BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is probable that God does not exist

You presumed we would look at this from a "modal viewpoint" but we won't. Its not in anyway because you had a chance of winning this debate with so many useless and irrelevant arguments. I say this simply because 1. "Any theist", as you state, would not be able to partake in this "modal logic" you mention. According to your standpoint, any god that exist in any world must exist in all worlds. For any theist to even agree to this he must concede that his faith is meaningless. All theist share the common belief that GOD exist outside the concept of "world" because he created the "world". To even think that he exist in the world and not the world in him is something no theist would do. 2. You are right to presume that if GOD set the standard for good then what ever he does is good and whatever he says is evil is evil. Even according to your argument, that some outside force governs what's good and what's not, then wouldn't this outside force ultimately be greater than GOD. According to your logic, GOD himself can be measured by these rules. Therefore making him subject to some higher being right? But if GOD doesn't exist than who are these rules meant to govern? Rules come from a higher intelligence. To even have a rule of good and evil, you must have someone who can rightly judge between the two. Rules don't establish themselves. Your whole argument is based on the rules of modal logic. But theist beliefs are based on GOD'S rules. One can conclude that this debate is unarguable based on the concept of "rules" alone. Had you established that you wanted a "modal" standpoint, I would have established I wanted a biblical standpoint and that my standpoint would not be within the "rules" of this debate. I would have "necessarily" concluded this is "possibly" not something I would choose to debate in this world(or any possible one) under the "rules" which you set forth. With that said I welcome any rebuttal outside the realm of this "modal logic"
It is probable that God does not exist

Quick rebuttal P1-P3 which definition fo contingent are you using? Necessary vs contingent statement? Or contingent meaning dependant? It seems from your format its meant to be dependant. If that's the case you've failed to prove why god could not make a system independant of himself. In the event you meant contigent as in a "necessary vs. contingent" statement, then both P2 and P3 would be statements with no meaning leaving me nothing to argue.
should Donald Trump be fired of more powerful

Nah, He really shouldn't be fired. There is nothing to suggest that he should. If you are referring to comments he has made on twitter about poor countries being 'shithole countries' (1), that is not a reason for getting someone fired at all. Yes he went off the rails during his election period, but that allowed him to appeal to the youth and get noticed as a candidate, and this allowed him to be able to go ahead and make plans for America's future. Please specify why you believe that Donald Trump must be fired in relation to what he has said and explain the title of your debate, as it doesn't really make any sense. Thank you. - The one, The only, Joel Nuge CITATIONS: 1: http://edition.cnn.com...
Please find the bugs in my unofficial Israel-Palestin pease plan

My opponent has presented a model for a new government system in Israel. In his proposed system, over twenty Muslim or Jewish votes would be equal to one Christian or atheist vote.It's hard to understand why this unfair system would be superior to the current system, unless you think that Christians and atheists are twenty times better at making decisions than Jews and Muslims. Even if that were true (and of course it isn't), you can't expect the majority of Israelis to accept their own inferiority and be happy with this injustice. This lopsided arrangement isn't sustainable.It's good to try to come up with solutions to problems, and I like my opponent for trying, but the bugs in this particular plan are obvious.
Please find the bugs in my unofficial Israel-Palestin pease plan

