BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Naryuzap is more likely to exist then Biblical God

Pro did not prove his argument. I'm grounded on experience while i had no encounter with Naryuzap. The link you sent isn't proof that the Bible cannot be completely understood. The Old Testament is found to have almost no errors (1). The New Testament is also found no errors affecting doctrine (2). The Bible has Archaeological artifacts proving it's legitimacy according to E.M. Blaiklock " "It is important to note that Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas." (3). The 66 books in the Bible are thousands of years apart from each other pointing to one large plan of God's salvation. John R.W. Stott says ""There is indeed a wide variety of human authors and themes (in the Bible). Yet behind these"there lies a single divine author with a single unifying theme." (4). Prophecies are also true. R.C. Sproul writes ""The very dimension of the sheer fulfillment of prophecy of the Old Testament Scriptures should be enough to convince anyone that we are dealing with a supernatural piece of literature".God has himself planted within the scriptures an internal consistency that bears witness that this is his Word." (5). With these in mind, it is more likely that the Biblical God exists vs. some god that you made up. Sources & links: 1. (Harris, J. G., The Qumran Commentary on Habakkuk. London: A. R. Mowbray, 1966, p.22-30). 2. (John W. Wenham, Christ and he Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 186-88.) 3. http://www.amazon.com... 4. http://www.christianbook.com... 5. http://www.christianbook.com...
Naryuzap is more likely to exist then Biblical God

Only proof my opponent has that bible is true is his word and links to words of another people who don't have any proof except words. Bible can not be proof that what is written in bible is true. As stated in Round 1, number of believers will not be relevant in this debate. Evidence for problems in translation: http://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion: My opponent has not refuted some of my arguments, and has not even responded to others. My opponent provided no arguments that Biblical God is more likely to Exist than Naryuzap.
Naryuzap is more likely to exist then Biblical God

"I experienced Naryuzap while I never encountered Biblical God. My opponent fails to provide proof other then his words, and words of more Biblical God's believers that what is written in Bible is truth. What kind of relationship does my opponent have with Biblical God?" The difference is that I have sources that you can objectively observe to be of the Bible while you don't. I cannot prove to you that the Biblical God exists, but neither can you prove to me that your god exists, so i leave it up to my God to give you a revelation of himself. Like i said, no evidence is given that the Bible has had any official canon of it's books. "Rev 1:19 says "Write what is, and what you saw, without making stuff up" in non-spooky language. It only confirms my statement that God was not dictating people what to write in books of bible." This verse clearly goes against your previous statement "Each book was written by human. Bible does not say Biblical God was dictating people what to write. It only says they were inspired by Biblical God." "Sure, you can learn their language, and you still will not interpret it in the same way someone else would. As can be proven by 2 people translating any complex book." Please show me evidence that there is a problem in interpreting the same complex book to reach a conclusion and i will believe you =)
Naryuzap is more likely to exist then Biblical God

- "divinely inspired" is meaningless spooky language - I experienced Naryuzap while I never encountered Biblical God. My opponent fails to provide proof other then his words, and words of more Biblical God's believers that what is written in Bible is truth. What kind of relationship does my opponent have with Biblical God? - So does Naryuzap. My opponent mentioned this as difference - Non-sequitur - Word can not be read. Only book can be read. If something is happening, we call it natural. If something is not happening, then we call it supernatural. Saying that something supernatural is happening is contradiction. - Then who did? Books that make bible were not always together. As my opponent can see here ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), different religious groups use different cannons. Even roman catholic and protestant and cannons are different. - Rev 1:19 says "Write what is, and what you saw, without making stuff up" in non-spooky language. It only confirms my statement that God was not dictating people what to write in books of bible. - Sure, you can learn their language, and you still will not interpret it in the same way someone else would. As can be proven by 2 people translating any complex book. I expect my opponent to answer the rest of my statements in round 2 in his next round.
God Exists

I await his opening arguments, and hope for a productive debate. The affirmative has said that he holds the burden of proof. If he fails to support his claims, or sufficiently answer my own objections, he has said that he would lose. I expect him to keep hold on this throughout the debate. Before we initiate the debate, I have a couple points I want to clear up. First off, appeals to probability are required for an inductive argument to work, since they don't deal with absolute certainties. I do find it strange that you only consider inductive arguments since that eliminates some of the best arguments like the Kalam and the telelogical argument. Second off, to make sure we have our definitions straight, you define God as an omnipotent being who is wise, correct? Are you considering omnibenevolence?
God Exists

