BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Regardless of the existence of God, the Bible is wrong about many, many things.

This is pretty simple. If God doesn't exist, well, then the bible is wrong about God existing. If, he exists, as described by doctrine, as an almighty, righteous, and omnipotent God, then the Bible is wrong." ---> Hmmm,... If he is as described by the doctrines,.. the Bible is wrong?,.. If the bible is right, then its wrong? I am not sure what my opponent is trying to say here. "Basic doctrine says that we (humans) have free will." --> What doctrines would these be,... please explain. - God works in the regenerate. Phil 2:2 REGENERATE: 1. To become formed or constructed again. 2. To undergo spiritual conversion or rebirth; reform. 3. To effect regeneration. UNREGENERATE: 1. a. Not spiritually renewed or reformed; not repentant. b. Sinful; dissolute. 2. a. Not reconciled to change; unreconstructed. b. Stubborn; obstinate. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Philippians 2:2 - Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. "However, the Bible has God breaking this ideal. That is, God interferes with the Free Will of man. Numerous instances of this occur. The Great Flood, the destruction of Jericho, and pretty much any communication between man and his creator." ---> Human choice of both good and evil originates within the person's own volition or will; it is free in the sense that he is conscious only of his own freedom of action. We are never as uninfluenced as we think. - I defined the word unregenerate above because of my opponents following claims. IN summary of claims,... 1.) The great flood killed innocent people - No, it is said in Genesis, man was wicked,.. Satan worked within them, the unregenerate. Ephesians 2:2 2.) The flood killed all man except Noah - Noah took with him his family. His 3 sons Ham, Japeth, Shem represented the main continents repopulating. 3.) Communicating with man is violation of free will - If free will exists,.. this is impossible, as man would have free will to communicate back. 4.) God proved his own existence - Faith requires no proof,.. Need I remind my opponent that his own resolution is REGARDLESS of existence of God. My opponent in pretty much his entire second round completely ignores his own resolution by calling regard to God and assuming the existence of God to back each of his claims. All of my opponents claims are in regards to the existence of God,... It is my opponents platform to support that the Bible is wrong about many things, these "things" are to be without regard to the existence of God.
Regardless of the existence of God, the Bible is wrong about many, many things.

This is pretty simple. If God doesn't exist, well, then the bible is wrong about God existing. If, he exists, as described by doctrine, as an almighty, righteous, and omnipotent God, then the Bible is wrong. Basic doctrine says that we (humans) have free will. This free will allows us to do right, and wrong. If we do what is right, we go to heaven, and if we do wrong, we go to hell. Of course, the Bible also says that if you do wrong, you can be forgiven of your sins and still admitted to heaven. However, the Bible has God breaking this ideal. That is, God interferes with the Free Will of man. Numerous instances of this occur. The Great Flood, the destruction of Jericho, and pretty much any communication between man and his creator. The Great Flood violated this principle in several ways. First, it destroyed all mankind (excepting Noah), and killed even some good men. This violates the biblical principle of just desserts, as well as depriving them of free will. Other instances, wher God communicates with mankind violate free will as well. By proving his own existence, he is taking away the freedom not to believe. As I am running low on time (several uncontrollable events have prevented my usage of my computer), I will end for now.
Regardless of the existence of God, the Bible is wrong about many, many things.

Assuming regardless of the existence equals to, not including the existence of God, I accept. Council of Trent. If I am to adhere to the interpretations of the Bible by the Council of Trent,... I will expect my opponent to stay within those bounds as well, providing adequate sources from the exact doctrines of the church determined by the council. Let it be known that I disagree with any notion implying the Council of Trent and its doctrines is the universal interpretation of the Holy Bible as followed by other churches. My opponent, should as well be able to prove his "barometry" of correctness and wrongness as it relates.
Regardless of the existence of God, the Bible is wrong about many, many things.

