his life. [1] http://www.aclu.org... [2] http://www.deathpenalty.org...
Unique Topics Tournament: The U.S. should implement a policy of containment with regards to China

This is currently the first tournament that I have participated in, so hopefully it should prove interesting and enjoyable. I also would like to thank my opponent and friend, MrVindication, for accepting this debate topic, and would like to wish him luck for this debate, and the remainder of the tournament, should he proceed onward. The resolution of this debate is - "Resolved: the U. S. should implement a policy of containment with regards to China". Definitions:Containment (n): the act of preventing the spread of something; actions that are intended to keep an unfriendly government from getting more power. [1] We will also add that containment is a comprehensive political, economic, and military strategy to deny an enemy nation freedom of access to the international system. China - People's Republic of China (PRC). It is assumed that by the term "U. S. " it is referring to the branch of government that deals with foreign affairs, being the United States Federal Government, or USFG. Either the terms USFG, United States Federal Government, or U. S. can be used interchangeably, unless otherwise stated in specific. Rules: 1. No forfeits.2. No semantics.3. No kritiks.4. BOP is shared.5. All citations or footnotes must be included in the debate.6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives the right to add resolution affecting definitions of their own.7. Violation of these rules should be taken into account by the voter. (Rules are courtesy of my opponent's debate with Bsh1 on Jury Nullification. I have put them up as requested. )Structure: R1: Pro Opens. R2: Con Opens, Pro rebuts. R3: Con Rebuts, Pro DefendsR4: Con Defends, Pro waives. Sources:[1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Failure to meet these rules and guidelines will result in a forfeiture.
Same-Sex Adoption

in response to my opponent who represents the pro side of this argument, gays being demon possessed/influenced people have everything to do with this debate. It is unethical for children to be raised by people being controlled by demons that will most likely influence the children as well. We already have enough evil in society that we don't need to add to the burden by sending kids to couples that will corrupt the children further. Everyone with common sense knows that two males nor two females are compatible with each other and thus it is not natural at all. male and female is the correct puzzle pieces that fit together. Lets not ruin the country further by allowing unethical adoptions take place people. please vote for what you know is right by nature.
Same-Sex Adoption

I argue that "gay" animals (if there are any) can be demon possessed just like the demon possessed pigs in the bible that committed suicide. (so it shows that even they can commit unnatural acts when under possession) Children should know where they come from and not be brought up into the confusion that a homosexual couple is likely to inflict on them from their abnormal relationship. When they know that a mom and dad is the correct relationship to produce offspring, everything makes much more sense and it is normal as it should be.
Same-Sex Adoption

This is the most elementary of objections. Term: "Natural", Defined: "Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind." "Of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something:" Attributive (of a parent or child) related by blood: Music (of a note) not sharped or flatted: Christian Theology relating to earthly or unredeemed human or physical nature as distinct from the spiritual or supernatural realm. In other words: Status By Birth. I realize that science says that 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality http://www.news-medical.net... but I don't believe in most of what science says. As Stephen Colbert's correspondent exclaimed in 2004 when learning from the zoologist at the zoo housing ostensibly "gay" penguins that there were lots of gay animals around: "Just because it happens in nature, doesn't make it natural." Yes it does. As far as child development: I argue that non-traditional or nuclear-family-structure based households thrive better economically, socially and mentally due to recent sociopolitical alterations to the global economy and governmental technological sectors. Children from single parent households are just as likely to attain the same shot at the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the children from traditional nuclear family structures, for example. As far as ethics are concerned, wouldn't the most ethical way of going about this be to teach our children not intolerance but love? If you teach your child that two people of the same sex cannot have a child like she or he can, they are going to wonder why. Your answer to that question your child asks: Mom/Dad (Because there must be both), "How come THOSE two people have any kids?"
The movie Frozen has positive influences on children

The movie Frozen does have a positive influence on children. 1. ) It encourages children to show loyalty. In Frozen, Anna demonstrates this trait when she tries to help her sister throughout the movie even though they have grown apart. 2. ) It teaches young girls that they don't need a man to be successful and happy. In Frozen, Anna ends up saving herself from being frozen without the help of a man when she saves her sister with an act of kindness. 3. ) It teaches children that being different is not a bad thing, which can lead to acceptance of those that are different from themselves. This is demonstrated by Elsa who is different in that she has the ability to control ce. Everybody fears and rejects her when they find out what she is, but are later proven t be wrong when Elsa turns out to be a kind and good ruler. 4. ) It teaches children perseverance. This is demonstrated by Anna who doesn't give up on her mission to help Elsa and the kingdom even when many obstacles are in her way 5. ) It teaches that love is more powerful than fear and hate. This is shown when an act of love is the only way to overcome the ice in Anna's heart (the ice represents the fear that Elsa had when she hurt Anna). It is also shown by Anna when she overcomes the hatred of Hans in order to find true love and save her sister. All of these ideas and traits will have a positive influence on children and the world around them. The movie Frozen encourages children to act in a positive way with these and other traits and ideas exemplified by the movie in mind.
The earth is more than 7000 years old.

Firstly I would like to appologize to my opponent, I thought the pictures went through, but apparently not. I'll try to repost them this round. Now onward to finish this debate. Contention 1: Carbon-14 dating and its flaws. It matters not what my sources have been created to do it is still a valid source. Trying to disprove my sources by saying the Nadiers Raiders were irrivant, because they just went around collecting surveys trying to show how the automobile industry wasn't taking care of the consumer and was releasing dangerous cars to the general public. This can be cross applied to my evidence as just because they are trying to disprove something does not make it a useless, but let's move on further in this point. Plus that is only one source. If you observe my last round you can see that I have several scholarly sources from books and other things so my evidence still stands. 1. My opponent states that it only works for objects less than 50k years old, but in round 2 my opponent stated that this system has dated through the decay of Carbon-14 has found that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. This means that my opponent has disproved their own evidence by doing so. 2. Here my opponent has dropped a very key argument. Here I have stated that Carbon-14 dating can only work for things 5730 years and that is completely dropped showing that there is no way to show that the Earth is more than that many years old. In the graph above me we can see the Carbon-14 dating process in it's work and we can see the oldest thing that it has accurately dated is He maka. We can also see the half life reaches at 4000 years. This means that there is no possible way for Carbon-14 dating to work for the 50,000 years that my opponent has stated. (. http://www.c14dating.com...) Contention 2: Helium My opponent doesn't really refute my point here. He only states that it's not porous enough, but this is incorrect as we can see that He is sort of bottled inside of the rocks and the hotter the rocks the more He is produced in the hotter rocks and we have still found that there is tons of He in rocks closer to the Earth's Mantle and according to many experts in this field, if the Earth is as old as my opponent is saying it is then there should be no He remaining. (D. Russell Humphreys, “Critics of Helium Evidence for a Young World Now Seem Silent? ” Journal of Creation 24, no. 3 (2010): 35–39. ) Here is the chart that I had posted last round. s://cdn-assets. answersingenesis. org.