BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

I do not think we are in any disagreement, for I agree with pretty much everything that you have (intelligently) stated... except for one key concept: the definition of god. I am looking for a clue of the existence of some powerful, intelligent being that created the universe, that so many people believe in (yet none can provide a good argument for), as I stated in Round 1. One that has at least the basic properties of a deistic god. However, that is not the definition that you use when you talk about god, since you define god as "existence itself", which is self-evident, who did not externally create the universe. Am I interpreting you correctly?
There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

It seems to me that you are committing something called the fallacy of composition. It's not just because each individual sheep in a flock has a mother, that the flock itself has a mother. In the same way, it does not follow that the universe itself is intelligent or self-aware, just because some of its constituent parts are so. Sorry, but I cannot accept such absurd premise based on a fallacy. Did I misinterpret you?I also want to ask for a clarification: what do you mean by "three dimensional human concepts and conditions"?
There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

Despite your intimidating profile picture and track record I shall put my argument as best and will make my position concise and succinct. First, I must stipulate that my theological beliefs are completely restricted to the three dimensional human concept and condition, but that is the only thing I can go on and I would like you to restrict yourself to that understanding as well. At least before you put the bullet in my head. If you were to take the whole of existence as a whole or, for argument's sake, the universe, and I told you it was self aware, or at least, intelligent, then, based off your own human experience, you would have to concede my point. The universe is intelligent. We make it so. You and me and the spider in the corner of the room. Could that not be God?
There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

My other attempt at this challenge resulted in a forfeit in Round 2. Such is the power of reason. Let's try this again.The aim of my opponent in this debate should be to attempt to prove me wrong by showing a reasonable argument in favor of the existence of a god, and I will reply accordingly. I am eager to find a good argument, and I have tried to formulate my own, so I am reasonably open-minded about this issue.A god would be roughly defined as the creator of the universe. He does not need to be necessarily omnipotent, perfect, or benevolent, but my opponent can argue for that or similar concepts that resemble my definition.I have extensively thought about all the arguments that have been proposed to prove the existence of a god, at least the ones I was able to find. So far, I have found all of them utterly unconvincing and logically fallacious. The ontological argument is circular, the cosmological argument is special pleading for god, and the fine-tuning argument is also special pleading for god. Those were the three chief contenders for a proof of god. Other arguments, ranging from religious experience to alleged miracles, are so naive that I don't even pay attention to them anymore.Can anyone solidly argue in favor of any of these arguments? I will provide my detailed objections to them further on. My opponent's Round 1 post should be a presentation and an argument for god.
There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

a) Defining God as existence itself is not meaningless, as it, in itself, has meaning. Consciousness is an aspect of existence, as we are conscious and are of existence. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. b) Something that you may see as utterly impossible in the future, does not make it so and you have no grounds to argue its impossibility. If I were to tell a 14th Century peasant that one day we would have mobile phones, not only would he not believe me, he would be unable to grasp the concept of it being a reality. Thus, they, understandably, lack foresight. Likewise, if an all knowing person told you that one day the consciousness of the universe would understand the universe itself, you would say would be utterly impossible. Thus, I could argue that your point against me lacks foresight and is thus flawed. c) I concede that i phrased it badly. I meant to say that time transcends our concept of reality. I apologise. However, the fact remains that if humanity were to achieve omniscience in the future then existence is already omniscient in the present and if you were able to grasp the meaning of point a) you would realise that existence contains all the criteria of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being. As I said, it is a question in having faith that humankind will be able to achieve this, which is what all faith comes down to. However, my faith you cannot argue as being fallacious, as that argument, in itself, is a 'subjective fallacy', in that you base your opinion on your personal point of view. Therefore, I believe that my argument is a reasonable argument and that my opponent, much to my fault, has been unable to grasp my concepts, as he is given to a construct of what God is, as opposed to what that construct could be in context to. Finally, I would apologise that my argument has been badly worded throughout. I must remind voters that I have been arguing an extremely difficult case and they should take that into consideration.
There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

Your argument is a huge ontological mess, that makes little to no sense and makes huge illogical leaps. You are not defending the version of god I proposed - which renders your argumentation pointless - but I will lay out my objections regardless.(a) You define god as existence itself, which is meaningless. You have not demonstrated that existence itself is conscious at all! (b) How do you make the leap from us being omniscient (something that I see as utterly impossible) to existence itself (and thus god) being so? Again, this makes me thing your arguments are meaningless verbiage.(c) How does it make any sense to say "time is transcended by existence" (remember that you said in the beginning that "you cannot transcend time itself"), and thus conclude that existence is already omniscient because in the future WE will (in your head) be omniscient? What!?
There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

