BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is wrong.

First I'd like to start by saying that the Bible should not be taken literally. The Bible is a tool that people all over the world use to grow closer to God. Your first problem is your answering your own question. Free will is something we are given by God and allows us to make choices for yourself. The reason he gives us this is because he loves us. I know that might not make sense but think about it, would you appreciate it more if some gave you money because they wanted to rather then they were forced to. The greatest acts are done out of love. And the reason we know God exist is because we have faith. Faith is the gift of knowing with out seeing. We don't know if there are other life forms outside earth but we make the connection based off the evidence given to us. As to the earthquake, There are things that we humans won't and don't understand until be come face to face with God.
The Bible is wrong.

In the Bible, often entire verses, stories, and anecdotes were falsified for the sake of making a point. Even the concept of the "holy trinity" is a fabrication created not by any god, but for political reasons by a zealot named Theophilus of of Antioch in 412 AD. In the Bible, God is omniscient and knows everything, including everything that has happened and will happen, as well as every thought your mind creates before you think it. If that's the case, there is no "free will." In the Bible, God is omnipotent, and can do anything and he will forgive if you're 'truly' sorry. Problem is, if their God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened killing millions (including christians) that are happening now and will happen in the future, their God is also a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery. And if the Christian God is not omniscient or omnipotent... well, in that case their God is not a "god" and doesn't exist. If something exists, it can be scientifically quantified (measured and evaluated relative to its mass, energy, location, capabilities, and other qualities). For example, scientists have quantified millions of items ranging from from dark holes in outer space to tiny atomic particles (such as the recently discovered Higgs Boson). If something cannot be scientifically quantified, it does not exist (in the real universe). In Lisbon in 1755 an earthquake struck on Sunday, November 1st (All saints day) at 09:40am, almost everyone was in their churches and killing up to 100.000 people in one of the most catholic cities in Europe at the time, in the Bible it says that 'God' is omnipresent and omnipotent and he will forgive you if you are truly sorry,but why killing almost half of Lisbon's population if it was one of the most catholics and crime-free cities at the time, why not other (more 'sinful') cities? Why didn't he give some warning before striking?
people that say oh i don't judge people are liars because its human instinct to judge people

Judge: [Verb] Definition : To form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically. Exapmple: You can't judge a book by its cover. I believe this is the definition you were talking about.^ When you talk about this defnition, it must be noted that normally, when you "judge" someone, you have predjudice against them. You said that if someone came out of a dark alley with a knife that people will automaticaly think they are a bad person, but this is not prejudice, if any being is threatened for a legit reason, it is not prejudice if they think the aggressor is bad. Prejudice [verb] Definition: An unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. Furthermore, in Modern society normally if you "Juduge" someone, it is a precivied as "You hate them becuase thier Gay/Bi/Black/Fat/Obese/Ugly." therefore, unprejudice people (and some liars) will say that they won't judge though alot people who say they don't juduge, actually do. Some don't. Sources http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
people that say oh i don't judge people are liars because its human instinct to judge people

The person that says i don't judge people are liars. Humans have to judge people its are instinct we use it to survive. when you see someone in a dark ally with a knife you are going to automatically think that they are a bad person and you should stay away form them as you rightfully should. When you see someone for the first time you look at there appearance and judge them by it if there wearing a gold suit you judge them and think they are wealthy and very boisterous about there wealth. if there wearing rags you think they are poor. when you think someone is attractive you are judging them all the fiends you have you have judgments about. We all judge people saying you don't is a lie
Free will does not exist

Hi again,I apologize but my closing statements must be brief and I cannot address his remarks to the degree I had been in the past. What I would like to close with is the fact that my opponent's initial contention is "Free will does not exist," and my expressed objective was to cast doubt on that contention and show that the arguments for Free will have some strength, and that taking a strong stance on the issue such as "hard determinism" is unwarranted.My final contention is that if my opponent has not sufficiently demonstrated that Free will does not exist, then his resolution should not be held and the motion should be suspended as I have shown there is more to learn about the brain and the possibility of criterial changes that allow for different options open to the agent in any given situation.I would like to close in thanking Andrew for an enjoyable debate, and look forward to more in the future!Kind regards,TrueScotsman
Free will does not exist

This debate is addressing the ancient problem of free will. I will be taking the pro position and therefore assert that free will does not exist. Instead, I will argue in favor of determinism, more specifically hard determinism, as opposed to libertarianism or compatibilism. I will now define the previously mentioned terms. Determinism is a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Compatibilism (or soft determinism) is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. . https://en.wikipedia.org... Libertarianism argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that, therefore, determinism is false. (a subset of indeterminism) . https://en.wikipedia.org...(metaphysics) For the purpose of this debate, I will be advocating hard determinism. Hard determinism is a subset of determinism that argues the concept of free will and a deterministic universe are incompatible.
God is a women; Lucifer is a man

You're welcome. Once again, just because men are on a general basis "physically stronger" than women it doesn't necessarily mean that they're more evil--which is essentially what the core of Pros argument is. Pro asserts that men have killed more humans, though this does not prove anything or affirm Pros resolution in any way. One could easily use the argument that women have killed humans, and that men have actually saved a lot of humans; again this doesn't *prove* anything but is the general standard of Pros argument. Pros sixth point [though about the longest thing he's written] again doesn't do anything to prove the resolution. As highlighted in round one, Pro failed to outline his definitions and clarify the terms of the debate; therefore leaving it open to interpretation. Additionally, all statements made in this point are based on gender stereotype and Pro has not offered any evidence to support his assertions. The argument that women "nurtured and brought the good out of men" completely fails due to it being personal assumption and not objective proof of anything. Some women have nurtured, some women haven't. Some men have nurtured, some men haven't--that is what reality essentially is. Anyway, I'm flattered by your compliment Pro but you haven't made a clear stance in your argument or responded to my own points in any depth. My spelling and grammar is much superior as well.
God is a women; Lucifer is a man

1) Thank you. 2) Yes, i haven't started any argument yet ... i think. I will clarify now in this round ^-^ 3) Yes, I was being metaphorical 4) is it a gender stereotype? 5) Men are physically stronger. 1) How many humans have men killed? I would say the killing ratio is all i need in regards to the definition of "evil" in the previous round. 2) I agree; a god/good has strengths. 6) I don't believe in god the way you explain it. Yes, strength is a force for good. Men have evolved to this point, but men have had to do a lot of evil. We are the self sacrificing beings. Men had to save their loved ones. We are inherently prone to violence. Both a blessing and a curse. I am in no way talking down on men or women. I am not saying we haven't changed and learned from our mistakes. I am just saying: If you put every consciousness that is male together ... it will have this "blessing and curse" (metaphorically) which makes men like the devil/evil. Now, women have also evolved to this point. Women nurtured and brought the good out of men. Women took care, guided, and loved. And, of course it's getting different; but if you put every consciousness together that is female ... you will have god compared to the proud Lucifer's. 7) I am not saying all are alike. The context is as stated in number six, so i hope you stick to the idea, i'm curious to know this. Just stick to the definitions in round two. 8) How many people have women killed? How many people have men killed? So on with the other evil listed in round 2? I am not generalizing. Women are also evil...men are also good. I'm just stating that men are more evil as a whole ... present and past; well, especially the past ... vice versa with our beautiful queens. "Blessing and a curse": Hmm, i just mean that men have evolved front line to evil. "Beautiful queens": i am distracted by your pictures con =) You make my heart reel with poetry.
God is a women; Lucifer is a man

Likewise. To begin my rebuttals, I'll remind Pro that he *still* he has the basic BoP to fulfil regarding his resolution--and that the exact debate premise should have been clarified in round one. Pro attempts to argue that he simply meant that man and woman were representative of the devil and god in the "metaphorical" sense, however he's still yet to show precisely how this is. In fact, Pros entire case so far is based on assumption and gender stereotype--which as I indicated in round one, does not classify as a substantive argument. Pro has essentially said that *just* because men are generally viewed of as being physically stronger, that they are more like the devil than women. Which is of course a complete logical fallacy. I'll outline two basis questions: 1.) How is strength an "evil"? 2.) And wouldn't god also be strong? Clearly put, strength in the technical sense is not an evil--it is seen as something positive and a force for good. And god is a figure that is generally viewed of as being "stronger" than the devil, seeing that he would be the one to create the world and give life in the first place. To highlight once more; No complete set standard exists for how men and women definitively are. Otherwise all women would be alike, and naturally all men. There is in fact nothing to say that women are "less" evil than men and again Pro has provided no real argument to support his claims.
God is a women; Lucifer is a man

Hey! Thanks for debating with me. This should be fun. Firstly, i think i should define words bc i think it is most likely going to change your structure. I don't mean anything religiously. By god i mean good. By devil i mean evil. I use the names as metaphors to their meanings. I define good as empathy towards others, not hurting others, etc. I define evil as having malicious intent towards others and acting on it. Like killing, rape, false imprisonment etc. Men have always been physically stronger than women, so i think this has shaped them to be capable of more "evil" than women. This is at least one premise to my conclusion that all women are less "evil" than all men.
God is a women; Lucifer is a man

Debate accepted. Firstly, I'll provide my argument and outline *why* Pros resolution is easily negated. C1) Debate Premise. Firstly, we are to assume that god and "Lucifer" (I.E devil) actually exist. Pro hasn't specified either way whether he is exclusively referring to the two as *real* being or simply methaphorical characters. Round one is for clarifying the debate premise and outlining exactly what the rules are, which Pro has entirely failed to do. As Pro is also the one asserting the resolution (which again, he has not expounded on) the BoP also primarily lies with him; particularly as the resolution is entirely opinion based. For Pro to win he/she will actually have to convincingly prove that god is a woman and that satan is a man, in the respect that god has exclusively female traits and that satan has exclusively male traits--with no in between. C2) Male and Female Traits. According to Pros resolution and opening statement, god *only* has female traits and satan *only* has male traits; which basically suggests that (all) females have traits that are viewed as "good" and that (all) males have traits that are viewed as "bad"--with again no real balance or combination of both traits within the two sexes, which is what represents reality. For Pro to again fulfil his BoP, he will have to show that these two specific kind of traits are fixed exclusively to one gender. Which essentially presents an impossible task. To summarize it simply, each and every individual us different and therefore can have a variety of traits. Some women can have traits that are considered "good", and some can have traits that are considered "bad". The exact same applies to men. The point is that no gender has a fixed set of traits and that Pro has made a false presumption. C3) God and Satan. Additionally, neither god and/or satan are seen as two specific genders that represent the qualities of each sex. Rather they are non-human entities that are not of this world, thus meaning are neither man or woman. It also largely depends on how both are interpreted. Some people view the Abrahamic god to be a wrathful being, while others don't believe that he exists at all and that if he does--that he has a considerable amount of failings. What Pro should take note of is that god is not always seen as "good". As with the devil, while he is generally seen as evil, there are different interpretations within different religions and some people even don't view the devil as exclusively "evil"--the matter of belief or lack-of is also important. Once again, as man and woman are human beings and therefore all different, it is simply implausible for god and satan to be any of the two genders. The same is said for man and woman being like satan or god; the argument does simply not work.
Animal Rights

All animals have a right to life. They were born into this world having the right to have someone care for it like a new born baby. Helpless and unknowing of what this world is capable of. How this world can destroy a life. No one has the right to decide whether or not someone or something should live or die. I stand with the side of life and try to protect what I can because I love animals. I'm not saying everyone has to love animals, but not liking animals does not give the right to kill an animal. 150 to 200 species of plants, animals, or insects go extinct everyday due to the carelessness of humans.
Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site.

The resolution states that everyone should get A FRIEND to join. If we assume the resolution true, everyone needs to get a friend to join. Not friends but rather a friend. This means taht by bringing two friends instead of one, you are negating the resolution. "For instance if I were to post a sign stating, "Bring a friend to McDonalds" it would not suddenly be assumed that one can only bring one friend. " Under the wording of this sign, only one friend should be brought to McDonalds. A FRIEND = 1 FRIENDS = 2+ Thus had the resolution said friends, my opponent would win. "If I were to say, "Everyone who eats an orange shall be given a balloon" then the people who eat three oranges will still be given a balloon because they have ate an orange. " I would argue this is not true. The people eating three should be punished for breaking the rules. For example, lets say a teacher says if you get 80 percent you get a B. Students who get 90 percent would not get a B but rather an A. Using this logic, we see that my argument clearly negates the resolution. " Which brings me to my next point. At some point during getting two friends to join debate. org one is going to have to pass through the point of getting one friend to join. In other words the process of getting two friends to join debate. org can be broken up into two separate instances: a. I have got a friend to join debate. org. b. I have got another friend to join debate. org. In both of these instances a friend has joined debate. org. Thus getting two friends or more to join debate. org falls under my resolution. " After the first step, the vote is pro. After the second, the vote is con. Bot of these steps MUST occur under my counterplan. The resolution says A FRIEND. After the two steps, you would have invited FRIENDS. "In conclusion my resolution, "Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site. " Is not limited to just ONE friend. If my resolution said something to the effect of, "Every debate member of this site should get EXACTLY ONE friend to join this site" then my opponent would have a formidable case. As he doesn't, and as his case simply confirms my case, I can see nothing but a Pro vote. Thanks for everyone's time. A FRIEND limits the scope of the resolution. By extending this to two FRIENDS, I am contradicting the resolution which leads to a CON vote. Exactly one friend is the same as only one friend which the resolution implies.
Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site.

Aye it is true, having two friends join this site would most likely double the benefit. However LakevillNorthJT has not done anything to contradict my case, instead he has confirmed it. For instance if I were to post a sign stating, "Bring a friend to McDonalds" it would not suddenly be assumed that one can only bring one friend. If I were to say, "Everyone who eats an orange shall be given a balloon" then the people who eat three oranges will still be given a balloon because they have ate an orange. Which brings me to my next point. At some point during getting two friends to join debate.org one is going to have to pass through the point of getting one friend to join. In other words the process of getting two friends to join debate.org can be broken up into two separate instances: a. I have got a friend to join debate.org. b. I have got another friend to join debate.org. In both of these instances a friend has joined debate.org. Thus getting two friends or more to join debate.org falls under my resolution. In conclusion my resolution, "Every debate member of this site should get a friend to join this site." Is not limited to just ONE friend. If my resolution said something to the effect of, "Every debate member of this site should get EXACTLY ONE friend to join this site" then my opponent would have a formidable case. As he doesn't, and as his case simply confirms my case, I can see nothing but a Pro vote. Thanks for everyone's time.
Scyrone (me) is God.

well i guess your posts are amusing. they rightfully pokes holes and mock mindless christians out there. but, you have not responded to my previous points so have not debated me or really won the argument. in terms of christians who are blineded, what you did qualifies as good debating, and so perhaps in lala land you actually debated. in terms of rational land, not so much. props for lala land and humor land though. hopefully your ultra angry spiteful yet somehow loving God will allow me into his kingdom with you.
Scyrone (me) is God.

I believe I am God. Why? Because it says so in the Bible. I believe that the only way to get to Heaven is through me. You do not have to believe in the Bible, but you must believe in me. For I am the way, the truth and the life. I am God mostly because: 1. Only God knows when he is going to come back from Heaven. I have proved that right now. 2. God cannot be tested, and I will not stand to be tested. 3. God is all-knowing, transcends time, and created everything. I am all this. I created life and death and nothing and everything. I am still young, but too old. I know everything. I know the color of your hair, I know the color of your eyes, I know your religion, I know who you worst enemies are. I even know who you are debating right now. Yes, you can poke at my argument by saying "You haven't proved that you are God" when really I have. No physical evidence exists. You should just have faith in me. You will then have eternal life. I do not have to reply to your question and comments because it is testing me. I am the evidence by merely being here. It was good debating with you, you might be able to join me and my father in Heaven.
Scyrone (me) is God.

just so the readers of this thread can understand... this fellow has invited me to debate, i didn't just pick him randomly. first... i've never claimed Jesus' existance can be proven. there's plenty of historical evience for his existance... the evidence for his other claims are harder to substantiate but at least it's debatable. you have none of that evidence for any tones of divine inspiration etc. second... i've never even talked much of jesus or the bible. so for you to conflate my arguments about God with Jesus does not go together. and you're creating a strawman. ---all i've claimed is that the evidence of an intelligenct power existing has merit, and i'd argue makes a whole lot more sense than being an atheist. you haven't even addresseded what i've been arguing about miracles, and atheists who convert after NDEs. www.nderf.org for you to argue stuff about the bible in a way that i have never argued... that i'm saying the bible is true because the bible says it's true sort of things.... is not what i have ever argued. you're lumping me in with the mindless christians out there for one, and for two you're creating a strawman that you can easily knock down... ie creating arguments easy to refute that i never said.. jsut so you can have some sort of vindication. there is no vindication in knocking down a strawman, because i never made the argument.... sorry but it's true.
Scyrone (me) is God.

It is not wise to question your God. I am not to be tested either. When I sent my son Jesus into the desert for 40 days, he encountered Satan, in the form of a snake, and tested him. Satan failed. I do not wish the same upon my creations, but I have given you a choice. I did write in the Bible, "No one knows about the day or hour, not even the angels, or the Son, but only the Father." Matthew 24:36 This refers to you not knowing when I am coming back. I have come. Worship me and you shall be saved. I will stay for awhile, but I will leave within months because I need to gather the people who wish to follow me. I said I would come back and I have come back. Is this how you would act when your loving Saviour has returned? With great skepticism?