BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is an absolute and complete being, and re-incarnation can not be ignored on a rational basis.

"Apparently God is infinite, and lo and behold, our modern cosmologist's tell us, this universe seems most possibly infinite. " Quotes? Evidence? Proof? "That guy told me that he has an unicorn. " without actually giving the actual quote, people cannot know if that guy really said that. Since the universe has a finite age, we can only observe a small chunk of it. [1] Although WMAP has shown that the universe is flat, we cannot know if it is infinite if we can only see a chunk of it because light takes time to travel. (about 299,792,458 meters/second. [2] "Apparently God is one being who created all beings, And the universe is one gigantic organism, that is containing all other organisms, which by their nature are all related. " Or the beings formed in abiogenesis and then evolved. Even Berkeley University says that evolution is true! [3] "Apparently God is able to manifest into innumerable objects, animate or inanimate. And the universe is exhibiting manifestations or a mass scale of tremendous quality. " Evidence? Proof? Quotes? "Apparently God is neither created or can he be destroyed. And the universe exhibits energy that's neither able to be created or destroyed. " Just because they have similarities means that they are the same? "Similarly, Just like our material body is an expansion of material energy due to our material body having the presence of the spirit soul. Also the material universe is able to expand due the presence of the Super soul. Both are inconceivably one and different. " No proof for the existence of the soul given. The material universe is expanding, yes, but it is not due to a super soul, but possibly instead due to dark energy. [4] "God as spirit is able to exist outside of Space/time, because everything that begins to exist needs a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause, this cause must be necessarily uncased. God and Spirit energy is the conclusion, which is not bound by space or time or physical laws. " Why does the cause need to be uncased? On my opponent's last round, he says that the Big Bang is amazing and can prove that god is an absolute being, this round he says that it is caused by something else. "Take for example your material body, once you had a baby body, then a child body, then a teenagers body, then an adults body, Now your baby body no longer exists, that body is destroyed, all the atoms have been replaced and no longer exist, but YOU are still existing, and in some years you will change your body again in this lifetime. with the body you posses now, but YOU the spirit soul will still exist. Yes, I agree that the material body is changing, but no evidence is given by you to prove that the soul exists. In conclusion, my opponent has not made his claims on evidence, only bare assumptions. This is not convincing enough to advocate panentheism. [1]. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [4]. http://science.nasa.gov...
God is an absolute and complete being, and re-incarnation can not be ignored on a rational basis.

Thanks to my opponent for a well-written response. Panentheism is mainly about that the universe is part of god, which is what this debate is about. Pro's Side: The creation is a part of God, but it is different. God is an absolute being. The reason I put the Carl Sagan quote is because, this implies that God is not a being, and therefore not an absolute being. Pro said that all energy needs God to exist and that God's energy is self sufficient because he is the supreme being ad can pull energy out of nowhere. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The quantity of matter/energy remains the same. It can change from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant. [1] As you can see, energy does not come from nowhere, it only changes in state, so the energy part is negated. "God is able to replicate an almost exact version of himself, yet keep back just a few mystical qualities." If in pantheism or panentheism, this means another universe. This, however, can be explained using the multiverse theory, which does not require a God to work. " Modern physics has shown that the rhythm of creation and destruction is not only manifest in the turn of the seasons and in the birth and death of all living creatures, but also the very essence of inorganic matter." The seasons are not a product of creation. Seasons result from the yearly revolution of the Earth around the Sun and the tilt of the Earth's axis relative to the plane of revolution. [2] Plus, the existence of the universe does not require creation either. The big bang can explain it, and there may be alternate theories, too. ""The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. The core ideas of the Big Bang"the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies"are derived from many observations that are independent from any cosmological model; these include the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it can be inferred that everything was closer together in the past. Most scientists became convinced that some version of the Big Bang scenario best fit observations after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body." [3] [1]http://www.allaboutscience.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
There Exists A Non-Mental Reality