I apologise, my writing can be chaotic sometimes, but it is a difficult theory to convey. I'm only an amateur philosopher in truth. However, to give a succinct as possible answer, I would state that my theory is based on God being existence. Existence is said to come from nothing, as far as we can rationalise. You cannot change the laws of science and you cannot transcend time itself, which is an aspect of existence. We are not all knowing, so God, at this fixed point time is not all knowing. Therefore, God is an ideal which is only contained in, what is essentially, fairy tales and books. However, as much as culture is affected by religion, so too is religion affected by culture. Should the human race scientifically advance to a state when science has explained existence, which is a definite possibility, then the human race shall be all-knowing and know truth, putting them on an omniscient level. That eventual future of our concept of time is still be encapsulated by existence, whereby time is transcended, linking us to the future. Thus, it would mean that existence is already all-knowing. In relation to humankind, that would make it God, although we do not perceive it in the present. Therefore, although this argument requires faith in the human race, which is a separate debate altogether, it does argue a reasonable argument for a God.
There Are No Reasonable Arguments for a God

I admit to being utterly incapable of understanding what your argument is, or how it answers to my challenge. Maybe it's because I'm ignorant, or because your text is inherently unintelligible/meaningless, but I cannot give a solid answer without understanding your point. An Enlightenment philosopher would be radically clearer, so you seem more like a Continental philosopher.One thing I could (maybe) understand is that you claim that we might become omniscient at one point in the future, which then means existence itself (= god) will be omniscient, which makes absolutely no sense to me.
Spaceships are better than Tractors

Why spaceships are better By me 1. If you get annoyed with someone in your spaceship, you can just push them out and they will die. This is good. 2. Cheese comes from the moon, which we can only reach by spaceships. Plus, it's fair trade, unlike farming. We leave a flag, but farmers give nothing back to the earth. 3.Spaceships are faster, which is better for running your enemies over. 4. Fire comes out of the bottom of spaceships, which stops any predators from eating it. Spaceships are clever. It's evolution and adaption and science. 5. You don't get country folk germs on spaceship seats. 6. Spaceships can drive in the night, but tractors don't really work at night because you just drive into your house and stuff. 7. Spaceships are obviously very roomy, hence the name. But you can't fit many more than two people in a tractor. There, 7 reasons!
Photoshop debate

I thank my partner for posting his image. I must say, you did a very good job with the image. The only criticism I may have is that it may be a bit too "monocolor." Next image: CBC Logo I was recently hired to do my church's website and this is the logo that I made. The idea for this template came from a google website that I saw that had a pre-made template. I liked the wheet grains quite a bit and decided to use the similar aspect. I found the PSD file and integrated it to my website. The final steps were to create the Conowingo Baptist and the "Welcome to" sign. It turned out pretty nice I feel and hopefully we can use this for the site. I can't wait to see your next image.
Photoshop debate

My first image will be a desktop wallpaper I just finished. This sports graphic features the great Lionel Messi and his new adidas logo. I can't remember the entire process. First, Messi needed to be cut out. Then I desaturated the image, and then I duplicated the layers of the original picture several times, altering their settings until I achieved the desired effect. I took a layer and on an overlay setting went on to give the image its color. The Messi brand logo was placed in the image and the color was altered. Then lastly I added a simple line texture over the entire graphic (which can't be seen since the website shows everything at rubbish quality).I can't wait to see your next image.
Photoshop debate

The first image I would like to present to you is an image that I have personally restored. This is a picture of my grandad in his earlier years. Before the restoration As you see, there are tons of problems with this image. The image is very blurry, the horse has many blemishes, and you simply cannot see the detail. After I have restored it, this is what it looked like I scanned the image and uploaded it to photoshop. I did the auto contrast, auto color, auto levels to restore the color. I removed the side by cropping it down and erasing the sides to give it a new border. After all of this, I used the clone stamp tool to restore the horse to the original color (at least to what I thought it was) and removed the fold marks by using the same tool. I look forward to your image.
Photoshop debate

Today, we will be having a photoshop debate to see who can make the "best" photoshop work. Rounds1. Acceptance2. First paintings3. Critiques and second paintings4. Second critiques and third paintings5. Final critiques; no new paintings. Rules1. Any topic goes2. You must have your photoshop images in JPEG3. You must post your images in this debate or in your photos; preferbly in this debate.4. This must be YOUR original work. 5. You must give a brief overview on how it was done (i. e. , the steps involved).6. This must be created in Photoshop CS3 or higher. 7. Give a title to your image8. HAVE FUN! Voters1. You will decide which images you like best2. You will give a brief critique on why you like the images the best Good luck, and may the best photoshop artist win.
Dear blind follower, please tell the truth of you.