This is 4 rounds simply because Round one will be the confirmation round. Simply join the debate, and announce your intention to debate. God- Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah Bible- Holy Bible of the Christian religion, as determined by the Council of Trent wrong- not right Burden: Self-explanatory, I must prove the resolution as defined to be true, my opponent must prove it "not true."
Meeting people online or NOT

I'll kick-start my argument by saying this: the internet is a great place, full of great people. It really is. You can buy whatever you want, whenever you want. There are many amazing websites filled with personality, and it helps people like you get noticed by the community. People make the internet an amazing thing. It gives you powers to meet individuals unlike any other. However, not every individual is a good individual. This is the reason shows like Catfish, To Catch a Predator, and other various programs exist. They exist to raise awareness. Yes, you can stil be safe and meet people. Yes, you can still release your information and be unharmed, but you must always keep an eye out for that crusty old man sitting behind the keyboard. If it weren't for that, the programs below would not exist.1: http://www.nbcnews.com...2: (I would usually use something more accomodating, but I am on school wi-fi, and mtv.com is blocked) http://en.wikipedia.org... I hope to make this a clean debate. I anxiously await your response.
The God of the Old Testament is Unjust

My opponent states that the God of the Old Testament is unjust. However, I disagree with this ludicrous statement. I disagree because my opponent does not see that the God in the Old Testament and the God in the New Testament is the same one. Therefore, the God of the Old Testament is not unjust. Also, God has reasons for everything in the human eyes it may seem unjust but in his divine ultimate plan everything comes together and makes sense in the end.
The God of the Old Testament is Unjust

I am here to argue that the God of the Old Testament of the Holy Bible does not act in justice. His actions that are told in the Bible are rather, unjust. Christians and the Bible will say that God is entirely just in all actions and is good all the time. Therefor, by proving God's injustice in the bible, I can prove that the God of the Old testament does not exist. Also Jesus' claim to be the son of said God will further the previous statement, allowing me to say Jesus is not the messiah Christians claim him to be. I thank anyone who is willing to accept the debate. Hope we can have a good one.
Absolute truth exists.

Rules 1) You must prove that "absolute truth" exists. 2) If your "absolute truth" can be used against you on round one, then you have lost the debate and must post that you have lost the round. 3) The argument must be posted on this debate only, for if absolute truth exists, we must all know the truth, for absolute truth is inflexible. 4) Citations and links are not allowed. The reason is, if it was absolute truth, then you wouldn't need back up to prove absolute truth. 5) If citations and links are used by my opponent, then my opponent has lost. 6) The reason my opponent is getting one round is because, if absolute truth exists, it cannot be opposed. This, in turn, means it is fair, for absolute truth cannot opposed since it is absolute.
Absolute truth exists.

Let me point out a contradiction in your arguement. I see you said that, "If there is no absolute truth then that is an absolute truth." I also have come to see, however, that you have said this as well. "If you turn around to argue that an absolute truth does in fact exist then you are debating yourself." Thus, in turn, not only have you contradicted yourself by saying these, you have also said that you have lost within saying the following... "Either way you argue sir you have lost." For you have contradicted yourself. =] Considering that you said "Either way you argue sir you have lost." What if I was to say that neither Absolute Truth and No Absolute Truth exist. For, if absolute truth existed, then empires would have not fell ,like Rome. Also, if no absolute truth existed, we can say that because everytime you sit down, you explode. Is this a contradiction? Nope. Why? For if we take into account that everyone is different, then that in turn means that also means that everyone can be the same as well. How? Well it has been proven time and time again that people can change. Let us take cognitive things into consideration. "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person One. "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two "If this wall is blue, it is not black." - Person Three "If this wall is black, it is not blue." - Person Four "If this wall is black and blue, it is neither." - Person Five "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six So assuming we see that person one and six have the same views... "It is absolute truth that it is blue!" But then here comes the irony. Lets say some of them changed in fifteen years. "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person One. "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Three "If this wall is black, it is blue as well." - Person Four "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Five "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six Person Two, Four, and Five have overrided One and Six. "Thus, the wall is black and blue!" Now lets look at something beyond absolute truth and non-absolute truth. "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person One "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Three "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Four "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Five "If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six So, now what? Now it is neither, thus, you have lost.
The fine-tuning argument fails to demonstrate an intentional, intelligent designer of the cosmos.

