BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god does not exist.

A My point was that since it would be my responsibility to provide evidence of my superpowers it is your responsibility to provide evidence of your god. Also there is the same amount of evidence for my claims of superpowers as your claims of a big magic man in the sky as neither of us have provided any. B "you could say until they have been disproved they may be accepted." You don't understand my point I just made. It is your job to provide evidence for your ridiculous claims. Just like it is not your job to disprove that I have superpowers, it is not my job to disprove the authenticity of your mythological claims. And were not debating about evolution so I'm not going to respond to your ignorant claims about abiogenesis or macro evolution. C I am not arguing that your god will do something illogical, I am arguing that he either can or cannot. I'm not saying that he will choose to create a stone which he cannot lift. I'm saying that he either has the ability to or does not. It is a mere example of showing that omnipotence is logically impossible. D And I think it's terrible that in an effort to hold on to your fairy tales you would think of defending a despicable act like rape. And didn't god supposedly know form the beginning of time that person x would be raped and that he planned for things to unfold that way. Wow, I didn't know our holy father was a rapist. F And yes, your faith is mere speculation. I can say that I have faith that he world will end tomorrow but that does not make it any more then speculation. Faith is simply believing in something crazy in spite of evidence to the contrary. G If he lives outside of time then why did he supposedly create Adam and Eve already knowing that they would eat the magic fruit thingy? Didn't he know even before he created the world that Eve would eat the fruit and he would damn his entire creation? H I'm saying that it doesn't have to be an accident because an accident implies going against a purpose. Things that happen in nature are not accidents or necessarily acts of purpose. Things happen according to certain laws of nature and it is mere subjective speculation to assign hem as accidents or not. I "everything that BEGINS to exist must have a cause." What about the theory that the universe is actually cyclic and the big bang was merely a rebirth? This would mean that the universe never had a beginning and therefore according to you does not need a cause, making god an unnecessary explanation. J Being able to create and govern the universe without existing would make that being more powerful then one who needed to exist in order to create and rule because your deity would not be able to create an entire universe withut existing. I'm not actually seriousely saying that such a being created the world, I'm just saying that to point out how ridiculous your ontological argument is. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) Since you decided to put down some meaningless babble from the Bible I figured that I would follow suit. All must obey the word of god!!
god does not exist.

A There is zero evidence of you breathing underwater and whatever else you argued. There is tons of evidence for God. B "Christianity makes some very bold claims ... and until they have been verified, may be discarded." Discarded? Or you could say until they have been disproved they may be accepted. What about evolution? It too makes bold claims. would you discard the entire theory? Abiogenesis has never been proven possible in a lab let alone in nature. No one has ever witnessed macro evolution taking place. None of this has been verified. C I hate repeating myself. With your arguments, you are trying to set God up with a illogical thing to do and if he cannot do it he is not omnipotent. I already explained the whole deal that He does nothing outside of His nature. Logic is part of His nature. So he does nothing illogical. Also, I think you do not understand what omnipotence means. If He WILLS something, it will happen. Your argument is no good. D Forgive me for the error. Depending on the person's reaction, even murder and rape can be positive. If you're raped, you can learn to forgive. Forgiving someone who raped you may be the hardest thing possible. If you're murdered, there is a negative possibility and a positive one, if you know what I mean. Those are just two examples. Of course it all depends on how perceive the situation. F My faith is not "mere religious speculation." G Like I said, He lives outside of time. There is no "He will do" because that implies the future. H If it wasn't an accident, then what was it? I'm not sure about what you are saying. I You forgot that "everything that BEGINS to exist must have a cause." My argument still stands. J How does a being exist that does not exist? This makes no sense and I don't understand why that being would be more powerful. Anyway, I agree that this argument is not the best one conceived. So far I have refuted all of your arguments that God doesn't exist. I don't even need to prove God exists to win. I'm not sure where this debate will be heading, but I'm not thrilled about it so far. Remember not to look at everything from one perspective. "For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you." (Acts 17:23)
god does not exist.