My opponent again doesn't seem to be entirely reading my arguments. I say this because of the 3rd paragraph of Con's argument. Con said that the Israeli military would want to overthrow the new government. As I continuously have said in my arguments, the Israeli government is no longer around, so there for, there would be no Israeli military to overthrow the new government. 102,000 Druze 6,400 Buddhists 712 Samaritans the amount of people in Israel that are in the non Jewish, Muslim population would skyrocket do to the fact that it is the holly land for more then just them, (because they already have so many people their, it would be much less likely for people of their religions to move in because they already have the majority of there populations already there. Jerusalem plays an important role in three monotheistic religions " Judaism, Christianity, and Islam when the land of Israel, or whatever it is now called the other religions will be trying to move in (like all those Christians who were trapped on that mountain in Iraq) there would be thousands who would try to move in. So therefore the Christianity percentile would be much higher. (really the biggest problem that the new government would have would be immigration. To Con's argument that people would just portended to be "converted", I would like to point out that people take their religions very personally. As I studied people and there religions, I have noted that most (all) religions Seriously frown on lying, and believe that lying about their religion is the biggest crime against God one can commit, death would be better. For the government catching any people who would try to lie for the voting box would have a million tip offs from their actual religion as well as their "converted" to religion., also why would they vote for another's religious representatives, when every one who is running has the same kind of ideas as the next. (with some small variations on the past, but there main goal would be to have their religion kept equal or ahead of every one ells. As I said in my first argument was the way to keep the majority happy, there would be the election of the high leader. (in which all may vote for giving the majority the most power. My opponent has challenged me to explain why my system would be better fair voting system, I believe that there is no fair voting system that would make every one happy, If you can think of a truly fair system for how you can satisfy every one, including the minorities (that isn't an American system, in which case, most people over there would resist and their for the plan would not work (so no house of representatives, and senate) So therefore I believe that by keeping the voting system the way I have put down where you have every one being able to vote by there religions.
Please find the bugs in my unofficial Israel-Palestin pease plan

My opponent's idea was that the government should be split into four groups: Jewish, Muslim, Christian and other. If less than 4% of Israel/Palestine is Christian or other, then it means that less than 4% of the population would have 50% of the vote, and not 25% as my opponent claims. That is because the Christian vote would be 25% and the "other" vote would be 25% and together that makes 50%.By far the easiest response for Jewish Israelis would be for large numbers of them to "convert" to Christianity and atheism to control those voting blocs. Then, they could vote in a constitutional change to one person one vote (and who could reasonably object?) and regain control of the government. If there's about 12 million people in the country, then 2% in each voting bloc is only 240,000. It would be easy to take over each group.Finally, if the Israeli (entirely Jewish) military wanted to overthrow the government, they could easily do so and they would be justified on the grounds that it is not fair and democratic. They could impose a one adult one vote system, which is fairer. My opponent has not yet explained why his system would be better than a fair voting system.
Please find the bugs in my unofficial Israel-Palestin pease plan

All right I can agree that it isn"t fair for a population of less than 4% to have a 50% say in the government.(you spelt government as goverment), But they had 25% of the votes for their party not 50%, and They have a lot of potential to grow (Many young Arabs are being turned off from religion altogether.) The Golden Era of Arab Atheism? | Al Akhbar Englishnyour sight also said (In the 2011 census, non-Arab Christians, estimated to number 25,000, were counted as "Jews and others". . http://en.m.wikipedia.org......) it was the Druze who had only 4% of the population, so I would say it is still safe to have a 25% with those growing numbers. Also I would like to point out that the leaders of the area won"t actually be listening to me, after all I"m just a student, but this debate is if we set up this system and they did as I recommended, would it work. So the argument of (In fact it will be outright war against the current Israeli government) argument wouldn"t work because if you remember in round one, I had said that the Israeli government would be disbanded, as well as the groups such as Hamas, would be disbanded, to make way for the new united religious government to take their place. That way there would be no reason to take it over because it would be a Muslim nation, the Jewish wouldn"t have a reason to fight any more because it is also a government ran with a large Jewish representation. And the ever growing population of the other population will get there say. There for no one needs to be kicked out, discriminated against, or live in fear that their religion would be any treat against their families, business, or selves. Another reason to have the 25% of the ever growing, other group is because they wouldn"t always 100% agree with the others so they are kind of like a tie breaker, as well as making sure that all of the other religions are equal in number of delegates, 3 doesn"t go into 100 evenly so there would be more representatives for one main religion then another. So I think that looking at that reasoning the people may agree to give the "other" group there fair say. (As a role as peace keeper)
Please find the bugs in my unofficial Israel-Palestin pease plan

The population of Israel is 75% Jewish, 21% Muslim and only 4% other. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... When you add the Palestinian territories, that will boost up the Muslims and the other groups will be even smaller. So you're giving less than 4% of the population 50% of the vote. This is enormously unfair. I don't think it is sustainable because both the Jewish and Muslim factions will fight hard against it. In fact it will be outright war against the current Israeli goverment so it would be impossible to implement in the first place.
Kosher Certification is NOT a Kosher Tax