OH MY GOD, You destroyed my argument.Meaning it succeeds on your levels atleast to the degree to compell you to totally debunk it.P1) "Lets say I was to accept this as fact[...]" - said by Awesome PersonSeems like an innocent hypothetical question, yes?I beg a differ.This kind of hypothetical question tells me you were considering the probability, and that you were allowing yourself to think in terms of it. You would not be able to do this, unless it met the expectations of your level. Therefore P1) meets your intellectual stantard, and thats so far a 1/6 score.P2) "There is absolutely no evidence that their is a "wide range" of physical constants, even if there is a range, it has not been shown how wide that range actually is in reality. If determinism is true, then these specific constants are necessary and had to turn out the way they did due to predetermining factors at each point in time durring the development of the universe." 2/6 score!P2 meets your level expectation because you are able to conceive it.P3) "Determinism being true is one explanation[...]"This is irrefutable evidence of you indirectly agreeing that some explanation is necessary.Thus meeting your intellectual standard.So I will count this as 3/6 score to meeting your level. P4) "Ironically, the Fine-tuning argument is not an argument for intelligent design, but rather an argument against intelligent design."This individually meets your level, you have stated the fine-tuning argument is not to demonstrate an intelligent designer of the universe and life but rather against it. This meets your level expectations because for the argument to fail it must first have the goal.Therefore, because you have stated that it is an argument against intelligent design, it does not fail to demonstrate an intelligent designer because thats not what its goal is according to you.If it does not fail it still atleast meets expectations.Thus, the score is 4/6.P5) "As I have shown, such a being has not been logically demonstrated."This directly implies you agree this being is what people mean by "God" and what you yourself mean.Therefore, P5) meets your expectations of intellectual standard.Thus the score is 5/6.Conclusion) "The reasons for rejecting the fine-tuning argument for intelligent design, are stronger than the reasons to accept the fine-tuning argument for design. Unless my opponent shows otherwise, the resolution has been affirmed. "You have deliberately ceased to think about the conclusion meaning it does not meet you intellectual standard.Conclusion: 83.33 % of the Premises of the argument have meet your Level (Intellectual Stantard).83.33 % is within the range of 80–89 % therefore a qualified B.A B is a pass, therefore the fine-tuning argument succeeds.I hereby rest my case, the fine-tuning argument has passed on your levels.
The fine-tuning argument fails to demonstrate an intentional, intelligent designer of the cosmos.

I accept!!!I will be arguing that the fine-tuning argument succeeds on your levels to demonstrate an intelligent designer of the universe and life. First Argument:Formula 1 The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it. Other combinations of physical constants are conceivable. Therefore, some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one. The very best explanation of the given fact is that our universe, with the particular combination of physical constants that it has, was created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal, and interested in sentient organic systems, and that he "fine-tuned" those constants in a way which would lead to the evolution of such systems. But such a being as described in (δ) is what people mean by "God." Hence [from (δ) & (ε)], there is good evidence that God exists. Similarly, this can be applied to FSM.Source:http://www.infidels.org...
Fun Argument: Books (Pro) vs Video Games (Con)

So instead of just responding to a portion of my arguments this time, my opponent doesn't respond to ANY of my arguments. This means you extend the argument talking about how video games offer benefits that books don't offer, and that video games also offer educational benefits. What does this mean? Simple. His sole argument at the end of the debate is that books provide better educational benefits compared to video games. Ignoring the fact that he never warrants how this is true, the problem is this: he has an impact saying x. I have impacts saying x and y. We both have x going for us, I'm the only one that has y going for me. I'm the only one with a unique impact in the round. And, book reading doesn't have a bigger impact on society because video games provide the same educational benefits. Refer back to my sources that cite an increase in test scores across numerous subjects cited in relation to video games. I have the same impact.
Fun Argument: Books (Pro) vs Video Games (Con)

See the house you live in?? Do you think that house was made by playing video games? Do you think video games have any part in making that "house" you live in? The people who made your house are licensed (hopefully). Do you know how those people got licensed to make that house you're living in? They got licensed by taking standardized tests, by reading books on construction... THIS is just a hook.... Think about "Doctors" for a second.. it would be a shame if we didn't have modern medicine... right? Now the question.. how does a Doctor become a Doctor?? ----> http://education-portal.com... You need to earn a medical degree, then you need to enroll in medical school! Do you think any of these doctors never read a book? Lets take all the books away from these doctors :)... ohh no? why not? Now lets take all the video games away! haha it wouldn't make a huge difference. Hence, books are more important! because they make a bigger impact in society. <<<--
Fun Argument: Books (Pro) vs Video Games (Con)

It seems my opponent only contests the fact that people learn things from video games. This means that you can extend out the arguments that video games provide benefits that books don't give, such as physical benefits (hand-eye coordination, reaction time, etc), as well as social benefits. These went unadressed. And these will outweigh the education point because it's the only unique impact in the round. Both sides teach people new stuff, but I'm the only one who gives other benefits.And, on the learning point:It doesn't really matter what video games teach so long as people are receiving some kind of educational benefit from playing video games. My opponent hasn't really contested that video games teach people stuff, rather he just has a problem with what video games teach. Fine, play a different video game then that teaches what you want to learn.And it doesn't matter why people play video games, they'll still teach the player new things.
Fun Argument: Books (Pro) vs Video Games (Con)

