BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is defined throughout History as being the Mechanics of Reality

The application of the Term God, with a Capital "G" - as we are speaking English - has always been, in every resounding religion (including Mythologies) IS, "the Mechanics of Reality, the substances therein, and that which is beyond." The term "god" with a minor "g" is a reference to a "Mechanic Device" in our reality or a "substance" or philosophical or theoretical element. This has been the application of the term God since Always. Although it is not the topic of debate, THIS is why GOD factually exists regardless of any arrogant claims to suggest otherwise. Because God is the Mechanics of Reality, the Substances of and beyond: WE KNOW, scientifically that, ALL things are accounted for by his Wisdom; His nature is Supreme; His person is Absolute (in ethics and in the nature of being); As well as the facts that he is wrathful to those who attest his laws [of morals and physics]; is merciful to all; is Lovingly providing for each [Only perceived to not provide for those whom are subjected to the wickedness of Bigots (including immature parenting* {those who lack wisdom})]; & is Jealous for the sake of the Righteous because factual the victims of his Person are in fact contingent portions of his whole whom suffer form nothing but Insolence of others - meaning, his prosperity is inhibited, and the portions of himself which are victimized exceed in suffering the prosperity of the Criminal oppressor (ultimate envy). God is in Nature Perfect, the flaws are those who reject Him (his law), and seek to arrogantly refute him by encouraging the perspectives of oppressors (womanizers, tyrants, bigots) subliminally in any method {atheism congratulates all corrupt behaviour [Atheism is Here also proven to be 100% wrong]}. Solid.
God is defined throughout History as being the Mechanics of Reality

This is what 'the Din ' says 'God is Good. Expect nothing from him but to share with you his excellence. He loves all his creation, and eagerly seeks the destruction of those whom reject righteousness.' There you have it , more self righteous preaching, based on diddly squat. This guy wants to take a reasonably plausible statement that is worthy of consideration and then he wants to climb all over it and lecture to the great unwashed. How is God good? How is he excellent? How on earth could be possibly love anything? God is impartial and actual. How could he/it eagerly await his/its next meal never mind the destruction of the 'unrighteous' Yawn! This is a vindictive rant based on a personal evaluation of all and sundry, nothing more. Give us all a break and stop rattling your rocks off in your coconut shell and making revelations based on smoke and above all leave the following poor unfortunates alone. Your ranting is scaring them.................You say 'Homosexuality advocates anal, oral and masturbation to children, womanizers, depressed people, sex victims, elderly, bigots, lazy boyfriends, criminals, corrupt politicians and every one else, subliminally, passively and actively in Public, at work, in schools and in the media ~ to the effect that it advocates social inequality, psychological trauma, anxiety, the disturbance of the peace of elderly, neglect for world issues, women enabling womanizers (and all that goes with that), corrupts children's and everyone else's imagination and ambitions (leading to all those, listed effects) and produces sex victims + with no further a-due, so much more.' I say, lead me not into temptation, just tell me where it is. Thanks to all who read this.
God is defined throughout History as being the Mechanics of Reality

Will this debate ever be read? I doubt that it will. The protagonist's stance was typical of 'The I know' type of statement. In truth, he really does not. Gone are his womanizers, his atheistic mischievers, his .............. It is impossible to rationalize a personable God unless you approach it from one of two directions. You either make God an extra terrestial super evolved human with a Son that he uses for exhibitions or you assert without doubt that you know something 'so therefore it is. Yawn! There is no human like 'ethics or morality within our existence except that which we create among ourselves. Jump into the water and the crocodile will eat you. The fox kills all the hens without remorse or sentimentality. The child, born with deformity is a statistical inevitability. God has not got a plan for man but it will deal with us 'nevertheless as it deals with all things within it. Once there is movement forward there will be change. The protagonists stance is that of the witch doctor rattling stones in a coconut shell and deciphering meaning. It is the stuff for burning witches and it is abhorrent to me at least. That is why I challenged it. Well Anyway!
God is defined throughout History as being the Mechanics of Reality