Like most folk, I am not one of the Chosen People and therefore do not have the god-given right to occupy all the land between the Nile and Euphrates and drive out any non-Jews already living there. "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abraham and said, 'To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates'" (Genesis 15:13-21) "Possess the land and settle it, for I have given you the land in order that you take possession of it" (Numbers 33:53) "Do not allow them to reside in your land" (Exodus 23:33) "Do not give them any consideration" (Deuteronomy 7:2) Therefore I have no religious duties to perform in recognition of this munificent gift from above and, as a gentile destined to burn in hell for the crime of not being a Jew, I certainly don't feel obliged to honour the Jewish god by paying extra for a kosher label on my food. However, even though only 1% of the American population are Jewish, one single firm alone, OK Kosher, certificates 114,000 products produced by over 1,500 companies. . http://www.fco.gov.uk... . http://www.okkosher.com... This is big business and while most people are suffering as a result of the economic crisis, kosher certification outfits are raking in $12 billion a year just for giving permission to put their label on consumer products. . http://www.foodfrombritain.com... Of course, these kosher certification merchants have their costs - rabbis don't give out blessings for free. No these grasping clerics get their bit, don't you worry about that. But who ultimately pays for the rabbis' lavish kickbacks? Yes, that's right, ordinary hardworking American families. As for paying over the odds for healthy food, I suggest people buy organic produce and Muslims should buy halal food in order to comply with their religious obligations. Although this supplement on the price of essential items such as food are not government imposed, and cannot, therefore, be described technically as a tax, because such a large proportion of products are kosher, in reality it is very difficult to avoid shelling out extra for the kosher label and, therefore, kosher certification is a de facto Jewish tax imposed on Jews and non-Jews alike. Thank you.
Kosher Certification is NOT a Kosher Tax

Kosher certification is not a Kosher Tax. It is simply a certification that the items contained in the product are certified kosher. It is a companies choice to pursue certification, not in any way forced upon them. More companies have been pursuing this course as they realize the average consumer (rightly or wrongly) associates kosher with healthy. Kosher certification DOES help out Muslims as well as it certifies that no pork products can be found in the products. It also helps those with milk allergies or lactose intolerance by stating clearly when an item contains dairy products. There is no question that it is a business (although I can attest, not a very lucrative one), but given the fact that it is helpful to a large portion of the public and it is a certification that the companies themselves pursue, it can not be considered a "tax" on the public at large.
Is there a god? round 2

Pro agrees my statement on round 4 is true; we can give and take life, just like a "god" can. yet we cant be a god because it conflicts with your definition of "god" on round 2 (we are not all-powerful spirits, we are not perfect). Due to this confliction, pro fails. Conclusion: Due to the failure of my opponent on this debate, there is no god. Thank your time, you are welcome for opening your mind to a whole new world where you can question Everyting without fear.
Is there a god? round 2

I did not say god can affect nature and lives of people. I was quoting from webster, which you accepted as a reliable source. Yet you havent agreed nor disagreed on my statement which prooves as we now humans can give and take life just like your so called supreme god can. Here is a proof that dolly exists which most likely you never heard: http://en.wikipedia.org... and a human MADE dolly. Literally giving life as we now to a tiny cell, so we can say dolly was created by a human.
Is there a god? round 2

I will rebuttle on that statement actually. 1---humans aren't supreme. If there is something then something has to cause it, what exactly? the big bang. It would take such an infanite force to create creation/the universe that there has to be a god that creates it. Even if the universe had as much matter as a pebble something must have made it. Therefore (a) god must make it. 2---The arguement is "is there a god" and in your statement you say that god CAN affect nature and the lives of people, that doesn't mean he does so therefore your statement doesn't support your position on the topic.
Is there a god? round 2

Based on this definition, god can affect nature and lives of people, so can humans. We can give life to a stem cell (Dolly the cloned sheep), which in this case the "life" of a cell and life of a sheep are entirely different subjects. or we can destroy the entire world with nukes in 10 minutes. thus, we can give life and take life away. So called god has no power to stop us. He/she/it doesnt even get to vote on anything. Do you agree on my statement?
Is there a god? round 2

Thank you for accepting. first, lets start with the "definition" of god: God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe : a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions : a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired http://www.merriam-webster.com... Do you believe this definition is correct? If not, propose you own.
Apartheid was an English (Anglo-Saxon) invention, not a Dutch one

As I have said, Apartheid was an indeed an English invention. It was the same country that gave birth to Jim Crow. A good chunk of the violence and lynchings and murders that occured during Apartheid came in its first 13 years, when it was still under English rule. Not coincidentally, the drive to freedom for black people started with the establishment of the ethnically Dutch South Africa in 1961. So there you have it.
Apartheid was an English (Anglo-Saxon) invention, not a Dutch one

If it was the creation of the English then why was the the National Party (NP), the party which formalised apartheid, a Boer party. A party consisting of mostly Dutch origin members. Yes, the English also had a type of unformalised type of segregation, but it is the Boer whom formalised it and created this racist system. If the English were the creators of this system, they would have applied it to the rest of their vast empire, but this was not applied anywhere else within the British Empire.
Xbox 360 is better than Nintendo Wii

You might want to think about what you say or do. The Nintendo Wii has actually outsold the xbox 360. Pure coincidence? I think not. This is from a few weeks ago. Wired has the whole scoop. http://blog.wired.com... And again from 1up. http://www.1up.com... And Gamespot. http://www.gamespot.com... And Yahoo!. http://tech.yahoo.com... This is called EVIDENCE. Write that down. Don't keep your xbox 360 fans waiting.
Xbox 360 is better than Nintendo Wii

The Nintendo Wii's motion controls allow, for the first time, people to make their homes into baseball parks. Into the Death Star. Into an alley filled with gang bangers wielding swords and guns. It immerses you into a world where you no longer have to button mash or use the joystick to tell your character what to do. Because it lets you BE the main character. After all, would you rather pretend you're a boxer, sword fighter, golfer, or batter without doing anything but pushing buttons, or swinging your arms as if you're doing the real thing. The xbox 360 may be right for you, but others think the Wii is better. My opponent states that the xbox 360 is better, but that is an opinion. Give me cold, hard facts. Now, please, expand.
The Sabbath has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ

I would like to begin by thanking PRO for his comments. Jeremiah PRO has noted that Jeremiah wrote of a “new covenant” that God will make with Israel. However, this new covenant does not mean that the old covenant was being replaced. Nowhere does Jeremiah note that the New Covenant will be replacing the Mosaic Covenant. However, Jeremiah does specifically relate God’s commandment to keep the Sabbath [1]. This “New Covenant” is not a new agreement meant to replace an old agreement, but rather, a renewal of the law. This is a view that has been voiced by both Jewish [2], and Christian scholars [3]. In fact, Jeremiah himself expounds on the differences between the two covenants in the verse following PRO’s quote. He writes that they will no longer teach to know the Lord, because they will all know him [4][5]. Since the New Covenant was not meant to replace the old, we have no reason to assume that the old is no longer in effect, especially in light of the perpetual nature of the Mosaic Laws, as I noted in the previous round. Paul PRO has also noted that Paul told the early Christians in Galatia and Colossae that the law no longer needed to be followed. However, Paul had no authority to abolish these laws. As I noted in the previous round, the law is an eternal commandment from God, and nothing may be added to or subtracted from it. Final Thoughts PRO has claimed that the New Covenant replaced the Mosaic Law. I have showed that this is not the case. I have also showed that Paul’s teachings regarding observation of the Sabbath (and the law in general) are incorrect. I look forward to PRO’s comments in the next round. Sources: [1] https://www.biblegateway.com... [2] http://jewishencyclopedia.com... [3] http://www.jcrelations.net... [4] https://www.biblegateway.com... [5] http://thejewishhome.org...
The Sabbath has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ

There is a renewed covenant with Israel which ensures changes will take place. Jeremiah 31:31-33 "31 The day is coming," says the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD "But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day," says the LORD. "I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." Paul also teaches the law was our school master until Christ. Gal. 3:24 "Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith." Colossians 2:16 "16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. " Conclusion: The Sabbath is no longer in effect as it is a shadow of things to come.