BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is Metaphorical

Hi Con,You state that .............'Basically, God is a Spirit...........'I can easily concede a notion of 'spirituality' to anyone as being an actual commodity worthy of consideration. Let us look at some examples of this in real life.An orchestra would need to inject spirit into playing Mozart in order to do the music justice.At the Euro matches we watch both players and supporters unite in spirit and purpose to promote their shared allegiances.A person fighting against great misfortune or illness, ie Job might display great fortitude and spirit that might inspire others.We detect this commodity in many situations and there is an broad agreement about this. I worry for you on the other hand, Con.In comments, I asked you some basic questions about the notion of spirit that you expressed in your first submission. You did not respond to them. Here they are again.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi creationtruth,The brevity of your first submission has me examining it intently. In it you state....................'God truly exists and can be known both through a spiritual relationship with Him............'Do you have a 'spiritual relationship' with anything else? (A place, a person, a................?)If you do then please explain how this works. If you do not then I would suggest that this spiritual feeling that you have is almost like 'a hunch'of some kind. It is the calling that our existence makes to us and it is a calling from the place that we have been evolved to regard as our home, ie life on this beautiful planet.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I worry for you, Con because you do not assert that God is spiritual, but rather that 'God is a spirit' This is completely metaphorical. This fact is further illustrated when we examine the descriptive follow on that you achieve from the absolute acceptance of the God/Spirit metaphor. Watch and wonder at the level of exactitude that you achieve within this descriptive preaching. You state, ' The list would be ridiculously long so I'll summarize with a few main characteristics: powerful, intelligent, empathetic, merciful, righteous, holy, and a real, spiritual being who transcends space-time.'You have now produced a space travelling spiritual being that possesses the human traits of intelligence, and mercy, and that has given its 'listening ear' to man's situation. Later on you tell us that this God has had direct contact with us even to the point of written correspondence .You state ' ...well both His word'.....................................'and the reading of His word.'I do not wish to burst anyone's bubble in any shape or form, but the more you submit to this thread the more you illustrate the point that you are building a perceived reality upon an accepted metaphor. Yes, a metaphorical God can do all the things you mention, be they Yahweh, Allah or whoever but not if they are a real God commodity extracted from our perceived and experienced reality. Thank You for your participation in this discussion.
God is Metaphorical

Pro says, "Love is a mammalian trait that is part of our primate genetics," to which I would ask, what objective evidence is there to substantiate this claim. He described love as being a subjective metaphor of a reality. However since love can describe many things, genetics may not entail all that love is. Also genetics do not determine action, your mind does. Thus acts of love in humans cannot be relinquished to mere out-workings of genetic translation. Pro says that, "the usage of the word God is not like this," that is, "real." He argues that, while God is "something," He is not literally God (since a metaphor is a description which is not literally applicable). However Pro fails to understand the proper meaning and usage of the term God. Sure many people loosely use the word to describe something they do not truly understand, but biblically God, or Elohim, is the Creator of the universe and an eternal Spirit. His creatorship can be verified through the study of nature and living systems, in particular the programed genome of organism's cells. His Spirit can be known through a relationship with Him via prayer and the reading of His word. I believe I have succinctly addressed your argument. Most of the rest of your round can be classified as what you "think" about God to which you even stated you did not want to know. As to who God is, well both His word and His created universe tell us that. The list would be ridiculously long so I'll summarize with a few main characteristics: powerful, intelligent, empathetic, merciful, righteous, holy, and a real, spiritual being who transcends space-time. Basically, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). Since God is literally a Spirit and the term "God" describes a Spirit, God is not a metaphor. I think it would have helped you to define God. Since you did not, my biblical definition stands: the word "God" is defined as a spirit with particular attributes and characteristics which can be verified as literally true through prayer, scripture, and science.
God is Metaphorical

God the Metaphor Consider Love for a second. There are many different situations in which this word is used to describe an actual specific thing. You can have romance, your can have parental care, you can have patriotism, you can have simple joie de vivre, you can have.............. The bottom line with this word is that it describes a specific emotive response within our being that we can clearly identify. Love is a mammalian trait that is part of our primate genetics, simple as. It is real. The use of the word God is not like this. The only consensus that is disernable when people talk about God or their God in specific is that they are talking about 'something'. Why not just say 'something'. If you do this and I ask you what your something is you would have to say to me that you believe in a God that is human in nature, you would have to say that your God has a Son that he sent down from Heaven to redeem our sinfulness. I could then ask you in all sincerity how this could possibly be true. In the present status of religious debate you would probably start, not with the word something but rather with the word God. You have now played a metaphorical wildcard that allows you to proceed to describe that thing in a metaphorical way. I do not want to know about what you think of God, but rather I want you to tell me about the something that God is. Listen carefully here. God is not a human loving entity. God is not specifically human in any way unless He/It is an exclusive creation by mankind itself. I believe that a God can exist for all life. I personally believe that a God of Life and a God of our existence is possible. I believe that that God can be experienced and mutually shared by all life in their own way. I believe that man can contribute to God and that mankind can co-participate and be absorbed by a something creater than all. I also believe that it is extremely feasible that mankind can extract benefit from engagement with the aspects of our existence that draw us to consider this God something. I believe that God is something. I believe that God can be experienced and that God can be treasured and worshipped and loved just as life can be wonderful to us all with any degree of good fortune. I believe as in Eden that man can willfully extract himself from God and I also believe that the present metaphorical religious representations of what might actually exist are little more than the Craven Images of Genesis and Exodus. The chances of God being remotely like anything mentioned in Islam or Christianity is beyond consideration. At least in early Judaism ie the David Psalms we were meant to gaze at the happenings of God with our gobs open in bewildered wonderment. A loose interpretation of the something that is God has long ceased to be regarded as a theological currency. Apparenty this fails to provide the cohesion and control that is deemed necessary for a religion to function effectively and its electability is dismissed as a non starter. We therefore speak in metaphorical riddles.
God is Metaphorical

metaphor:a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something towhich it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”. http://www.dictionary.com...In the above example the perceived attributes of God are metaphorically likened to the protective stability of an imaginary fortress. In this scenario it is God that is the reality and the fort is the metaphorical extension, created to describe his actual presence. This is a three card trick 'slight of hand' IMHO. This metaphor resonates those of the early Psalms. The problem with all this is that the early Psalms attempted to describe an Entity that was accepted to be 'beyond real description'. They were therefore by definition a physical approximate of God. They were the reality from which God could be deduced. They were, never the less a metaphorical creation of real aspects of God that people could detect but not describe. The use of the word 'God' both as a specific and as a general generic is just that. It is metaphorical of 'a sense of something' that is an actual phenomena. We refuse to accept this fact and we continue to proceed as if God by definition is real and that all theological approximates of Him/It are metaphorical of reality. This is self deception and it is amazing that our theological gurus of all religions are not taken to task on their 'waffle' about something they describe eloquently from a basic standpoint of blind acceptance. They describe God without telling us what God is. They use poetry for the fanciful notion of a created metaphor.
The purpose of education is development

In life you can be granted certain rights and privileges, however without a formal education they serve you no purpose at all. "To grasp the words on a page we have to know a lot of information that isn"t set down on the page." (Hirsch 2.2). For example understanding certain laws you are voting on do not mean anything if you do not fully understand every concept of what in fact you are voting on. To understand these laws you need not to know just the meanings behind the words of the law, but also what exactly these laws implement. To be exact you must be able to fully comprehend the law. Martin Luther King says it best, "having the right to vote is meaningless if a citizen is disenfranchised by illiteracy or semiliteracy." Education provides the development necessary to allow citizens to grasp these ideas.
The purpose of education is development

But with the education system in place do students truly get fully developed? The Education system uses standardized test such as the SAT, and ACT, these test don"t make students unique they try to make everyone the same. The problem is not everyone learns the same things, just by having my math class last semester I saw that many students were behind in their math skills. The education system wants everyone to be the same but in reality not everyone learns the same things, and not everyone has the capacity to learn the same things. Hirsch says "In the United States only two thirds of our citizens are literate, and even among those the average level is too low and should be raised".( Hirsch 1.2) If you make everyone learn the same things yes commiuntation might be easier but you will only be able to talk about what everyone else already knows. How will people be able to spread ideas or get any other type of knowledge?
The purpose of education is development

Education is the key to development. Without education people lack cultural literacy, or the ability to comprehend, the ability to get straight to the point, and the ability to grasp information and connect it to real life circumstances. It is essential that all people know the same things. Without being able to understand and grasp the same knowledge, our means of communication are ultimately ruined. Hirsch states it best, "If strangers share very little knowledge, their communications must be long and relatively rudimentary." (Hirsch 2.4). According to Freire, "only through communication can life hold meaning." (Freire 3.7). So putting together the thoughts of Freire and Hirsch, without a formal education, you are unable to communicate, and without the means of communication your life holds no meaning.
The purpose of education is development

But with standardize testing do you really think for yourself? The way the education system works they give you test to make students the same with no freedom of independency. And you don"t need a formal type of education to be successful. Many people have never gone to college and have became millionaires even billionaires, you have people such as bill gates and steve jobs who never went to college. And has for education as elementary and high school you compare a school system such as Sparta NJ where ever teacher is making excellent money and the worst thing that happens is a food fight, and then compare it to Newark school system where kids are getting shoot and some of the teacher and students don"t care about learning or teaching. Where Sparta has a 99% graduation rate and just spent over 80 million on a new school. As you look at these other schools in Newark and other places where the have no supplies the school buildings are over 100 years old, falling apart. You don"t end up getting an equal education and there isn"t any way everyone across the board that can create an equal education opportunity.
The purpose of education is development

Having the right to vote grants you freedom as much as a formal education. Freire states "education affirms men as beings who transcend themselves, who move forward and look ahead, for whom immobility represents a fatal threat, for whom looking at the past must only be a means of understanding more clearly what and who they are so that they can more wisely build the future." (Freire 7.2) Education provides man with a certain drive that allows him to think independently, and truly give him freedom. By not receiving a formal education you are limiting yourself, and by limiting yourself you are ultimately losing your freedom. The great part about education is that for the most part everyone has equal access to it, and therefore should be granted to the same types of freedom.
The purpose of education is development

Yes education is important it is how you learn and expand your mind, but do you need formal education to achieve knowledge? To can knowledge back in caveman, and hunter gathering times, they learned by trial and era, they pick up a berry ate it, and if that person died they didn"t eat it. Over a course of time people told each other not to eat the berry but it never started with a formal education. Formal education is sitting in a classroom however which way you approach it either with Freires approach or Hirsch. But there are other ways to learn without formal education, people can learn anything by themselves. You don"t need to go to school to learn that you have a right to vote, your mom, dad, even the hobo downtown can one day tell you son/daughter you have a right to vote, and they can if they wanted even tell you how we ended up with the right to vote.
Humans are valuable

No, The fact is not this way. Sure enough some people don't care about the environment, But many do. People go inventing as I said before, But that helps the place instead of destroying it. The inventions change our life, Like solar or wind energy. Many are trying to save our planet, And it's not yet too late. People are getting alerted. Also I don't think if gods exist, They are not taking away the beauty of Earth.
Humans are valuable

The huan race is a cancer, Well we were okay 10 000 years ago when we numbered 10 millon hunter gathering cave men and lived 25 years and then died. We were probably happier then, Probably smelled pretty bad but i bet we were happy, No job to go to, No deadlines, No taxes no gas bill, But since the agricultural revolution of that time we have spread like a deadly diisease over this lovely planet and killed everything in our path, The sooner we exterminate ourselves the better!
Humans are valuable

Humans are valuable. They are not a mistake of the gods. Humans do their best to improve themselves and the world. They explore and invent to make lives better. And if there are gods, We don't create them! Why do you think we are not happy? Maybe you aren't, But not for the whole of humanity. Moreover, We create AI. They are our helpers, Not our rulers. AI leads us to expand our thoughts. We should not let them take over the world.
Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished in the United States

By supporting minimum wage, you're assuming that employers have all the control in terms of how much they pay their employees, and that an employer and their employee can't negotiate wages. In this country, the GDP is high enough that nobody is going to agree to work for two cents an hour. For example, the employer and the employee can reasonably come to a compromise of say, for example, three dollars an hour. But how does this argue against minimum wage? Well, when you consider the fact that minimum wage causes inflation (due to the fact that employers have to raise the price of goods to compensate for the money lost for paying employees), you come to realize that the increased wage is virtually meaningless. This essentially entails that the three dollars per hour earned in the example above is worth more than the roughly five dollars you earn per hour under minimum wage. Other disadvantages of minimum wage are as follows: (1) lower-skilled workers have fewer job opportunities, (2) most industrial jobs are outsourced, (3) businesses spend less training on their employees, and (4) excludes low cost competitors from the market. (http://www.indiana.edu...) (http://www.heritage.org...)
Donald Trump

Define: DisgraceDefine: RacistHe talks about building walls to block out other countries. - Is this the reason why he is racist from the definition you have given? I assuming this: If you agree with my definitions then there is no need to add your ownDisgrace: loss of reputation or respect as the result of a dishonourable action. Racist:a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, Or who believes that a particular race is superior to anotherYou were not direct enough why Trump is a disgrace so I want you to elaborate. Trump is not a disgrace because the economy is doing well. Trump is not a racist for protecting his own country. For having borders you stop illegal aliens from coming across the border. This is not fair on people who are legally going through to the United States. This also does not help the alien in question because since they are not registered US citizen the laws are not bound to them. This means businesses can exploit aliens, Paying them less then the minimum wage, Unsafe working conditions and refuse to pay them and call ICE to deport them so that they get free labour. The free labour is an accusation but 7-eleven did release a statement that more or less suggests that if illegal aliens do not work sufficiently to their standard they will be deported by ICE. Without walls there are no countries. If we have no countries then Anarchy will reign. It won't be everyone will be happier, It will consist of China migrating resources to the United States and attempting to take control of the United States. No centralised government no way in working together to stop China from invading and controlling the United States. Source: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=xo3agk7mMp8http://nymag. Com/intelligencer/2018/11/7-eleven-ice-raids. Html
According to the Characteristics of Yaweh, Predestination is Evident

This is the third time I am debating this topic. The last two have been unsatisfactory. Valtarov has challenged me to challenge him, so here it is. I apologize for the delay. I assert that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator. Predestination is evident. For this argument, I ask my opponent to agree with these attributes of God. God: Omniscient, Omnipotent, Creator. I will issue my arguments in round 2.
THBT we should learn english with a native speaker than a non-native speaker

I am going to discount CON's content in the final round for two reasons:1. CON brings up new arguments on why native speakers of a language cannot act as suitable teachers for ESL students, despite my statement in the third round which calls for no new arguments in the final round. CON him/herself also agrees upon this by clarifying in the first round that the final round be reserved only for 'concluding'.2. Though I appreciate CON pasting the link from which he used as a reference for his content, I would like to point out that all of what he/she has 'written' in the final round is actually a carbon copy of the text that is on said link. Please be reminded that including the link does not exempt one of plagiarism, nor does doing so automatically accredit the content to you. One may take statistics, photos, videos or even paraphrase text off of another source, but never copy it word for word. This is, after all, a debate, not a competition to see who can find the best sources. Though I am technically not obligated to do so, I would still like to point out major flaws in CON's "arguments".1. Once again, I reiterate that this motion uses the word 'with' instead of what CON sees to be 'from'. I learn WITH other students, and I learn FROM my teachers. CON's entire chunk of text in the final round talks about how teachers are incapable of comprehending the challenges that students face due to cultural and capability barriers, to which I have never denied. For CON to use this argument in the context of this debate, he/she must justify that native speaker students have the same detrimental impact on non-native speaker students when both are placed in the same learning environment.2. If CON is to refer to my definitions (I took the liberty to define since he/she did not), he/she would realise that native and non-native speakers are not segregated by a difference in ability, but rather when they take it upon themselves to learn the language. Thus, all of CON's arguments concerning an inconsistency between non-native speakers and ESL speakers in terms of their understanding of things such as grammar and commentation and the teacher-student correlation in general does not stand. Thank you to CON for establishing this debate, though I was hoping for a more orderly and exciting debate, but a duly win on my part for this debate would suffice. Vote PRO as PRO was the only side of the house that actually conjured up original arguments which were unrefuted and were relevant to the motion. Thank you.