BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is the truth

Well, you know what happened to the Titanic, right? Well, the person that built it was interviewed, and he was asked "How tough do you think this ship is?" And he said, "Not even God can sink this ship." and we all know what happened to the Titanic Right? Another example is when some people were in a full car, drunk. and one mother grabbed her daughter's hand, and said "May God protect you" and she mocked the name and said "Only if he sits in the trunk." and they got in a car wreck that killed them all. and the only thing that was perfect was the trunk. They couldn't even tell what kind of car it was it was so bad. And in the trunk there was 2 dozen eggs. NONE of them were even CRACKED. God was there.
academic marks are better or creativity

Even though my opponent has forfeited the round, I may as well post an argument, as it is the final round. Now, to make things clear, I am all for creativity when it comes to exams and marks, but when you think about it, creativity only gets you SOME of the marks you need. The rest are based on your knowledge, not your imagination. My opponent recently stated that academic marks will only get you to the doors of the company, but when you think about it, academics are used throughout a person's career, so in fact they go into the company with you. An employer does not just look for creative ideas and thinking, he or she looks for great intellect on the subject(s) at hand.
academic marks are better or creativity

i always think that creativity is more than academic marks because academic marks will just only take u to the doors of the company but ur creativity will take u to the richest persons. academic marks are just makes u qualified for giving the interview but ur creativity will help u to face questions in interview, never relly upon ur academic marks just see what ur creativity is. think something different from others and think big as compare to others. dont rin behind success run behind excellence sucess will follow u. have a goal in ur mind that i want to be first in life race not in academic race because in academic race bookish ants come first but in lifes race lions come first.so believe in ur creativity do some creative
There exists absolute truth.

The resolution is "there exists absolute truth." My opponent, being Pro, has the burden of proof, meaning that he must establish that there exists absolute truth. My job, as Con, is to undermine his case, which I can do either by showing that (a) his arguments for the existence of absolute truth fail or that (b) there cannot be an absolute truth.My opponent sets forward the following criteria for absolute truth:1. It is true in every context.2. It depends on its own truthfulness for being valid.3. It proves itself.I have no issues with these criteria.Having agreed on the definition of absolute truth, it falls on my opponent to establish the existence of absolute truth, so defined. He clearly has not done this, because he has not given any specific examples of absolute truth - not one. His opening post discusses the issue only in generalities, and does not specify what these alleged absolute truths are. It is all very well to speak of absolute truth in the abstract, but in the absence of specific examples their actual existence remains very questionable.Therefore, I challenge my opponent to give examples of absolute truths in his next post and establish that they meet his criteria. If he cannot do this, then we must negate the resolution.
There exists absolute truth.

I believe that absolute truth exists. Here is what I define as absolute truth: Absolute truth is all absolute, being correct in every context of reality, and it is a truth that depends on its own truthfulness for being valid. As such, this truth is self-reliant for its validity. This truth then proves itself as valid. Also, absolute truth is composed of aspects, each aspect being an essential ingredient for absolute truth. These aspects include syntactic and state-wise components, which form symmetric opposites, like in dualities, supporting each other. Further, my construction of absolute truth goes against the set-theoretic paradox of self-inclusion for the fact that I am using a new form of containment that is descriptive, instead of that which is just topological. As such, these two types of containment, descriptive and topological, form what I call dual self-inclusion relationships, which are self-supporting in the act of self-containment. Accordingly, the most general or invariant dual self-containment relation is then defined as this absolute truth in the sense that is syntactic. The syntax is dual to absolute truth's state, which is the content of total self-containment or absolute truth. Also: In other words, absolute truth is self-determination, which proves itself by the very combination of the terms "self" and "determination", where "determination" means proving or of a truth function, either with its own proof/truth function or not, and "self" is applied onto determination, making it self-proving. I define a "truth function" hereunder as any reason. Therefore, a determiner is a truth function or deterministic/one-way constraint, in the most general of senses, including both the abstract and the concrete. Reality can include more than just the concrete because the abstract can exist; that is, there is nothing making it so that it can't. Saying that it doesn't exist because you can't see it with your eyes is an appeal to stone.
Rock Band 2 vs Guitar Hero World Tour