Alright: Bearing the Burden of Proof. This very reality is a non-mental reality. The existence of this reality is not dependent on mentality to maintain existence. Therefor even if God created this reality from his mind, It is a self sufficient entity hat requires no mentality to persist, and as thus is a Non-mental reality. Justly speaking, I should not be able to lose this debate on that point alone. ex. to prove my point. (digging in the garden I dig up a carrot. I forget about it or did not see it in the dirt and did not pick it. I am unaware of it and it is mentally unaccounted for. this carrot still exists. The next individual who enters the garden is not a determining factor in it's existence, butt he location of the carrot is static. and thus when found, the existence of the carrot in the second individuals possession is proof of the non-mental reality we live in.) A concept or idea of the non-mental reality: Con stated I was incoherent and contradictory in my claim that the Idea of a realm outside of the mind was in itself contradictory to my point. Wrong. The concept or idea of such a reality is not the reality in itself. Hence, how this discussion came into being. The non-mental reality, - that exists as a concept and idea, but is factually in existence outside of the mind regardless of how we can fathom it's existence, - consists of ever potential outcome: all scientifically possible and implausible, and math defying properties of any reality Do exists as a realm of potential which is infinite as it's fractal-form as the very continuum of existence being incapable of ceasing. The Idea that God, who is the Omnipotent (encompasses all things){with not even the slightest iota left with disregard or accumulation] established reality of his mind, and preference, is not required to acknowledge it's existence, and can therefore move any reality into the Non-mental proportions of a reality. Therefor under all conditions the non-mental reality is factual, exists, and is even more scientific than the mental reality, which is unlike the non-mental reality, subjective. The non-mental reality is an objective property of existence. And in addition: Con has yet to indicate or provide evidence that the non-mental reality does not exist. Which, regardless of his claim that Con is not required to provide BoP, he is still required as a contributor to the debate to defend his claim in the very least. **One cannot defend any claim in a debate without BoP. I have claimed, explained, and supported my half of the debate, that, ~ The Non-mental reality exists under all conditions. ~ I am eager to hear any contradictions.
There Exists A Non-Mental Reality

My argument that I suggested, was that the non mental reality exists under all circumstances. It is, simply because it is under all conditions and therefor has no contradictions. However, if you need a clarification. The Non mental reality exists because: A: The Omnipotent is capable of disregarding substance, and ideas. Through this he can remove the burden of proof, by simply stating, "regardless!" B: The non mental reality exists within the omnipotence of reality, simply as the manifest idea. ~ "Everything that can possibly occur, even in defiance of science and logic, has a fully fathomable existence, that has not been fathomed, cannot be fathomed within true perception, and is therefore a fully formed and developed list of potential outcomes that exists, manifest outside of the mind, as it has not been fully perceived. This, although it exists outside of the mind, of mortals, comprises the entity of God's reality. C: Because under all conditions that which is manifest is without mind to take place in or an origin to come from, simply because it as itself is a concept that it exists outside fo the mind. This debate, is assuredly in favor of Pro, the non-mental reality exists. And the Burden of Proof factually falls upon Con as equally as Pro in a debate* Your turn. I wish you would have understood my argument the first time. we would have made progress.
There Exists A Non-Mental Reality

"gracious thank you to the rational Thinker for providing this debate topic.I am here to defend the claim that there exists a non-mental reality.In which case I believe Con is insisting, a reality in which the mind cannot have an omnipotency.correct or have I lost by default? @RationalThinker"A non-mental reality is simply a reality existing outside of any mind. "Or perhaps he is indicating the opposite, in which case , Con insists the universe must have an omnipotency:< however I would claim a non-mental reality can still exist within it."I am not insisting that the universe has omnipotence. I am not even sure where this talk of omnipotence is even coming from...."and so, the non mental reality, under both conditions exists as my debate.I am eager to defend this. {* in hopes Con will rationally explain the defined parameters of a non-mental reality."If Pro is eager to defend this; then why isn't he?! I specifically stated that the first round was not just for acceptance, and was for Pro to post his first round of argumentation:"The first round will not be just for acceptance, but for Pro's first round." - MeUntil Pro presents arguments for a non-mental reality; I have nothing to rebut (remember, Pro has the burden of proof here). Hopefully Pro doesn't waste anymore time and actually presents an argument next round.
There Exists A Non-Mental Reality

A gracious thank you to the rational Thinker for providing this debate topic. I am here to defend the claim that there exists a non-mental reality. In which case I believe Con is insisting, a reality in which the mind cannot have an omnipotency. correct or have I lost by default? @RationalThinker Or perhaps he is indicating the opposite, in which case , Con insists the universe must have an omnipotency:< however I would claim a non-mental reality can still exist within it. and so, the non mental reality, under both conditions exists as my debate. I am eager to defend this. {* in hopes Con will rationally explain the defined parameters of a non-mental reality.
There Exists A Non-Mental Reality