A If I were to tell you that I can breathe underwater, had the ability to fly, and could bend time and space would the burden of evidence be on me to prove these claims or on you to disprove them. I hope this analogy adequately explains why the burden of proof is most certainly on the theist. B You also said that Christianity could not be disproved. I believe on the contrary. Christianity makes some very bold claims which have never been verified(ressurection, miracles, noah's ark) and until they have been verified, may be discarded. c God either CAN or CANNNOT create a bolder which he cannot lift. It's one or the other and according to your quotation he cannot. " He cannot do something retarded such as create a bolder that he cannot lift". Glad to get that out of the way. d "evil can positive affects as well as negative." Looking past the grammatical mistakes could you please explain to me what positive effects come from rape, incest, or senseless murder? Unless you just take it on faith that some good things come from bad things in which case your argument is invalid and illogical. e As to who created god, you cannot prove and I cannot disprove his/her existence on this alleged fact so I will move on from it. f As to parsimony, you equate mere religious speculation with the fields of evolutionary psychology and religious anthropology. They are not equal. Psychology and anthropology are based on the scientific method and verifiable evidence and not on speculation and faith. g With the problem of omniscience I will change the question slightly. Can god change his actions which he KNOWS he will do or can't he? If he can then he was never omniscient and if he can't then he was never omnipotent. h As to the Lewis argument, it makes too many presuppositions. For example it is subjective to say that because the universe did not form on purpose then it must have been an accident. Those two scenarios presuppose that there was a creator who either purposely or accidently created the universe. i You said.. "Given the additional premise that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, one concludes to the uncaused first cause of the temporal series of events. [3] This means time must have a cause. God is the only logical cause for time." If one were to follow your premise that everything must have a cause then we cannot exclude god form that premise. In that case the question of who created god comes back into play. j As to Anslem's argument consider the reverse if only to spell out the ridiculousness of the argument. Consider that if god were to be able to create the universe without ever existing, he would be even more powerful then another god who needed to exist in order to create the universe. Therefore god does not exist.
god does not exist.

I will be taking the pro side for the argument that a supreme deity does not exist. This is because there is no evidence to support this position and because all evidence available points to a godless universe. My definition of god will be: "The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." http://dictionary.reference.com... My definition will also include the deity having the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolvence. This is because the gods of Christianity and Islam all have these attributes and these are by far the most popular deities. Because the claim of god's existence is being made by the theist, the burden of proof is on him/her. However, since I am the one posing this debate it would seem prudent of me to list some arguments in my favor. 1- The problem of supreme qualities The basic outline of this argument is that there is an inherent contradiction in the definition of a god who is all powerful. ex.) Can god create a stone which he cannot lift? 2-The problem of evil The argument goes that an all powerful and all loving god would have both the want and the means to extinguish evil. However, evil is still all around us. He either does not care(which makes him malevolent, thereby disproving the existence of at least the Abrahamic god) or he does not exist. 3-Who created god? This is by far the most simple argument. 4-Parsimony Naturalism supplies adequate explanations of the creation of religion and the idea of god. ex.)religion and god were created to satisfy the need to explain natural phenomena 5-Problem of omniscience This argument states that a deity cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. ex.)Can god's actions detour in any way from what he already foresaw that he would do? These are simply my favorite five arguments against the existence of a supreme deity.
god does not exist.

I wish you would not think that I meant you any disrespect personally. I described your ideas in the way that I think they deserved to be. The did not possess any intellectual merit in my opinion. Your opinions are most certainly mythological and please do not try to describe faith as anything more then speculation. I could say that I have faith that I will grow a third foot but that does not mean that you must respect that position. And your little bit about it being wrong for the Levites to be homosexual offends me deeply as I happen to be gay. There is absolutely no justification for a deity to try to sexually repress his/her followers. You are born gay or you are born straight and the fact that the people who wrote the Bible believed that being gay could ever be wrong is simply further testament that the men who wrote the Bible were just as ignorant as everyone else and was by no means divinely inspired.
god does not exist.