What I like to do is appropriate the dress and mannerisms of other cultures to feel more authentic. But I try to do it in a way that is respectful, and not condescending. I try to value them in a way that uplifts us both, and doesn't make a mockery of them, or me. Mainly I do this in music. Even though, when I'm alone or with relatives, I have a very dry Midwestern accent, I will fake a Swiss/German accent when I am in public. Though they are uncomfortable and reduce mobility, I will insist on wearing Lederhosen wherever I go. Sure, I get comments like, "Your pants are pulled up way too high! You're not Swiss/German! Quit trying to be one!" But I just smile and say, "Ich bin, wer ich bin." And, yes, I've gotten pulled over many times because I insist on riding a Prussian steed on the sidewalk, but since I have nothing illegal on me, I look at these experiences as little adventures which build my credibility. The problem, though, is that real Swiss/Germans don't really accept me. The only "bund" that I can Reise with is fellow Suburban Deutzchers who similarly appropriate Swiss/German/Austrian as I do. Sometimes when we try and do renditions of Mahler on gazoos at the local German pub, the real Swiss/Germans look at us with eyes full of disdain. "Verlassen das Podium!" they tell, throwing bottles of imported beer at us. However, I know eventually they will see that we really want to be Swiss/Germans, and we've renounced our bland middle-American culture. We want to live dangerously, like they do, and intimidate our fellow middle-Americans in ways that we normally would be unable to do. Sometimes I will ride my Prussian steed in front of a house and sing lines from Heinrich Heine and the top of my voice, hoping that the police will come and issue me a citation --- I need an authentic criminal record if I'm going to impress real Swiss/Germans. Anyway, this is who I am. Hassen Sie mich nicht. Gesellschaft hassen, weil es mir erstellt.
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

REBUTTALS 1.Deterrence This in some cases may be true but people will still commit these sorts of crimes if they want revenge. The more someone thinks wrong about something that happened they will get angrier and angrier. So if they are just focusing on revenge they won't care about the consequences. Even so sentencing someone to a death penalty will still not erase the damage dealt to the victim's family. 2.Saving Lives The death penalty does not save lives instead it takes away lives. In a case where someone wants revenge they won't care about consequences as I said in my first rebuttal. So in this case if the murderer is sentenced to the death penalty that is taking away twice the amount of lives, the one who is murdered and the murderer. 3.Cost This is false because as I stated in my arguments in Round 1 it actually cost more. When sentencing someone to the death penalty you need extra money for attorney generals, judges, court clerks and other vital facilities required in court. It also requires numerous appeals and very detailed procedures.
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Here we go my first argument is going to on wrong convictions. 1.Wrong Convictions Since 1973, more than 130 people have been released from death row throughout the USA, due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. Nobody knows how many people are charged for crimes and murders they have never committed. However, the legal system has found some cases where, they have wrongly accused the innocent defendant. Factors such as inadequate legal representations, police and prosecutor misconduct, racial prejudice, jail house "snitch" testimony, political pressure to solve a case, misinterpretation of evidence, etc. can work against an innocent person and conduce to harsh death penalty. 2.Cost Most of us fail to realize that executing a death sentence is 2.5 times more expensive than keeping the same criminal in prison for life. This is because, the cost incurred prior to and during the trial, involves an endless stream of appeals, legal wrangling, etc. For such trials, special motions and extra time for jury selection are required. Investigation charges also rise exorbitantly, especially by the prosecution. Thus, spending finances on death penalty is tantamount to reducing essential financial and time resources needed for crime prevention, mental health treatment, rehabilitation, valuable victim's services, etc. 3.Rehabilitation Failure Putting somebody on death row does not accomplish anything. Death penalty closes all doors for the criminal to acknowledge his mistakes. Family members of the convicted may want to see the murderer punished, but death penalty will not ease the pain caused by the loss of the loved one. Retribution will not pacify the pain or fill the vacuum caused by the loss. This does not mean we are not to punish the guilty. A life imprisonment is a terrible punishment, amplifying the agony of the convicted over the decades spent in prison. Moreover, if we take away the murderer's life, how are we different? Isn't giving a second chance more humane? Although lethal injects and electric chairs are not as barbaric as medieval torture devices, it still is taking somebody's life.
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Please read everything below before accepting, and remember to post your first argument in round 1. Xboy57 asked me to challenge him to a debate, so I respectfully honor his request. Full Resolution The death penalty should be abolished throughout the entire United States.Definitions The Death Penalty: "...the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes (serious crimes, especially murder, which are punishable by death)."[1]Should: "Must; ought."[2]Abolished: "To do away with; put an end to; annul; make void."[3] Rules1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.2. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.3. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: Presentation all arguments by proRound 2: Presentation of arguments by con and rebuttal by proRound 3: Rebuttal by con and defense of original arguments by proRound 4: Defense of original argument by con and a bye round by pro (to make for even rounds; only use one line for your final post)Sources [1]: http://definitions.uslegal.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