Most people believe in a non-mental reality... However, I don't think that these people really have any valid justification. This debate is a challenge to anyone who believes that they can demonstrate that a reality exists outside of mind (or, at least that a reality outside of mind is the most plausible explanation for our experiences). The burden of proof will not be shared, as I have defended my position enough in debate. I would like to see some positive arguments for a non-mental reality, my only job will be to show that Pro has not succeeded in his task. The first round will not be just for acceptance, but for Pro's first round. so we get the same number of rounds to argue (as I am not using this round to argue), my opponent, in his last round, will simply put:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed." Failure to give up the last round will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit. Good luck!
People w/Houses in areas prone to natural disaster, give up their right to government bailouts!

It's easy for you to say that from the comfort of your arm chair. I don't like the idea of spending public monies...but when one actually looks at the scale. a few billion for one natural disaster is a drop in the bucket of our debt. Let's enter your world. 100,000 people are displaced from their homes due to flood damage. I ask you, what should we do? Many of these people don't have flood insurance or insurance at all. They are officially broke and homeless. They have lost all that they have invested in. I don't like bailing out stupid people, but it's not exactly moral to just say, "youre on your own". So you can have an extra .00001% tax on your return, or you can have 100,000 new members of the homeless community. Which is REALLY more degrading to a society?
People w/Houses in areas prone to natural disaster, give up their right to government bailouts!

Thank you for taking up this debate.. I hope you enjoy it.. The initial debate was framed, by example, for the people who exercise free choice to move into an area prone to these disasters. This is simply a matter of risk/rewards. These people are putting themselves at risk for the reward of having an ocean/mountain/Vally/waterfront home. I should not be made (by way of my tax monies being spent in the event of a disaster) to share in that risk. While all areas of the country have 'known risks', aka mid-west USA tornado's, western USA - fire and mud slides, northeast USA - ice storms, southeast USA Hurricanes you should have the appropriate coverage in the event of disaster and not rely on the govt to bail you out. That is not to say freak things do not happen AKA USA_NH got hit with a tornado damaging over 50 homes, and 5 towns, to that again general insurance coverage should be made available. My opponent states "The USA has an obligation to protect it's people from enemies foreign and domestic, including hurricanes and natural disaster." who can refute this, I agree whole heartedly; however I disagree that it extends to FEMA / Federal assistance for personal homes when disaster strike. Yes emergency services (Police/Fire/EMS) but once the immediate nature of the problem is passed, it should be the personal responsibility of the individual to start over again. The govt responsibility is in the streets (transportation) , sewer (Health), schools (Education), and fire/police (Public Safety) for these I say Federal funds could be made available. But housing re-construction no. By building in the same area, without additional safeguards by the individual we are putting ourselves in a repeated cycle. What is the definition of crazy? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result." People must be made to take personal responsibility for their choices, in this case where they choose to build their home. As a side note in reaction to a comment: I am speaking to identifiable risks (aka the house on stilts built on the side of a mountain known for it's mud slides, or the house build at 15feet below sea level, with an ocean 8 block s away, or the house built out of 2x4's on the ocean, which is an empty lot because the last house got wiped out by a hurricane.) These people who purchase these types of homes/land due so knowing hte risks they are are incurring. They should be solely responsible for them. Personal note: I love this place.. I am so happy I found it.. I really don't care about the side I choose, only the discussion that ensues.
People w/Houses in areas prone to natural disaster, give up their right to government bailouts!

Quite simply...this is a rather easy argument. People live near these places because it is a requirement for society. New Orleans is a port town....people in the Mississippi river valley needed the water for farms... People live near the water by necessity. We can't predict where and when the disasters will strike. The USA has an obligation to protect it's people from enemies foreign and domestic, including hurricanes and natural disaster. Instead, let the free market roam free. Let's examine Tokyo, one of the most earthquake prone places in the world. Consumers demanded safety. So all buildings in Cities were retrofitted to make them more resistant. Cost a lot of government money to do that, but it created jobs and it reduced future death tolls in Japan to much lower numbers.
People w/Houses in areas prone to natural disaster, give up their right to government bailouts!