I am forfeiting this argument, certainly not on the basis that I cannot refute your arguments or give evidence for God, but because my opponent have shown utter disrespect. My God is not a "big magic man in the sky," my claims are not "ridiculous," nor are they "mythological," nor "ignorant." My God is not a "rapist," if you would have listened, I explained why. If you believe "Faith is simply believing in something crazy in spite of evidence to the contrary," then I pity you. My faith is not "mere speculation." To voters, the verse in Leviticus applied only to God's people. Homosexuality is wrong and the punishment for the Levites, because they were God's priests and had to live by a strict set of laws, in this case was death. Jesus has since overwritten this law. That is the only thing I will defend. I'm sorry this ended on such a sour note. Socialpinko, even though I am new to Debate.org, I know this website is not meant to be used in such manner. You disrespect your opponent, while ignoring all of what your opponent has said in his arguments. It pointless to continue if you are not willing to listen. This is disgraceful conduct. I hope readers understand me forfeiting.
6V6 Singles is better than 3V3 Singles

In the case of 3v3 singles, it is made so that the battle is fair and one player cannot overpower the other. It is also useful in the fact where the battle won't take 10 or maybe even 30 minutes to complete, when it can only take about 5 or 10 max. This is a useful system, whereas you are fighting real people. This is what Game Freak designed
Video games are for loser Nerds

Replacing your words, with your definitions: Video games are for people who lose and who do not get invited to parties. Nor do these individuals get TANG. Given that video games tend to have a fail state, this also implies the possibility of victory, or a win state. Therein-by an individual who is deemed a loser has the potential to see victory by the nature of what a game is. It cannot be proved that anyone is without defeats before participating in a video game. This presents the possibility that both a loser and winner are capable of achieving a victory or a loss. This contradicts the notion that video games are only for people who tend to lose. This contradiction comes from the ability of winners to play a video game. If video games were in fact for losers, that would make it impossible for winners to even play. By establishing that winners and losers are both capable of playing a video game, I have rendered the noun of nerd irrelevant in regards to your proposal. If video games were "for" a specific audience, it would be prominently displayed by those creating games who their intended audience is. It would also be of common knowledge to a wider public who this audience is. There is no such common understanding between persons that video games are intended to be played by nerds. To which you defined as those who do not get invited to parties or who do not get TANG. Common knowledge is not basis for conclusive findings or a statement of fact. It applies in this instance as the debate is one of the intended audience. By establishing that those outside the intended audience play video games, you can disprove the notion of your proposal.
Video games are for loser Nerds

nerds are1. nerds dont get invited to parties2. nerds dont get TANGlosers are1. people who loseEveryone KNOWS that people who play games dont win at anything ecept their world of wercraft bate champtionships. Clearly, no VICTORY, no PARTIES, no TANG = LOSER NERD IMO.Having a life needs ONE thing SHOTS, TANG, a COLLAR shirt, and $$ in the BANK. Naerds are too busy playing anime MMOIMO's to win Anything!!!! youre turn
Video games are for loser Nerds

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, this is where you mess up. You have fallen into my logic trap.You see, ONLY Nerds play video games, so cool kids like me dont play video games because they are too busy playing BOOTY games. IMO this article for evidence of statistic http://hubpages.com...Therefore, if all but nerds get booty and are too busy earning cash and booty to play stupid games, that means the only people left with time to play video games are filthy nerds.
Video games are for loser Nerds

The acquisition of TANG is important in contextualizing what your definition of "nerd" is. What has been proved is the irrelevancy of the tag of "nerd". If you so desire, feel free to debate the quantities of TANG acquired by "nerds". It has no bearing on the current discussion. The topic is if video games are intended for those you define as "loser nerds". As I have established, video games are capable of being playing by anyone. So them being "loser nerds" and how much TANG they receive matters not. If one were to say a nerd gets zero TANG, that would meet your definition. Now if that person were to play a video game, that does not necessarily make the game one that caters to this nerd and his lack of TANG. The ability of those who do get TANG to play video games, disproves the idea that they are only for those who are TANGless.
The Mist was the worst movie adaptation of a Stephen King book ever.

First of all if you say that the girl in the carrie book was emotional unstable and not emo, Emo pretty much mean emotional unstable. Even in the Carrie book it still does everything i've said, it just like the movie it drag on and on. The mist was a good book and it was also a good movie. The thing I like about the The mist is that in the movie it capture the realness of what really happen to these people in this small town, just like the book.
The Mist was the worst movie adaptation of a Stephen King book ever.