Yes, I can agree that video games can teach you a thing or two but...... I'm pretty sure there isn't a "video game" on the natural laws of physics or a detailed analysis on calculus! I love video games; I used to play MW2 every single day, but I can tell you that books make scholars, not video games! **********Most people play video games for entertainment, not to learn something anyway!********** http://www.esrb.org... Here is someone who changes the world by writing "books": Steven Hawking: http://www.stephenhawkingbooks.com... See those books? Is there a video game to teach me all these things? If you can't show me a video game that can help me find this type of knowledge then... How do you expect me to learn about the universe?? "The Universe is a place fill with cold hard facts" - from Halo 2 http://www.youtube.com... How do you think video games are made? by video games? No by people who read code in book
Fun Argument: Books (Pro) vs Video Games (Con)

1k characters lol.In regards to my opponent's arguments: video games offer those benefits as well. Video games expose you to different concepts and ideas just as much as books do. Video games also offer a lot of different benefits, including benefits that books don't offer such as increased hand-eye coordination and social cooperation (1). Video games have also been shown in correlation with higher test scores across various different subjects (1)(2).So in short, all the benefits my opponent lists for books video games offer as well. Video games offer more exclusive benefits than reading books do. Therefore, video games.Sources:(1) - http://tinyurl.com...(2) - http://tinyurl.com...
Fun Argument: Books (Pro) vs Video Games (Con)

Books (pro): The Reasons to support my claim! 1. Exposing Yourself to New Things! Through reading, you expose yourself to new things, new information, new ways to solve a problem, and new ways to achieve one thing. Who knows " you might find your new hobbies within it. Who knows " you might actually explore one thing you really like and it may end up becoming your career and success in the future. Exploration begins from reading and understanding. 2. Self Improvement Reading helps form a better you! Through reading, you begin understand the world more. Through reading, you begin to have a greater understanding on a topic that interest you; for example: how to build self confidence, how to make plan better before taking action, how to memorize things better and more. All of these self improvements start from the reading; through reading, you create a structured path towards a better understanding and better actions to take in the future 3. Knowledge Books promote education! :)
Childrens' stockings should now be made rectangular to suit today's Cyber Techno Internet children.

In this day and age, children don't have toys anymore, they have kindles and tablets and other square/rectangular things. That's why I call for childrens' stockings to now be made rectangular! It's not as good as it used to be! But hey, it fits today's cyber children better!This is why I think that. It would just fit better. Besides, no child would get one indi
evolution

Ok, thank you =========== I would like to start off that Jesus is from the Christian belief, correct? And science has deduced that the earth was created by the Big Bang, the result of that created micro organisms that evolved into what we are today. Yes, their might have been a Jesus or a descendant from God, but science so far has not found any evidence that their actually was a God or Jesus. For the moment, I think that science has evolved from what we are today. So please, I'm not trying to sound harsh to the Christian belief , but science has never lied to us. =========== This will be interesting
Global Nuclear War is Good

Nuclear war won't just kill humans. It will damage entire ecosystems and harm lots of other living things. Yes, we will survive, but what is the environmental cost? I understand that you want the world to reset, and for people's mindset on resources and the environment to change, but there are other ways to solve these problems that don't require nuclear weapons. These aren't just regular bombs. These will have a lasting effect on the world. Think about it; if a new deadly virus started killing people off, it would still do less damage to the environment than a nuke. I'm not pro-plague, but the point is simply that there are other solutions to these problems, and even a plague would be a better solution than nukes. 1. Education By teaching people to appreciate these resources, and give up a few unnecessary resources, we will use less. We could also teach them about the benefits of renewable energy, and how it is the future for both humanity and the environment. 2. A More Careful Use Of Resources We could simply figure out how to use the resources we have more efficiently. 3. Population Decline(Without the Incineration Of The Masses) By continuing to allow birth control, and with the urge to have kids being lowered, humanity's population is slowly going down. 4: Recycling Reusing resources we have already taken. All of these are ways that we have been trying to improve the planet and continue to improve the planet we live on without mass destruction. Sadly, not all of these methods are perfect, but they still work pretty well, and are much less violent than say the nukes you are talking about. Perhaps improving them could help even more, but they still do work.