God exists or does not.This is an evidence based argument; the burden of proof is on me (Pro). Con must demonstrate why my arguments are invalid and fail to constitute as evidence for God, and may provide counter evidence of his own apart from mine.I use the word "proof" loosely, as a solely mathematical sense of the word is inapplicable to such a resolution. True proofs exist only in pure mathematics. Rather, this debate concerns evidence-based arguments following a line of logical, inductive reasoning. Evidence which can be shown to unequivocally demonstrate the existence of God and which is consistent with the hypothesis of His being is what I aim for in this debate. If I fail to do this or fail to answer my opponent's pertinent objections, I will not meet my burden and thus loose the debate.DefinitionsGod: The spiritual, transcendent, sentient and supremely powerful and wise being who created all things within our known universe.Exist: To have a substantive basis in objectively intelligible reality. Rules for The DebateNo logical fallacies.No appeals to probability.Only science-based arguments.Round 1: Acceptance* Round 2: Opening Arguments (Con May Provide Rebuttals)Round 3: Rebuttals/Defense of Arguments (No New Arguments)Round 4: Final Defense of Arguments (No New Arguments or Rebuttals)*Please read and comment if you have any questions. Acceptance of this debate entails concession that both parties are held accountable to the rules, definitions and structure of this debate.
Selection for tertiary education should be entirely standardized and merit based.

Thank you, doopydoopdoop, for starting this debate. I have found it to be rather interesting I will begin with defending my own case, then go on to attack my opponents "It is not just that access to education is dictated by ones parents wealth position in society" I have two responses --> I do not argue parental wealth. I argue that somebody that is born in a poorer neighborhood with a poorer school district will have a less likely chance to succeed, thus have a disadvantage on 'merit tests' --> My opponent is trying to say that the the smartest people in society should be rewarded with the best education. This is wrong for two reasons: (a) The cycle of poverty would never cease to an end (b) Somebody born with a similar IQ in a poorer neighborhood is automatically going to do worse on 'merit tests' versus somebody who is born with the same IQ (equally as smart), yet just because they are born in a better school district they are going to do better on 'merit tests'. "The argument that athletes should be given special admission to university is a dated and costly burden to society" I have two responses --> because colleges hold athletes to a lower standard IN college, then college should hold athletes to a lower standard BEFORE college (i.e applications) --> this practice is not 'costly'. Once again, between ticket sales, home games, and TV broadcasting grants, the standard of education is increased for the rest of the college, which, I believe, is what my opponents wants "Adoption studies indicate that children tend to report similar IQ's to their biological parents despite the type of environment they were raised in. Secondly, the socioeconomic status of an area does not dictate the quality of education acquired in that area, rather it is the nature..." I have two responses --> Good (wealthy) environment = Good (wealthy) school district = better learning = more learned = does better on a 'merit test' (in case my opponent does not understand) --> Okay, let's take two adoption kids with the same IQ at birth. Are you trying to tell me that the child who goes to a private school in the upper west side of Manhatten in New York City is going to end up with a poorer education than a child who goes to school in the slums of Bronx? Hopefully you, the voting panel, can see my opponents flawed logic reasoning "My opponent has criticized my previous argument due to the fact that I did not include a value. This is simply due to the fact that I do not want to insult the intelligence of my audience." --> My opponent is insulting the voting panel, for he did not think that the people who vote would understand a word like 'justice' or 'equality'. Hmm, go figure Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I strongly urge a negation of the resolution
The United States Should Lower the Drinking Age to 18

Since the passing of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, a person must be 21 or older to purchase or consume alcoholic beverages in the United States. Some groups would like to see the age lowered to 18, while others argue that the age should stay at 21. I will take the position that the minimum drinking age should be kept at 21 and that lowering it to 18 would be harmful for both the consumer and society. The opposition will take the position that the minimum drinking age should be lowered from 21, and for the sake of this debate, we will say that the new proposed minimum drinking age is 18.
The United States Should Lower the Drinking Age to 18

My reasons for keeping the drinking age at 21 can be summed up in 4 basic points. 1) The brain is not fully developed until age 21. Even though 18 is the age of adulthood in the United States, the frontal lobes of the brain do not fully develop until around the 20's (. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). The frontal lobes are very important for things such as planning, fear assessment, and emotional regulational. Allowing drinking before the lobes are fully developed would be medically irresponsible, as alcohol can easily damage the brain while it is still growing as well as lead to a higher chance of alcoholism. 2) The environment that alcohol would put minors in is dangerous. The environment that alcohol is served in is not the most safe environment for younger people. Clubs, lounges and bars would suddenly be opened up to a younger crowd, which would only cause trouble. These environments are notorious for issues like drugs, rape, and violence, all of which would pose an extra large risk to underage drinkers. Many 18 year olds still rely on someone like a parent for shelter and other necessities, so the dangers that they put themselves in impact more than themselves at that point in their lives, so the risk that they would be exposed to something more dangerous is too high. 3) Lowering the drinking age to 18 would only breed even more, and younger, underage drinkers. Currently, the United States has seen a decrease in the amount of underage drinkers since the drinking age was increased to 21. Lowering it to 18 would only cause an increase in the number of underage drinkers. Many 18 year olds are still in highschool, with connections to plenty of younger students. With them being able to legally purchase alcohol, many of their younger friends would encourage them to buy alcohol for them, or would be exposed to it at their parties where they had leaglly bought it. This would increase the amout of underage drinkers and increase the number of minors who will grow up with alcoholism. 4) Historically, when the drinking age was lower, underage drunk drivers were involved in almost twice as many accidents. This is a direct quote from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving website: "before the 21 minimum legal drinking age was implemented by all states, underage drunk drivers were involved in over twice as many fatal traffic crashes as today. "
The Truth is non-existent.

Apologies for the delayed response, I was busy with schoolwork and such. Anyway, it seems I need to clear up a few things. The intent behind the statement,"Our society is built upon a concept of right and wrong" was to convey the importance of this topic and why it should be discussed. The state of society has had little influence on my perception of this subject. I came to this understanding through deep logical thinking on my own time. That's why I posted this topic under Philosophy. Secondly, my statement of, "...know that when you accept this debate you are making the case for the existence of truth and the existence of good and evil." was meant to make it clear to whoever accepted this debate what their stance is supposed to be. If you are skeptical of my refusal to believe the existence of truth, then you believe in the existence of truth and should be prepared to explain why the truth exists. That was the entire purpose behind the original post, to make it clear how and what is going to be discussed. I will give you a reason as to why these thoughts originated later in this post. Thirdly, I find the definition of fact and reality you provide intriguing. Specifically, reality. "Reality: the state or quality of being real.". That doesn't really give us any information now, does it? Reality needs to be clearly defined in order for us to discuss a topic such as this. What is reality? There is no clear answer to a question such as this. Most people will answer that reality is informational wavelengths processed by your brain. What you see, touch, hear, etc. is what we define as "reality". So basically, these people are suggesting that reality is simply electrical pulses that shoot through your brain to create images and sounds for you to perceive. So then, does that make dreams reality? After all, you can feel, touch, and hear things in your dreams. How do we know that we don't actually "wake up" when we "fall asleep"? It's simple: we don't. The only difference between a dream and "reality" is that "reality" is a lot more convincing than a dream. We don't know what "reality" is. We have no other option than to rely on the illusion our brain creates to interact with it. That leads to the question however: Is our reality being manipulated? By that I mean, is this reality, not truly reality? If reality is all in your brain, who's to say your reality isn't simply being created in another realm of existence? What if an advanced civilization in a completely separate realm of being are creating this reality by manipulating the electrical impulses our brain is sending back and forth? It sounds absurd, and you're probably chuckling to yourself as you read this, but it's not as far-fetched if you ponder on it. So if reality isn't real, what is real? And for that matter, do facts and the truth exist at all? What does it even mean to exist? If this is all simply an illusion, then nothing truly exists, and therefore, the truth does not exist, either.
The Truth is non-existent.

Hello, it has been a long time since I debated on DDO, but this topic to debate about caught my interest. Therefore, let's debate! First off, "Our society is built upon a concept of right and wrong. However, I do not believe that these concepts hold any real meaning in our universe. In other words, I do not believe in the concept of Truth." That is not a logical reason to not believe in truth, it would only be a logical reason to judge society and then create your own perspective. Society has flaws, that doesn't mean you stop believing in Truth anymore , it just means that you don't believe in society anymore. Second, "I imagine many people will disagree with me on this, so know that when you accept this debate you are making the case for the existence of truth and the existence of good and evil. I"m excited to see what people have to say about this." No, it's that I'm skeptical of the belief of not believing in Truth anymore. You must give me an example as to why you would rather not believe in Truth anymore, instead of not believing in society anymore. And Finally, "Therefore, there is no such thing as "should", either. There is no such thing as a fact, or a reality." First of all, let's define Fact and Reality. Fact: Something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. A few examples: 1. Something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 2. A truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 3. Something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. [1] Now, let's define Reality. Reality: the state or quality of being real. [2] Sources: [1] http://www.dictionary.com... [2] http://www.dictionary.com... Your next argument, if you please.
The Truth is non-existent.

Our society is built upon a concept of right and wrong. However, I do not believe that these concepts hold any real meaning in our universe. In other words, I do not believe in the concept of Truth. Therefore, there is no such thing as "should", either. There is no such thing as a fact, or a reality. I imagine many people will disagree with me on this, so know that when you accept this debate you are making the case for the existence of truth and the existence of good and evil. I"m excited to see what people have to say about this.
The bible does not contain contradictions

1. CON SAYS THAT THE BIBLE SAYS MEN CAN HAVE ONLY ONE WIFE,AND IN OTHER PLACES IT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE MORE THAN ONE,AND THAT PAUL SAID NOT TO MARRY AT ALL. Nowhere in the Bible does it say people should have two or more wives.The Bible tells us the lives of the people in it.They were not perfect ,they made mistakes,just like we do.Only Jesus lived a perfect life.We should try to avoid the mistakes the people in the bible made,and try to live like Jesus. All the men who had two or more wives experienced problems because of it..For example Soloman's hundreds of wives led him into idolatry.(1Kings 11:1-3) Abraham married Hagar his second wife and problems came with it. Genesis 2:24 says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife(singular)and they shall become one flesh. " Here are some other verses that say have one wife, Ephesians 5:33, Deuteronomy 17:17, 1Timothy 3:2, 1Corinthians 7:2, and 1Timothy 3:12 In 1Corinthians 7:7-9 Paul said. "But I say to the unmarried and. to the widows,it is good for them if they remain even as I am (unmarried),But if they cannot exercise self-control,let them marry,For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." He is saying you do not have to marry,but you can. 2. CON SAYS THE BIBLE SAYS YOU CAN DRINK WINE,AND ALSO SAYS YOU CAN NOT. The Bible says you can drink wine for medical reasons (1Timothy 5:23) Jesus turned water into wine (John 2:3-11) But the Bible says not to get drunk on wine..These verses forbids being drunk. Ephesians 5:6, Romans 13:13, Galatians 5:19-21. The Bible also says do not drink if it will offend a fellow believer.(Romans 14:15-21,and do not drink if it will hinder the Gospel. (1Corinthians 9:19-23) CON SAYS MURDER IS FORBIDDEN IN THE OT,AND IS COMMANDED IN THE OT. God did command the jews to kill everyone in the cities he told them to conquer and destroy.The people they killed was very bad people,people who did child sacrifice and all sorts of wickedness.( Deuternomy 9:5,Deuternomy 12:31) God did warn the people what would happen if they would not repent.He gave them 400 years to repent. ( Genesis 15:13-16)
The bible does not contain contradictions

Two disclaimers: 1. Pro asked for "contradicting verses." We will have to tackle contradicting principles instead. The reason is that if we lift verses here and there of course we will find contradictions. For example, Matthew 8, when the Lord cast out demons into swine, the Scriptures say He met "two men" coming out of the tombs but Luke 8 and Mark 5 both say the Lord met "a" man (that is a contradiction). It is better that we argue about whole principles and look for contradictions in those principles. That ensures that we are not just mincing verses but comparing "Scripture with Scripture." 2. I am a Christian and have experienced the Scriptures to be true and accurate, the infallible word of God (as He said). Still, I read puzzling contradictions in the Scriptures and am perfectly fine with that. Christians are supposed to question and read and study, so I gladly take up that chance here and offer the following contradictions that I have found. ___ Three Small Contradictions to Start I. Wives. How Many Are Men Supposed to Have: One? More Than One? or None? The Bible teaches that men should have only one wife but it also gives examples of men having several wives. Which is it teaching? If the Scriptures are given as our "ensamples," this is a contradiction. Both examples are taught. David had wives. Abraham had wives. Lamech had wives. Jacob had wives. Solomon had wives. Yet, men were commanded in Genesis to leave Father and Mother and cling to their wife (singular). The Bible also teaches that a man should, to avoid fornication, have his own wife (singular). (II Corinthians 7). On a side note, Paul admonishes Christians that it would be best if they did not marry at all (I Cor 7). So, concerning wives, the Scriptures offer three contradictions: men can have several wives; men can have "a" wife; men can choose not to marry. This is a contradiction. II. To Wine or Not to Wine, That is the Question Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach"s sake. But Proverbs teach that wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging. Deuteronomy 14.26 teaches that wine has a purpose in festivities and can be drunken yet Proverbs 31 (and others) teach that wine is not for kings, should be shunned and avoided. Proverbs 104 also teaches that wine makes a man"s heart merry yet Ecclesiastes teaches that wine makes a man foolish. Concerning wine, the Scriptures teach men they can drink wine but also that they cannot drink wine. That is a contradiction. III. To Murder or Not to Murder, That is the (next) Question Murder is forbidden (in the OT) yet murder is commanded (in the OT: David slaughters the Philistines, the Children of Israel slaughter Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, and all according to God's command). The Scriptures teach that murder is forbidden by God and also allowed by God. This is a contradiction. Over to Pro. - msp