"One of Stephen Kings worst would have to be Carrie to me that movie just drags on and on and is really boring." Did you read the book or just watch the movie? "The mist is at least interesting to watch. Carrie just drag on about this girl and has big emo problems." Ok, I'm sorry, but that statement was just a little bit ignorant in my opinion. First of all she did not have emo problems, she was emotionally unstable. Here's why: she lived in a house with her very religious mother who thought she was the devils child because of the powers she had and so she emotionally and I'm pretty sure physically abused her, you'd have some "emo problems" too. Her mother never told her about any of the things girls go through during puberty so when she had her first period she saw blood and thought she was dying. "I know that Carrie was filmed in 1976 so it does not have the best high tec stuff but it not just that, I just don't like the story. The Mist is a story that keep everyone wanting to watch or vread more." Read more, yes. Watch more, no. As far as I'm concerned, the director didn't capture the story at all. In the book you think there could be more, with the movie it was over quick and ugly with nothing to leave you guessing. A movie isn't about how high tech you can make it, it's about the story. Carrie had a feeling behind it, it was really about somebody being picked on, being an outcast just for being a little different. She got to the point where she couldn't take it anymore (during the prom scene) and didn't trust anybody, she wanted them all to pay, even the people who actually cared about her. In the end it was about how much the things she had to go through in life affected her to the point where it ruined her life and ruined the lives of the people who made fun of her and even the people who cared. Even when they redid it the story didn't change, it's not about how good it looks, but whether you get it or not, and quite obviously you didn't, or maybe you just don't like those kinds of movies.
The Mist was the worst movie adaptation of a Stephen King book ever.

O I'm sorry but I still have a remark to that as well. The mist was a creative movie in my mind but it is no where near Stephen Kings worst. One of Stephen Kings worst would have to be Carrie to me that movie just drags on and on and is really boring. The mist is at least interesting to watch. Carrie just drag on about this girl and has big emo problems. I know that Carrie was filmed in 1976 so it does not have the best high tec stuff but it not just that, I just don't like the story. The Mist is a story that keep everyone wanting to watch or vread more.
The Mist was the worst movie adaptation of a Stephen King book ever.

The Mist to me wasn't has bad as everyone had put it but after seeing the movie I thought the writer pointed out there points of the story with all the twist and turns. I thought some of the actor were not the greatest but you really can only put some much in a movie without it getting dragged on over time. The movie got to the point and to the shocking ending. I'm not a huge fan of Stephen King at all but this movie was a pretty wild and creative movie.
The Mist was the worst movie adaptation of a Stephen King book ever.

The Mist: a book by Stephen King Worst adaptation...: of all the bad Stephen King book movie adaptations, this was the worst. Ok, first off the entire plot was chewed up, swallowed, thrown up, eaten again and then crapped out. In the beginning of the movie they skipped an entire chapters worth of information, the acting was mediocre at best (they spoke too fast), the part about Sally and that army guy was just weird, they didn't include the romantic endeavors of Dave and the... girl whose name I can't recall, his rude neighbour wasn't black, and the crazy religious lady wasn't preaching Islamic, and finally the ending made me want to puke. Suffice it to say, this was the worst book to film adaptation of any Stepehn King book ever. (I'm not even that critical of movies, adapted from books or not, but this was just horrid, the only thing horrific about it was how bad it was) I await a rebuttal. Thank-you and good luck to whomever you are. Sincerely, Kat
Public Labor Unions Are Beneficial to Society

Full Resolution: Public labor unions are beneficial to society. I will be negating this resolution. BoP is shared. Definitions: Public Labor Unions: "An organization intended to represent the collective interests of workers in negotiations with employers over wages, hours and working conditions. Labor unions are often industry-specific and tend to be more common in manufacturing, mining, construction, transportation and the public sector."[1] Public means government run. Beneficial: "Conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful."[2] Society: "The body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community."[3] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources: [1]: http://www.investopedia.com... [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Gardasil vaccination encourages sexual promiscuity

Unfortunately all my opponent achieves in his rebuttal is two definitions and a horrific generalization on the psychology of vaccinations. The 20 or so vaccinations a child receives from birth to 6 years old are entirely non consensual and lack any form of free will. Furthermore, gardasil is recommended to be given to girls as young as seven - a practice obscenely devoid of consent. With confidence one may assert these 7-13 year olds are not actively seeking out std vaccinations. As well, with regards to sexual knowledge/plan b - to actively get vaccinated for std prevention there is a preconceived awareness that hpv can be contracted without condoms, and if one is protecting themselves from an infection contracted by unsafe sexual practices they are doing so with the intent to engage in unsafe encounters with the knowledge they will not get hpv. Thus exposing themselves to other sti's and pregnancy. Space is short, but that's a good start.