Alright. I do enjoy Paramore. But yet again. Rock Band has Paramore's "Thats what you get". .. so. .. .. Anyway. The loading does sorta teach patience but thats pretty much off subject. True it is a challenge if you've never played it before but I mean since this entire website is about OPINION. It's not hard for me because I play on Expert and i have beaten Rock Band 2, World Tour, GH3, and GH1. When world tour came out it was a big deal and i really wanted it. But now that i have it its really nothing special. Rock Band 2 is a SUPER CHallenge due to the Endless Setlist 2 and everything else. Songs like Visions by Abnormality, Panic Attack, Painkiller, Battery, and much more. Overall Guitar hero world tour is no challenge for me. Rock Band is much more enjoyable and more of a challenge.
Rock Band 2 vs Guitar Hero World Tour

OK to start off by just going off what my opponent has said: I myself have barelyl played these games before, maybe once or twice, but I got enough to go on. Ok I absoulutely agree with that the scoring system on Rock Band could use some tweaking, but hasnt gotten any. IN Guitar Hero however there are 50! Set List: Yet again, it mostly concludes to the persons' tastes in music. I personally prefer the Guitar Hero's songs due to the mixture of 80's to 90's to now in the present. And Guitar Hero World Tour has Paramore! Who doesnt love Paramore? Loading: Sure the loading takes forever, but you must consider this when voting Neg/Against...when loading takes forever...it teaches us the value of patience, which is important. And with that time to spare you can do your HOMEWORK for once! Challenge: The game is hard if you have no clue on how to play the game. But Guitar Hero is a stepping stone to awesome playing. Now I will use the pro argument that you stated in your first speech. OK. Now, the good things about Guitar Hero World Tour Alright pretty much the only things guitar hero beats against rock band is the fact you can make your own songs. Thats it. Online play is a bit better but overall Rock Band 2 is better than Guitar Hero World Tour. Enough said. *I feel so clueless answering to this debate.... good luck pro* Vote NEG
Rock Band 2 vs Guitar Hero World Tour

Alright. First off I want to note that i have BOTH Rock Band 2 And Guitar Hero World Tour for PS3. So I know what im talking about. Alright, first off im gonna note the things bad about Rock Band 2 Scoring System: It seems the scoring system on Rock Band could use some tweaking. I believe for a x1 multiplier the notes are only 25 each. However in Guitar Hero they are 50. Thats the only issues with Rock Band 2. So lets talk about issues with Guitar Hero. Set List: This part is all opinion but the songs on Guitar Hero's set list are just awful. Rock Band 2 has not only more songs, but better DLC and set list. Loading: The loading takes FOREVER. For PS2 the loading takes even longer. I mean i have patience its just not enough to wait so long for not that good of a song. Challenge: This game really isn't hard. The final song is not hard at all. B. Y. O. B, possibly the only hard songs on it are Pull Me Under and Satch Boogie. Thats it. Alright. Now things Rock Band 2 has that Guitar Hero World Tour doesn't have. First off Rock Band 2 has a set crew and you can hire managers, you can unlock WAY more venues and cities. More items and clothes to buy, face paints, mask, and guitars. Sure Rock Band may have "copied" Guitar Hero but the even surpassed them. I know that HARMONIX got bought out by MTV so it may be the same company in a way, but its still a more enjoyable game. OK. Now, the good things about Guitar Hero World Tour Alright pretty much the only things guitar hero beats against rock band is the fact you can make your own songs. Thats it. Online play is a bit better but overall Rock Band 2 is better than Guitar Hero World Tour.
Christianity is incorrect and morally flawed