Position: If a person builds a house in an area prone to natural disasters (after waiver) they should have to give up any chance for govt assistance AKA FEMA etc.. and rely on self purchased insurances only. Case in point: People that build a house on the side of a mountain, in an area where the past has taken houses due to mudslides, who then lose the house to a mud slide. Case #2: People who build their house in a flood plan, or below sea level, then a hurricane comes and floods the house or washes it away. They then look to the govt to assist in repairs or give them place to live while repairs are effected. I will concede that it must be a known and documented risk area, and there must be an 'awareness' clause added to real estate dealings acknowledging this to the buyer, but once this is waived, they should not be able to ask for govt assistance when the natural disaster occurs. While these people have the right to take the risk, I believe they do not have the right to expose me to that risk. Let them get private insurances, if they can not afford the insurances they should not be allowed to purchase the houses. Not only that make insurances pay for the emergency services used due to the obscene risk they exposed the 1st responder to.
People w/Houses in areas prone to natural disaster, give up their right to government bailouts!

Honestly, I can't follow your logic anymore. People live where they need to live to work and thrive. Disasters are random. Instead of arguing over who we should help out, why don't we concentrate on technologies to aid people who are going to be in flood/earthquake trouble so that the death tolls and the damages are less (Like, waterproofing new orleans homes...)
People w/Houses in areas prone to natural disaster, give up their right to government bailouts!

as my opponent states. " It's easy for you to say that from the comfort of your arm chair. I don't like the idea of spending public monies...but when one actually looks at the scale. a few billion for one natural disaster is a drop in the bucket of our debt." By this argument where do we stop? A few billion here, and a few billion there.. As it exists now in the USA, we generally work until MAY each year, before the money we EARN becomes our own; Until then we are just working for the federal/state and local government taxes. Each year is adding a week or 2 to this date because of increased govt spending. It is because of the fuzzy thinking like this that makes this occur. A billion here, a billion there, it's only a .00001 impact on the tax payer.. no biggie. We will end up becoming a socialist state at this rate. I am not a heartless person, I understand everyone has times in their lives where we need help, whether from family, friends, church's or the govt; but I think that should be the order, not GOVT 1st. People should take responsibility for their decisions in life, including on where they live, otherwise we will just keep spending billions bailing them out. We are talking about people who made a CHOICE on where to live, ignoring the dangers. No one forced them to live there. Now you will argue next about social/economic realities, some people can not move due to the economic/social realities. Tell that the the immigrants who come here each year with nothing, and make a great go of it. Think of out founding fathers who moved here from England, with nothing. Tell that to the people who settled the west, all moved w/ next to nothing looking for a better life. But they were willing to suffer and work hard for a better life. They did not look for govt handouts. We need people to take more personal responsibility in their lives not less. the short version is still the same, If I choose to put myself in harms way, I should take the responsibility for my choice and not look to the govt to absorb this risk.
Riddle Debate

Here are the answers.1. None, it's a hole there is no dirt in it.2. The President or Obama are acceptable answers3. Nothing4. None the wall is already built.5. A bed6. Balance7. Maid 2, there is no mail on Sunday.8. Just one word. As per rules my opponent had to get at least 6/8 correct to win the debate, but has 4/8 correct so that means I win the debate.
Riddle Debate

1. How much dirt is in a hole that is 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot?2. In this neighborhood there are tons of houses. There's a green house, blue house, orange house, etc... The Red man lives in the red hosue, the yellow man lives in the yellow house, the purple man lives in the purple house. Who lives in the White House?3. If you are poor then you have a lot of me, if you're rich then you have none of me. If you eat me then you die. What am I?4. It takes 8 men 20 minutes to build a wall, how long does it take 5 men to build the same wall?5. I have a head, body, one foot but four legs. I live in your house and you see me everyday. What am I?6. A natural state, I'm sought by all. Go without me, and you shall fall. You do me when you spend, and use me when you eat to no end.What am I?7. The FBI comes to you for help to solve a murder. In a Mansion a man is murdered in cold blood in his bedroom. During the murder the chief was in the kitchen, the nurse was in her room sleeping, maid 1 was vaccuming the hallway, and the other maid was getting the mail. Now tell me, who on this great Sunday would commit this murder.8. Spell out just one word with the fallowing letters. djruewtsoon
Riddle Debate

This is a Riddle Debate the rules are very simple. 1st round will be acceptance and in the second round I will ask a total of 8 questions, My opponent must get at minimuim 6 of them correct or he shall Forfeit all 7 of his points. (select winner option being used) He must not use the Internet either. In the finial round I will reveal the answers and weather or not he has gotten them correct or not. He/she will end the debate by a simple thank you comment.