He asks, "How can I see Go as being personable.", and the answer is simply. I'm in the palm of his hand. Get it.?' Sorry, but not really. Most of what you state comes across to me as one big waffle fest. Where does the palm of his hand metaphor come from? It reminds me of the kitsch-Catholic pictures of my childhood. You say that 'God is perfect in nature'. That could be read 5 different ways. Do you see nature as perfect. If so, then I probably agree with you. If you mean that this God of yours is perfect in your opinion then I would humbly ask you to explain your understanding of this perceived perfection without resorting to the preaching of the opening post. Let's be brutal here. If I say an ice-cream is perfect in every way then how can that be argued against. All I am saying is that that is the ice-cream for me. This is a level of subjectivity that allows for no opposition. I maintain that God is everywhere and I am debating same at present. You on the other hand have interpreted this presence and made of it something that, in your own words..................... God is in Nature Perfect, the flaws are those who reject Him (his law), and seek to arrogantly refute him by encouraging the perspectives of oppressors (womanizers, tyrants, bigots) subliminally in any method {atheism congratulates all corrupt behaviour [Atheism is Here also proven to be 100% wrong]}. God is perfect except for those who reject him, you seem to be saying. This is beyond my logic and I would suggest that it will sail over most attempts at serious consideration. It is just a rant, IMHO. ----
I Will Not Contradict Myself

==Rules==Regardless, all of my questions were set up for a Yes/No answer.Case 1: He never stated that neither answer was correct, but rather just spouted random suggestions.Case 2: He basically stated that neither answer was completely right, but has not provided any explanation. Direct violation of rule 2.Case 3: He never clarified that the statement he made was "supposed" to be an explanation to as why neither answer was correct.==(Contra)dictions==1. GWB and the border.Funny how George W Bush supports immigration and the DREAM act [3]. Also, many administration officials under GWB also support the DREAM act. I'm not sure what my opponent means by "state solutions", but I can only assume that he means actions taken by individual states in the US. Honestly, no clue about that.Support is also defined as "to uphold (a person, cause, policy, etc.) by aid, countenance, one's vote, etc.; back; second." [7]. At the very least, my opponent supported GWB's policy of increasing border security.2. Religious ideals vs abortionHe stated that he holds on general religious Christian morals. He also said that he does supports the legalization of abortion. However, we find that most Christians and Christian Churches agree that even the unborn are alive, and abortion is taking away a innocent life, and hence do not support abortion.3. Obama and Gun BansApparently, my opponent doesn't support gun bans, but supports Obama. Obama endorsed the Illinois handgun ban and allows local gun bans [6].4. Drug legalization My opponent says that he believes drugs should be legalized, but supports Obama.Obama supports the war on drugs and believes that drugs should not be legalized [1] [2].5. Death penalty and GWBHe supports the penalty being used. George W. Bush had the same views [8], but Contra feverently "disagrees" with GWB's positions.==Questions==1. Do you believe China and the US may be hostile towards each other?2. Do you believe that the TSA is currently harrasing people at airports and should be stopped?3. Can inanimate objects hold emotions?4. Should the government be allowed to jail people for an indefinite amount of time without trial(s) and restrict a person's freedoms?5. Should same-sex marriage be allowed?6. Should offending things (such as nudity) be allowed in public, as long as no one is physically harmed?7. Do you support school voucher programs?8. Should the government protect the people and focus on issues at home instead of abroad?9. Should we completely cut off aid to Pakistan?10. Have you made any contradictions?==Sources==[1] http://thenewamerican.com...[2]http://www.npr.org...[3] http://www.chicagonow.com...[4] http://www.lirs.org...[5] http://www.spuc.org.uk...[6] http://www.ontheissues.org...[7] http://dictionary.reference.com...[8] http://www.ontheissues.org...
I Will Not Contradict Myself

The questions that were "unanswered correctly":The answers I put down were a result of the question, becaue a yes/ no answer would've been insufficient. In other words, they were explanations.Contradiction:1) I said in the GWB question: "Some actions I would support if they were reformed." I also said in a different area that I supported more border security, state solutions, and the DREAM act. Bush didn't peform all theree, and if he did, it would've changed my answer. Therefore, no contradiction.---------------Answers----------------Do you support abortion?I am pro-choice. I support the legalization of all abortions, but support discouraging late-term abortion. This is my explanation. Do you think the border fence/wall should be attempted, or something similar?No, I don't support a border fence to "control" immigration. Do you support the war on terrorism?No. This is an area where Obama and I disagree. Do you believe college should be free, and the government should provide?Currently unsure, but I support Obama's plan that makes loans federally controlled, and student's pay back loans gradually after they land a job. Do you support gun bans/control?No, but I do support some restrictions (such as a background check, or semi-automatic gun ban). Is China an enemy?No. They are contrary in our trading, monetary, and human rights principles though. Should Christians support each other?If they do so voluntarily privately. A pretty vague question, please specify. Should the US discontinue its use of the death penalty?Yes, but keep it for some very horrible crimes such as rape and murder of child. Same position as Obama on this issue. Do we all have social liberties and political rights?In the USA, yes. However, some liberties and rights are being eroded by the War on Terrorism. Do you support funding wars and military operations in the Middle East? (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.)No, we should withdraw. We can however support Democracies with intelligence forces and foregin aid, but no MILITARY aid. Obama and me disagree here somewhat.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

==Rules==Nice answers, however I spot some broken rules! The Rule, taken from Pro's post in the first round.2) In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. Case 1: On my second question, I aksed "Do you think border secuirty should be increased to stop aliens from crossing the border between America and Mexico"He answered with"More border security, more state solutions, DREAM act." I don't spot a "yes", or a "No", and nor do I see any explaination. Case 2: Question 9. "Is Earth a sad place right now?"He answers...."In many ways, yes. In others, no."He provided no explaination.Case 3: Question 5, : "Do you think citizens should have smoking/tobacco rights?"He answers..."Only on their own private property. Not in public. "Once again, I do not see a "Yes" or a "No", and it is unclear whether or not that is an explanation.==(Contra)dictions==1. In Round 2, question 2, he states that border security should be increased. Also in round 2, he answered question 10 with the idea that he does not support at all George W Bush. However, President Bush supported border security [1].==Questions==1. Do you support abortion?2. Do you think the border fence/wall should be attempted, or something similar?3. Do you support the war on terrorism?4. Do you believe college should be free, and the government should provide?5. Do you support gun bans/control?6. Is China an enemy?7. Should Christians support each other?8. Should the US discontinue its use of the death penalty?9. Do we all have social liberties and political rights?10. Do you support funding wars and military operations in the Middle East? (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.)==Sources==[1] http://www.ontheissues.org...;
I Will Not Contradict Myself

1. Do you really support Obama and his views?You would have to be more specific, although for the most part, yes. I for the most part support his economic policy, but oppose his extension of the PATRIOT act. 2. Do you think border secuirty should be increased to stop aliens from crossing the border between America and Mexico?More border security, more state solutions, DREAM act. 3. Do you believe the minimum wage should be increased?Yes, but not too much, probably to about $9. 4. Is your profile an accurate and truthful description of you? Tough one. The confidential information is true. The city is not exactly true, although it is close. Under my information, I didn't include some of my favorite songs or movies and other activities. My political views are matching to the ones I put. 5. Do you think citizens should have smoking/tobacco rights?Only on their own private property. Not in public. 6. Do you believe in a christian/judeo God? Yes, I am a Christian. 7. Do you support Christian/Jewish morals/values/teachings?From what I have learned, yes. It varies on which branch of Christianity you are part of though. 8. Do you believe drugs should be legalized?Yes, and attach a fine or tax on them. Mandatory rehabilitation if somebody is addicted to them, it is more effective than prison, and cheaper too.9. Is Earth a sad place right now?In many ways, yes. In others, no. 10. Do you support George W. Bush?Not at all, besides his actions to increase the amount of public health centers. Some actions I would support if they were reformed.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

==Questions==1. Do you really support Obama and his views?2. Do you think border secuirty should be increased to stop aliens from crossing the border between America and Mexico?3. Do you believe the minimum wage should be increased?4. Is your profile an accurate and truthful description of you? 5. Do you think citizens should have smoking/tobacco rights?6. Do you believe in a christian/judeo God? 7. Do you support Christian/Jewish morals/values/teachings?8. Do you believe drugs should be legalized?9. Is Earth a sad place right now?10. Do you support George W. Bush?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

This is our debate for 16k's tournament.The rules:1) In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO 10 Yes/No questions.2) In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.3) In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.4) When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.5) If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.6) If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.7) It is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.8) A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.9) For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words or phrases in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary or Wikipedia at his own discretion, unless the words or phrases were already defined by CON when the question was asked. If the word or phrase cannot be defined using either source, PRO may use any other appropriate online dictionary, wiki, etc.10) If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.11) If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.A contradiction is basically when a person says one thing then later states his position later in a varying way (basically what we think Contradiction is).Good Luck to both of us...
Atheism is the only reasonable, default position to take.

Clarification of "consistent" & premises #4 & #5. To clarify, a "default position" can apply to one or more propositions. It is, itself, not a proposition or a set of propositions, but a stance on can take with regards to them. To clear this up, I will present a rewording of #4:#4 The default positions for a set of propositions should be consistent, treating all propositions as being on equal footing. #5 could be considered a more explicit clarification of #4. For any set of propositions, you have the following options with regards to the default positions of those propositions: 1) accept them all as true by default, 2) refrain from accepting any as true by default, 3) accept some as true and refrain from accepting the rest as true. The collective effect of #4 and #5 is to rule out #3 as a viable option (for default positions). In this sense I am not talking about the consistency with regards to the semantic values of those propositions, but rather that we are consistent in what default position we choose with regards to those propositions; we choose the same default position for all the propositions in that set. Your refutation seem to depend on a use of the word "consistent" that I am not using; that is: "consistent" with regards to the semantic value of the propositions in question. Since this is not the case, the refutations do not apply. Again, by "consistent" I simply meant that, for any set of propositions, our default position (be it either accept, or refrain) should be the same for each of those propositions. Refutation of #8I'm unclear what you mean by a "valid proposition. " I understand validity with regards to arguments, but not with individual proposition. A proposition is any statement which could be true or false, which applies to "a god or god exists. "Refutation of #9It is not necessary to demonstrate uniqueness. The proof, by its nature, applies to all propositions. That's the point. And since it applies to all propositions, then it applies to any specific proposition, including "a god or god exists. "Perhaps you mean to imply that it also applies to "a god or god does not exist," in which case I agree. But note the definition of atheism provided. It only requires that we refrain from accepting, as true "a god or god exists" irrespective of our acceptance of the proposition "a god or god does not exist. "The "contradiction"The alleged contradiction does not stem from the argument. Rather you are attempting to show that the argument contradicts my position in this debate. It does not. I am not arguing that "atheism is the only reasonable default position" be accepted as true as a default position. Indeed, a default position is a stance prior to argument, where as I am attempting to show that "atheist is the only reasonable default position" is true as a result of argument. It be clear, and consistent with my belief, I agree that you should refrain from accepting "atheism is the only reasonable default position" prior to evidence or argument. I am attempting to demonstrate that it should be accepted after evidence or argument. Specifically, this argument.
Atheism is the only reasonable, default position to take.

My position: the proposed argument cannot be used to support the position of atheism as the only reasonable default position.Outline: My argument is divided into two parts. In the first one, I describe some technical aspects of the original argument, that make it difficult to handle. In the second one, I present the core of my argument, which consists of showing that the original argument, as outlined by steps #6-#9, does not follow from the steps #1-#4. Technical Aspects: The first technical problem of this argument is the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a "default position", is it a "proposition" (as in #8) ? Or is it a "set of propositions" (as in #4 and #5)?The impact of that to the whole argument is that it is not clear to me what does it means for a "default position" to be "consistent".Does it mean that default positions need to be consistent by themselves, i.e. one cannot believe that '2=3'; or does it mean that one can not hold a set of inconsistent default positions, i.e. one cannot believe that 'god exists' and that 'god does not exist' at the same time?Anyway, why does #5 follow from #4? In the first case, any position that is not inconsistent by itself would be acceptable as a default position, two inconsistent positions would still be acceptable separately by #4. In the second case, any set of non inconsistent default positions at the same time and #1-#4 would still hold, but #5 would not.In the end of the day, #5 seems to assume that one should accept any possible proposition to be true, but that is inconsistent with the preliminary definitions, since as the last sentence says:"While we must acknowledge that, given two logically contradictory statements, one must be true and the other false; we can nevertheless refrain from staking a claim as to which, specifically, is true and which is false".The way I read this couple of sentences, together with #4, is that when one cannot choose to accept default positions that yield an inconsistent set of beliefs, but one should not be forced to accept every non inconsistent set of beliefs.A second minor technical problem lies in the fact that #8 does not follow from #1-#7. This happens because no technical definition of what constitutes a valid proposition is given. One can not, therefore, check if "a god or god exists" is a valid proposition.Finally, no proof of uniqueness is given for #9. Core Argument: In this second Section, I show that this argument leads to inconsistent conclusions.Even if one ignores the lack of definition of what is a "reasonable default proposition", from #7, (and in treating every proposition equally, as #5 states) we could deduce that "atheism is the only reasonable default position" is a proposition that we must refrain from accepting as true, which leads to a contradiction to #9.