New to this, are you Dylan? Well, welcome to debate.org. I'm Duncan and I'll be your first opponent. Now, from your opening, you may either be a troll trying to annoy people, or you just want to have the easiest debate topic ever. However, I am an humanist, and I am being open minded by defending the opposite side. Now, onto the debate! Now, you have a very poor grasp of Catholicism or any other denominations. Most denominations (at least outside of America, couldn't tell how it is there) no longer follow the "Old Testament God" that you speak of in your opening. By the way, it would give me a further understanding of your perspective if you answered whether or not you've read the Old Testament yourself. Now, few people believe the bible at all now, or at least only interpret it vaguely, not literally. Christians believe in a God who forgives those who repent, and few believe in a hell at all. They also believe that humans are granted free will, which is why if they wanted to pray less about sport and more about those in need they could, as is part of their freedom. The bible can be proved by common sense, not science, but it is interpreted literally s you might think. Christianity has changed now, gradually improving, and I advise you realize the progress made by the various denominations and remain calmer during your next speech. Oh yeah, in my first debate, I forgot to post my reply in time, so if you make the same mistake, leave it in the comments section. Awaiting your response and hoping you enjoy your first online debate, Duncan.
Christianity is incorrect and morally flawed

Christianity is flawed from the roots up. The Christian "God" purposely gives his creations flaws and knows that they'll make mistakes, just so he can punish them for the mistakes he gave them, and send them to a place called "Hell" that he also created to punish the deeds of his creations that he basicly programmed them to do. The bible contradicts itself countless times, and the fact that Christians beleive that God is needed more helping Tebow get a touchdown than feeding starving children in Africa... is just ridiculous. Also, most of The Bible has been proven wrong by modern science.
God Debate Switch-a-roo

Well, then. I suppose I'll just leave my fate in the hands of the audience. They may judge as they will. Would anyone else like to do a debate like this? I have in mind one of us taking pro, and the other con, and then we switch, the one taking con, and the other pro. I'd like to do this on any of the following issues: 1. We can have as much morality without a God as we can have with one. 2. Philosophy does not support the truth of Theism. 3. There is no scientific evidence for God. 4. Spiritual experiences are not evidence of God. So if you select 3 and you want to start as PRO: Then you'll argue that there is no scientific evidence for God, and I'll argue that there is. AND then we'll do a second debate, in which you'll argue that there IS scientific evidence for God, and I'll argue that there's NOT. As a bonus, we can see if anyone can tell that we're faking when we are.
God Debate Switch-a-roo

*my thanks* Hmm...I make no claim to prove anything to 100%. I don't even believe in God with 100% certainty. I only say, that it is more reasonable to believe in God, than it is to not believe in God. If you think that means you win, that that's what the burden of proof is, so be it; I can only show the truth for what it is. For what it's worth, independently of whether you win the debate or not, the arguments put forth are sufficient to lead the willing soul to search for the truth. And if they seek, then will they find. As for Bayesian evidence, it is no mere opinion of mine. I recommend the topic to your study. How could anything which is more likely to occur if a hypothesis is true than false NOT be evidence for it? How could any evidence NOT be something that was more likely to be observed if a hypothesis were true than false? Bayesian evidence allows you to update the probability that a given hypothesis is true incrementally. Every piece of evidence can be precisely integrated into the calculation. It allows for a calculation based on the fullest use of evidence. It works like so. If one out of a million times, someone tells a story of eternal significance and is threatened with death if they don't recant, and then they just DIE even though they're lying... And the other 999,999 times they tell the story, are threatened, and die because they're telling the truth... Then out of a million observations of someone dying for a story like this, 999,999 of them will occur when they're telling the truth, and once it'll occur even though the story is a lie. Pick one at random, and a million to one you'll pick one where the dead one was telling the truth. So an observation of this kind is million to one evidence that the story is true. Just imagine how you would naturally think of someone who died before they would say something was false. How often would you figure they knew it was false and just died for it anyway? Now suppose that the odds of a resurrection from the dead are one out of ten billion times. 1/10,000,000,000 multiplied by 1,000,000/1 Comes out ten thousand to one that the story is false, anyway, just because it's more likely that something freakishly unlikely got someone to die for a lie, than it is for something as freakishly unlikely as a resurrection to occur. So our new odds are 10,000 to 1 against a resurrection. But suppose we observed ANOTHER martyr's death under similar circumstances. 1/10,000 multiplied by ANOTHER 1,000,000/1 And the odds end up at one hundred to one that the story is TRUE. And so on. Check how often an observation happens when a hypothesis true, and how often it happens when it's false. The proportion of the former to the latter is the probability that the hypothesis is true. Multiply that by the probability from all the other evidence, whether it's 1/1,000,00 or 1,000,000/1, and that's your end probability of the truth of the hypothesis. But, you'll notice, you never get beyond probabilities. We must learn to be comfortable with them. Action amid uncertainty. This is faith.
God Debate Switch-a-roo

That is an opinion at the target argument. You must prove it. You hold a little, annoying, horrific role in this debate called BOP. (it is noted in the first round) No matter how probable you need certainty. %99.99 Won't do. %99.9999999999999999999999999999 Won't do. You need %100. *note to pro. I am impressed at that argument. that looks amazing from a christian's perspective.*
God Debate Switch-a-roo

Con-- Me, I am christian and will argue that god DOESN'T exist. Pro-- You, you must be atheist and will argue that god DOES exist. The purpose is that after I calmed my christian bloodlust against atheism in my first month here i got bored of the god debates that take up about one-fifth to one-seventh of our beloved site. So i want to spice it up a bit. And the christian god as described in the bible (for standard lets use the KJV) is the god we are arguing about existing. I have a url for you: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org... //////////// VOOOOOOOTERS!!! VOTERS! Hey voters! Please read the rules below as they must be enforced. Thank you! //////////// Modified Definitions & Rules (MD&R) --Rules-- 1). Con must be christian and argue against god's existence. 2). Pro must be atheist and argue for god's existence. 3). Exception for pro: If you are agnostic i will let you argue pro. 4). When pro or con unless specified uses a word for which i have provided a modified definition for its definition is always the modified definition i have provided. 5). Pro may also create these "modified definitions" but cannot change or make another modified definition for a word i already have done so for. Mine are universal and necessary to be specified for the debate to go smoothly. 6). All modified definitions must be created in the first round. 7). If rules 1, 2, or 3 are not followed it is an automatic loss for the offender. 8). If rules 4, 5, or 6 are not followed the offender is to be voted by all voters as having bad conduct. If BOTH of us break any of them then voters are to vote that we had equal conduct. 9). Disobeying the round specifications is to be punished by the voters by awarding the opponent "convincing arguments". --Modified Definitions-- God- The christian god as described in the KJV Bible. Is an entity that is thought to possibly exist. Entity- Something capable of thought. Thought- The creation of ideas and opinions. For all definitions not modified refer to here: http://www.merriam-webster.com... //////////// --Rounds-- Round 1 -- Acceptance/Introduction Round 2 -- Arguments/Rebuttals Round 3 -- Arguments/Rebuttals Round 4 -- Arguments/Rebuttals Round 5 -- Conclusion/No new arguments or rebuttals //////////// --For pro:-- You hold BOP. You must be atheist or agnostic. You are arguing for god's existence. Good luck. //////////// Hello, i am The Holy Macrel. I will be arguing against god's existence.
There is No Rational Reason to Believe in God

Thank you JayShayWhat can be more humbling than acknowledging a being as great as God?A beleif in God has not stopped science or human advancement. But that is a different debate.The resolution being deiscussed right now is, "There is No Rational Reason to Believe in God". In this regard we can compare arguments given for the existence of God to what we know of rational justification and logic inferrences.A counter argument that doesn't include God does not make the original argument irrational or even invalid. Only when evidence is presented that expressly rejects a premise does tha argument become irrational to advocate for.When we look at the arguments given by theist, we find the same elements foud in Atheist arguments. We also find sound inferencesa and the use of facts and premsies to follow to a conclusion.Thank you.
There is No Rational Reason to Believe in God

This is the fifth and final round of this debate. There will be no rebuttals or new arguments. I will now make my conclusion. While science is constantly making discoveries and encouraging us to rethink what we know, I believe that humility is one of the most crucial traits we can possess. To be humble means to accept that we are not the center of the universe; to accept that we are far from knowing everything; to accept that there is most likely no god listening to our thoughts; to accept that we are but a pale blue dot in the midst of a deep and mysterious cosmos. Humility is not something I see in arguments for the existence of God. These arguments appear to dismiss the fact that our perception and knowledge of the universe is miniscule. A more rational and humble response to our lack of knowledge is not to say "I don't know, therefore God did it" but rather "I don't know, let's try to figure it out." We simply do not know enough to settle upon such grand conclusions. Assumptions get us nowhere until reason and evidence are brought to the table. I believe I have demonstrated that there is no rational reason to believe in God. I thank Mhykiel for debating me. The debate was very interesting!
There is No Rational Reason to Believe in God

Thank you Mhykiel for your intricate response! I will now respond to my opponent's argument for the existence of God: Godel's Ontological Argument. The ontological argument is one that I left out of my opening criticisms because it has become so abstract. It has taken so many different forms by so many different people, such that its central meaning has become so ambiguous and difficult to fully grasp for many. The majority of my opponent's writing was about how we can or cannot logically conclude that certain things are true without the need for absolute certainty, given enough knowledge. Yet, there are no clear reasons provided for why we should accept the axioms of Godel's Ontological Argument as true. Thus the conclusion that God exists is only true if you choose to accept the axioms. If God exists in reality, he should exist regardless of whether we accept or deny his existence. My opponent writes about the issue with Deontological Justification, saying "It requires a knowledge of many variables and the extent of a domain." I believe those very words also apply to Godel's Ontological Argument in explaining why it is irrational to accept. What if property A is not positive? We cannot possibly know that because a certain property is positive in our world, it must be positive in all possible worlds because we have never experienced another world. How can we possess enough certainty to assume that necessary existence is always a positive property? If there was a universe that only consisted of pain and misery, would existence still necessarily be a positive property? We simply do not have enough knowledge pertaining to the universe we live in, nor do we know the extent of the universe's domain in order to use this reasoning in an attempt to reach the conclusion that God exists. The fact that a MacBook was able to prove this argument true is, frankly, meaningless. Humans built computers. Humans taught computers how to interpret data. Thus, using a device we made to confirm an idea we created is illogical, incredibly biased and does not get us anywhere in my eyes. It is like defining God as "the greatest thing that exists." By giving the concept of God this meaning, then by definition God must exist. This logic is clearly flawed. If we created the word "realicorns" and defined it as "unicorns that exist," then by definition unicorns must exist. Except we have reached the conclusion based on reason that they do not exist. And to the best of my knowledge and reason, neither does God. If God is real, and is truly the greatest thing imaginable, it seems both unlikely and demeaning that his existence can be proved through equations, let alone proved by a MacBook. Would it not seem more logical that a being of this scale and magnitude would require more effort on our part to prove it is real than only equations? I eagerly await my opponent's response!
There is No Rational Reason to Believe in God

Greetings. I will argue that there is no rational reason to believe in God. My opponent will argue that there are rational reasons to believe in God. Definitions (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Rational: based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings 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 Format Round 1: acceptance only Round 2: main arguments Round 3: rebuttals Round 4: rebuttals Round 5: conclusion only (no rebuttals or new arguments) 72 hours max/round 10,000 characters max/round I look forward to a civil and interesting debate!