Time must be a loop, or else it could not exist.

This is a false dichotomy, there could be no loop nor beginning of time. In the same way there aren't a beginning of relative numbers, but they don't loop either.

A creator must exist

It is false that entropy imply the universe cannot have been eternal. Entropy is just statistical, and it could decrease a lot, it is just very very rare. But it is not a problem for eternity.
1 supporter.

It is impossible to prove if God exists.

The second part of the definition (after the "and"), seem like a deduction from the first part of the definition. And if it is the case, it shouldn’t be part of the definition.

It is impossible to prove if God exists.

It is only a argument for the proposition that we can prove or disprove the existence of god. It doesn’t follow that we can prove the existence of god, maybe we can only disprove it.

It is impossible to prove if God exists.

If god is defined to be a necessary being, then either god exists in all possible worlds, or god exists in none. So the existence of god is either necessary or impossible.

It is impossible to prove if God exists.

Its properties could make him a necessary being. (or a impossible one).

It is impossible to prove if God exists.

Given the absolutes properties of god, its existence is probably one of the rare non-mathematical things which is possible to prove or disprove.

It is impossible to prove if God exists.

Doing this would end-up with a truncated concept in all of these contexts. It is more fruitful to try to agree on a definition in the context where we are than to end-up with a probably minimal common concept without the important properties we wanted to talk about.

It is impossible to prove if God exists.

This is a impossible demand to meet because there are too much contexts, we can’t know all of them, and this would probably end-up with a empty set of qualities.

That the drinking age should be raised to 21

I would have to add this if my argument was a support to the main premise. But it is only a counter argument to the idea than "the law is already set", is a good argument to not change it. (at least without any precision of cost or risk, and phrased like a question)

Should we stop developing artificial intelligence

What made the rate of job able to stay high was the increase in consumption, which lead to a increase in natural resource consumption. It can’t continue to increase that way very long.

Should we stop developing artificial intelligence

We could live very well with a high unemployment rate, by modifying our economical system and our narratives about it.

Should we stop developing artificial intelligence

Technology could create more job, while enough powerful AI could drastically destroy most or all jobs.

Should we stop developing artificial intelligence

Saying what group say what (scientist, public, workers …) seems like a way to put more or less authoritative power on some arguments. Also there is no single narrative on these questions for any of these groups.

There are too much programming languages.

That there are many directions of progress for one given language, doesn’t imply that having more people working on this language wouldn’t improve the rate of progress.

There are too much programming languages.

Your point doesn’t contradict mine. That all language can’t be merged without losing the advantage of some, doesn’t imply that no pair of language could be merged while keeping all the intrinsic advantages of both.

a vegan diet is the most ethically viable

Lions have a livespan of about 12 years, when pearl mussels have a livespan of 200 years. Considering livespan of species instead of individual doesn’t really help eitheir.

a vegan diet is the most ethically viable

Women live longer than men, when men are physically stronger.

a vegan diet is the most ethically viable

Some trees survive super long, individually or as a species.

a vegan diet is the most ethically viable

The strong don’t really survive more than other, except if you define being strong as surviving longer, which would make it a tautology.