DEFENSES 1. Wrongful Convictions My opponent has stated that these wrongful convictions are showing that executors should be more careful when sentencing someone. Executors still are not 100% accurate. More than 10 people have been executed falsely[1]. Studies show that an overwhelming 76 percent of all death row exonerees were wrongfully convicted of the murders of white victims[2]. So this is also showing that some executors are (no offense) racist. When people are wrongly convicted that means the real criminal is still free leaving them to commit yet another crime. 2.Cost This is my third time explaining this this time I will leave a source below. When sentencing someone to the death penalty it cost much more. In California since 1978 they have used over $4 billion for the death penalty alone. $1.94 billion in pre-trial and trial costs, $925 million automatic appeals and State Habeas Corpus petitions, $775 million Federal Habeas Corpus appeals, and $1 billion in costs of incarnation.[3][4] 3.Rehabilitation Failure As I said before this still does not accomplish any thing. It doesn't change the fact that the victim is gone and will never come back. Hate, revenge, and anger will never cure the emptiness of a lost loved one. Forgiveness is the only way to start the healing process, and this won't happen in a revenge-focused individual.[5] SOURCES 1.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 2.http://www.aclu.org... 3.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 4.Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center Testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado State House of Representatives regarding "House Bill 1094 - Costs of the Death Penalty and Related Issues" Feb. 7, 2007 5.http://www.balancedpolitics.org...
Reading is more important than math

Your argument is flawed from the beginning. I will dissect your argument and prove it wrong"Reading includes vocabulary, when reading a math problem, you must know what all the words mean."Using your definition of vocabulary(you know what the word means) you prove yourself wrong. People have to know what words mean to be able to have a conversation, and many people can talk without being able to read. As you can still have vocabulary without reading, the ability to read is not necessary to do a math problem. Also most math problems do not have words in them so vocabulary is not required to read them. Although you said problems, I can see that you might have meant story problems which do have words in them. This is wrong as you assume that being able to do story problems is important, which outside of school it is unlikely for you to do them."You will use reading more than you use math later in life."This is dependent on what profession someone will have. There are people who have ran businesses, invented things, etc...., without being able to read. Pro gives unsupported facts, and gives one flawed example of what reading can do. They then state a statement that is dependent on who the person is. Pro in no way proves that reading is more important then math in their statement.
Was Che a good person

Since the Proposition has not defined this topic, I'd like to define "good" as "having having positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified [1]. " I assume that you are talking about Ernesto "Che" Guerava, the Argentine Marxist Revolutionary. If so, here's my argument. Refutations "Che was a good person because he stood up for what he believed in and fought for it. " Just because someone stands up for what he believes in does not necessarily mean he/she is a good person. As I previously defined it, a "good" person is someone who has positive qualities. Now, sure, this can apply to what my opponent has stated. However, what if I believe in hating America, like a radical, Muslim terrorist? Is this a good thing? If I believe that I must fight and kill thousands of people to send me to Paradise, is that truly a good thing a "good" person would do? Was 9/11 a good thing? Certainly not. Believing in these things about war and fighting are not good things. My opponent even says that he "fought" for it. He killed for it. Che personally killed around 10-20 people in his lifetime and ordered the death of 50 - several hundred people after the Cuban Revolution [2]. He was not a good person. The Proposition still has the burden of proof and has yet to prove that Che was indeed a good person. I await the response. Thank you. Sources: 1. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 2. Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson