BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
way to heaven

http://www.sciencedaily.com... iron came from stars God said in Quran:"we sent it down" http://quran.com... --------------------------- http://quran.com... quran said that montains move .when this discovred? --------------------------- bible found in turkey and video http://english.alarabiya.net... video of that bible http://www.youtube.com... --------------------------- quran wasn't written on paper,it was memorized i have article about words repition in quran http://www.facebook.com... --------------------------- The lowest point on dry land on earth i will show you from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... =========> quran said ;"romain lose against persiens in the lowest land, then after years they will win" if we see history,we will find that romains lose in the same place that it is the lowest pont in land on earth http://quran.com... + "they will win": it is prediction http://en.wikipedia.org... it happen ! ---------------------------- http://quran.com... Does man think that We will not assemble his bones?Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion his fingertips. ---------------------------------- miracle with russian muslim kid http://www.youtube.com... ------------------------------------- frensh searcher become muslim after his descover.quran said smthg that bible didn't said: http://www.youtube.com... ----------------------------- http://quran.com... http://www.youtube.com... quran gave secret of 2 seas not mixed . quran is from 1400 years ago http://quran.com... explication under photo: http://www.facebook.com... ------------------------------ other miracles http://www.facebook.com... ------------------------------ http://www.facebook.com... --------------------------------- at year 600,if someone is in coma , will he survive? no, because he can't eat.(there is no way to keep him alive). in quran ,Allah talk about some people that he made them sleeping many years then he wake them up. what is interesting ? this, when they are slept, angels move their bodies to the left and to the right. http://quran.com... "we turn them to left and to right" for complete http://quran.com... at present day: when someone is in coma,what nurse do to him ? read << The nursing staff will move the patient every 2"3 hours from side to side and depending on the state of consciousness sometimes to a chair.>> search word "nursing" in this site http://en.wikipedia.org... and you will find it. how quran knew smthg that it is impossible to know it at year 600 ? quran is from Allah .
God DOES exits, but not in the way you think it does

I hope that quoting you won't be taken as an offensive move. I just want to make the context clear. "If they want to label this manifestation as God, then they would not be anyway close to what God is actually meant to be. Please state your preferences for what you mean by God. You have just said God without any definition e.g. creator, benevolent force, Allah.." You've committed the classical fallacy once again. By dissecting the "what odes it REALLY mean" you just separated an essence of an element of consciousness to a transcendental level, thus making it external to one's Consciousness. That is fallacious in the positivistic context. Once again, Observer IS and MAKES the truth. If you want to argue against that, you are welcome to do so, but I once again warmly suggest you to try attacking my thesis from inside rather than outside. You've done neither so far and only misunderstood everything I said. The fact that I didn't include a DEFINITION should be a clear sign of "philosophical hierarchy" in my framework. Furthermore, to strictly define "God" in from a positivistic perspective is ludicrous,as you would have to possess some external criteria. However, everything that IS exists in the Noxion (or oneself, if you prefer), therefore the criteria is wholly fluid. The only reason that I "isolated" the notion of God in the positivistic perspective is to demonstrate that all, even the highest principles are equally important in that particular context. It seems that you are arguing against a self-made statement, which originates in the misunderstanding of my thesis, my friend. "Such as your comment Zues or flying Spaghetti monster, no actual proposition." Again, I included these trivial references for a very specific reason: to demonstrate that the FORM of a God has no meaning, rather the perception of the Observer. To clarify: if you worship a coffee mug dedicate all of you suffering, wishes, desires and struggles to it, then (in positivistic context) this mug IS God. I can't stress this enough: OBSERVER CREATES TRUTH, THEREFORE NO DEFINITION OF ANYTHING IS NEEDED. "I feel that your debate is actually about idealism, perception, comprehension..." Yes, and I am very sorry if my title was misleading. I just though that more people will be interested in a debate that has a "flashy title." "I have challenged you with the theory of illusion." This argument IS valid in the positivistic context, however it is also easily refutable by inspecting some simple properties of the framework. Let's suppose that everything I feel, see or sense in any way is illusion, i.e. my legs do not really exist, I do not have a loving father and mother, etc. The damming contra-argument is. "What difference does this make?" EVEN IF everything I think I am is a delusion THE "LAWS" OF POSITIVISM STILL APPLY! The observer is still stuck in a cocoon of uncertainty, a pseudo-agnostic bubble, from which he can't escape, in other words THE OBSERVER STILL CAN'T POINT TO THE ULTIMATE TRUTH UNLESS AN OBSERVATION IS CONSIDERED TO BE JUST THAT. Sorry for so much upper case yelling, I just wanted to make my point crystal-clear.
God DOES exits, but not in the way you think it does

Illusions are a common occurrence, a straightforward possibility. It may seem to the idealistic observer that there is God, but it would just be an illusion. If they want to label this manifestation as God, then they would not be anyway close to what God is actually meant to be. Please state your preferences for what you mean by God. You have just said God without any definition e.g. creator, benevolent force, Allah.. Such as your comment Zues or flying Spaghetti monster, no actual proposition. I feel that your debate is actually about idealism, perception, comprehension... I have challenged you with the theory of illusion.
God DOES exits, but not in the way you think it does

You completely missed my point and context, just as I predicted you would. In fact, most people that first meet positivism act in this way. You cited various examples of FRAMEWORKS within which the absolute is "bent" to the context, which is fine. But it doesn't in the slightest way refer to my thesis. The fact that you are criticising the very structure of my argument is a fallacy: by accepting to be the Contra, I expect you to take the same playground as me - positivism. I know, this statement is a little arrogant, but think about it: I'll give you a chance to argue against my thesis itself. I expect only logical and philosophical arguments, do not broaden your spectrum, because you'll miss your mark, that is my friendly warning. One little advice: if you want to tear my thesis apart, you won't succeed with an attack from the inside, no my thesis is bulletproof on the exterior. If you truly wish to win and prove me wrong, start from THE INSIDE. I currently have 60 pages of my thesis, and let me tell you, there is A LOT of imperfections. Just to help you, here's just one: "If everything is equally Noxion, then what properties can an Observation have? How can there be an Observation is Noxion itself a prior" IS?" Cheers. I'll let you try again, and this time, please refer to my actual framework and line of reasoning. It'll be more fun this way.
God DOES exits, but not in the way you think it does

There is a variety of contexts where I can disprove the existence if God, each coming from a different cosmological scenario. If I start with Mainstream Science and then progress towards different concepts of reality then from the source, religion, I can end with how God being contradicts itself. Now, there is an idea within the scientific community called Intelligent Design. If your concept of God is limited to a Creator then we are not arguing for the other properties of God, such as Benevolence, Actions of God (being sent to the afterlife etc). Afterlife will not be included in the argument against mainstream science and intelligent design. So in this scenario I will argue against there being a Creator. The intricacies of science suggest to the simple minded that all the calculations of physics and logic were known, thus designed. Is an intelligence the only method to how the calculations could manifest as reality. Has nobody considered an automatic, deterministic way. Even computers work this way. So now I have dismissed Choice in the idea of intelligent design. Something as deterministic as a physical force can lead to the idea of logical contructs in reality. When something is impossible, it will not happen. If planets can not orbit in a square, they won't. Why is this so intelligent, it's only the impossible not occurring.
God DOES exits, but not in the way you think it does

Hello my friends! This statement should be a surprise, taking into account that it comes from an agnostic. Do I believe in an anthropomorphic, sentimental being who created us all out of benevolence? No. But things get deeper. Although I currently have a PhD in Algebraic Topology philosophy always fascinated me as well. Through many years of intense research and thought I found my Holy Grail - positivism. But not in the sense of baroque positivism, oh no, something MUCH MUCH better came to my mind. Firstly, let's make a clarification: classical (baroque) positivism claims that observation CAN be rationally explained, but only by reference to observer - he IS NOT the truth, but a "channel" for it to manifest itself. My "positivism" is different: the Observer is the Truth, or paraphrased, when I see a flower, it exists, when I turn away, it doesn't. It is important to note that Ego does not exist in this framework. I called the collective of all the components of an observation a Noxion, which is irreducible. Now my argument: suppose that in Noxion, there is a component of some kind of deity; it can be anything, from Zeus, to Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't matter. But its inclusion is necessary for the uniqueness of Noxion. Therefore, we can deduce that EVERY component is absolutely necessary for Noxion. Furthermore, it is important to realise that *every element is equivalent to every other, all hold the same importance.* I only included the "God" as a central concept because this catches people's attention and makes the discussion less dull. In all truth, "God" isn't really your classical idea of "God", but just another element in the structure of Noxion - small and indistinguishable it may be, but without it, it is impossible for Noxion to be "our own". Therefore, we could say that every element is in some sense "God". The funny thing is, that even in this category, there are "Gods" that are actually labeled "God". That's pretty much all, I proved the existence of God, ha ha ha. Now wrestle with me, hit me under the belt!
Religious Tolerance is a worthy cause

Much is being made of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York City. The president and other proponents argue that the right to build the community center is protected under the constitution. This is a perfectly valid, reasonable argument, and I agree with it entirely. As a result of the debate over this issue, supporters of the mosque have stressed that Islam as a religion, and the millions of Muslims that follow it, should not be blamed for the terrorist attacks on 9/11 or any subsequent attempts. Again, a true statement. Those who support the construction of the mosque argue that the nation should embrace 'religious tolerance', that we should view all religions as being equal, and none should be explicitly discriminated against or restricted from having the same rights guaranteed to other religions. However, religious tolerance is not a viable solution to the problems that religion itself imposes on society. I will argue that religious tolerance is not only impossible, but immoral. --------------- This will be a five round debate. The first round will be used solely to establish background and state opinions without elaboration on arguments. The second to fourth rounds will contain arguments and rebuttals. The fifth and final round will be used for closing statements and summary.
right to bear arms

Well. the constitution can be bent becuase you can not and should not allow situations 200+ years ago to govern how the supreme law in the land dictates our judicial system.... at the time of the revolution due to hostilities btween the natives and settelers, native american raids were common. Hence the reason why most families kept guns....we just finished fighting a war with no guarentee to our nations future and the gov't couldnot afford to arm everyone...that is also another reason for the amendment... and another argument for the viability of altering the constitution is that this whole debate you have been defending an alteration of said constitution, becuae the bill of rights themsleves were added onto the orignal document... therefore since you aruge that the constitution must not be altered you should naturally be agaisnt any amendments to it... and seeing as the right to bear arms was an addition to the constutution, you must therefore concede defeat here...:D(obviously i do not expect you too or desire you too) When it comes to murder and guns reducing murder rates...I say that murderers will not think twice about going into a persons home who owns a gun, because( and you yourself stated this) that most murders are not pre meditated...holding a gun gives people an empowering feeling, which a bit of straw would not... Now my argument is that we cannot have complete freedom to bear arms, nor can we completely ban guns.... we must reach a compromise betweent the two sides
right to bear arms

Sir, the constitution cannot be bent. If the people start allowing it to give way a little bit, it is wide open for the government to mold it to their interests, when it was meant for the people's. We have to defend our rights, or we will end up with none... As far as the registration goes Sir, I think it's a better alternative to concentrate on perfecting forensics- True enough, if a criminal wants a gun, they will not use their own, they will steal one- Leaving the owner of the gun susceptible to being falsely accused. Fact remains, more crime will be prevented, given that everyone has an equal opportunity to defend themselves. Samuel Colt called the gun "The Great Equalizer". Lets all stay on an even playing field, and focus on preventing as much crime as possible before it takes place. "Murder rates... I am saying murder rates, not crime rates, because i agree that a thief would think twice, but most likely not a murderer. Simply put, a gun makes a murder easier." Sir, the vast majority of murder is not premeditated killing. In most cases, a murder will happen when someone tries to resist a criminal act, or is in the wrong place at the wrong time when one is happening. Most criminals do NOT want to run into conflict when they're breaking into something. If someone truly makes the decision to kill someone else, the smallest factor is the weapon. A knife can be just as deadly. Heck, a straw can be deadly if you cork it with your thumb and hold it right:-) "I am sorry if i am not the best opponet for this debate, i am not hardcore opposed to guns myself, but i am trying....:D" Hey, it's all good man:-) It's a difficult thing to try and shoot down, and especially when you aren't so anti-gun as lots of crazies out there... Good debate though Sir, good thinking on your part- You keep responsibility of actions in play, that's always important, regardless of the issue... Argumentation's purpose should be to reach a conclusion, a higher understanding. Only a true Sophist would say that it's not, and that any subject matter could be defended----------------
right to bear arms

Ok, when i was talking abou the constitution being flexible, i didn;t mean it weas written in the constitution, unless you count the part about amendments, i meant that the founding fathers recognized that times change, weapons change. I simply meant that we need to review and adjust(not a whole lot) the constitution.... again that is where amendments come in. On registration of guns... I've seen red dawn(great movie, and agree that a public list is not a good idea... also i see the problem with the gov't also having a list. But I trust the gov't(not a popular idea i know). I believe a secure list would be a great idea, only because criminals, generally are stupid and may not use thier own gun, but may steal a friends or someone connected to themt aht may allow the police to trace them down... honestly here i think we are both correct and a compromise here would be the best soulution.Because I agree that the Gov't should fears the people, so i am conficted betweent that ideal and solving murders and giving solice to victims families. Murder rates... I am saying murder rates, not crime rates, because i agree that a thief would think twice, but most likely not a murderer. Simply put a gun makes a murder easier. I am sorry if i am not the best opponet for this debate, i am not hardcore opposed to guns myself, but i am trying....:D
right to bear arms

First off i am not agaisnt the right completely , I just believe that compromises need to be made. My beliefs and reasons: 1)Waiting periods of 1-3 days for handguns and hunting rifles and 2-3 weeks for assault weapons. A)Handguns are self defense weapons, so therefore the shorter waiting period B)Hunting Rifles are for a past time C)No one actually needs and assault weapon D)The whole reasons for a waiting period are so if an angry person wants to kill someone they have to wait to buy a gun, giving them the chance to cooldwon 2)Strict background checks A)Check for a criminal record, felonies mostly. 3)Require all guns to be registered A)Helps solve murder cases B)Prevents someone of holding a weapon without registering it, like if he goes to a gun range he has to show his registration. 4)In regards to the constitution A)It does not say not to have safeguards, yes you still have the right, but we aren't going to be irresponsible and allow a convicted felon to hold a gun that could kill dozens of people. B) The founding fathers said that we would have to adjust the constitution to our time and conditions. They did not have as amny people to worry about and did not have assault type weapons. They had to worry about native american raids and the British. The colonial gov't was poor and could not afford guns for every sodier, there fore the amendment solved that problem. 5) Guns help to increase the murder rate A) I agree that guns do not kill people, people kill people, but guns are there tools that we can prevent them from having. Many countries that have gun controls have a much smaller murder rate then the United States.
Resolved: Biblical Creation Should Be Taught Alongside Evolution in Public High School Biology

Biological phenomena do not oppose the Genesis account of creation. Molecular biology, Mendelian Genetics, Immunology, Developmental biology, Cell biology and biochemistry are not enemies of the deistic creative process which simply states that creatures bringforth according to their kind [1] and that plants yield seeds accordingly [2]. Is this not observed?Are these not known biological phenomena? Why should Genesis take a "back seat", nay, "get out of the vehicle entirely", if Macro-evolutionary experimentation yields literally no positive results? Consider: If we monitor a pair of fruit flies for 12 months (Only 12 months, no more no less; the clock stops on Dec 31st) ,we will notice some interesting things. First, the fly becomes sexually active within 8hours after hatching and matures after 7 days. Second, Flies don't mate like Humans. They interbreed within their generations. So if we start with two flies:Week 1 - [2x Gen A]Week 2 - [2x Gen A] + [20x Gen B]week 3 - [2x Gen A] + [40x Gen B] +[400x Gen C] +[800x Gen AB]week 4 - [2x Gen A] + [60x Gen B] +[800x Gen C]+[8000x Gen D]+[1800x Gen AB]+ [8000xGen AAB]+[2,400x Gen BC]+[8840x Gen ABC]The fruit fly would generate 2048 generations after only 12 weeks. Now this is “dialed down” mathematics. The real number is far greater, but for sanity’s sake we’ll keep it rounded and grounded. As demonstrated, a single pair of fruit flies results in thousands of generations within minuscule time. Predictably, they always remain fruit flies, despite the multiple variations.In fact, the most recent study of 600 generations of fruit flies yielded such disappointing results that the scientists are largely concluding that "the Darwinian mechanisms are inadequate to account for large-scale transformation - these research findings provide empirical support for such doubts." [4] Here is a fun online experiment: http://bioweb.wku.edu... [3] A question for my opponent, “How many generations did it supposedly take to evolve a Chimpanzee (or similar ancestor) into a modern human?” The only objection against the Genesis account is the unobserved nature of God. If we are to disallow the Genesis account because we cannot test God, observe God and repeat God according to the scientific method, then we must dismiss every aspect of biological sciences which can likewise not be tested, observed and repeated. This, specifically, would include macro-biological evolution. This debate is not about the scientific merit of biological theory or truths in origins. It’sabout fair access to ideas. The key word in the resolution is “should”. My opponent did not ask me to validate thescientific merit of Genesis. He asked me to explain why the Genesis account should be taught along side evolution. The answer is simple: Just like Macro-evolution, Genesis explains a creative order and provides micro-evolution as observed evidence. Genesis 1:24 [1]Genesis 1:11 [2] http://bioweb.wku.edu... [3] http://www.arn.org... [4]