BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed

I was going to clear this up in the comments, but I'll do it here for sake of organization.You have a confusion. You should read over this whole debate more carefully. There's no coherence in it. Look, answer this: should we be disagreeing with each other, or should we be debating? ---Please, understand what I'm saying. Here's my resolution:P1 = "It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed"Here's the negative of that:P2 = "It's more likely that there was a natural observation/measurement only explainable by the existence of a god, rather than said natural observation/measurement being explainable by 'filling in'."P1 = not(P2)---We need to go back to basics, on what a resolution is, and what it means to be "con" or "pro". If the resolution is P1, then I'm pro and you are con. If the resolution is P2, then I am con and you are pro. Both cases are equivalent. Does that make sense? Please let me know if it makes sense.---We can't have a debate if we don't at least agree on something. I'm your buddy here, I'm not your enemy. I'm trying to help you out. If you say things like "He also fallaciously claims that I am standing for his side of the debate", then that worries me. It shows me that we aren't even having basic reliable communication with each other.And also, if you don't know what I mean by certain words or phrases, ASK ME. Don't ask a dictionary. The dictionary didn't say it, I DID. I'm the one you should be asking for definitions of things I said. Make a comment and ask me a question, and I'll elaborate for you on what I mean by "made up". This dictionary looking up thing has to stop. Ask me about my own words. If you look for translations of "made up" in the dictionary and start using those, as if I was the one who wrote the dictionary, it's equivocation. ASK ME what MY WORDS mean. I'm just emphasizing to help you make it clear. Remember, I'm your buddy, not your enemy. It's a debate, not a fight.
It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed

Thank you for accepting the offer to debate.However, you are attempting to take the pro side of the debate, not the con side. I know that you are just looking for a clean debate, so I forgive you for that mistake.---For example, when you said "I will be assuming that observations needn't be objectively true", an example of that would be the image above which I will refer to as "stoneman". We see a man's face, but objectively there is no man there, it's just an assortment of stones. Assume for a moment, you are one of our superstitious homo sapien ancestors living in the plains of Africa, and you aren't on the top of the food chain. If you saw something like "stoneman", you would run in fear to ensure your safety. No matter whether "stoneman" can kill you or not, running from him will ensure your survival. You aren't certain if approaching him is safe; superstition is evolutionarily advantageous.Obviously, you (the ancestor) just made up the idea of "stoneman", because really there is no such thing. It would make sense, from an evolutionary survival point of view, to tell your friends to watch out for "stoneman". You, the ancestor, have made something up without attempting to intentionally lie to others.I am afraid that when you said "to make something up requires the intention of presenting a known lie to oneself as truth to others.", you were mistaken.---When you said "I shall be defending the position that it is more likely that people mistakenly observed what they thought to be a god rather than intentionally made this being up and intentionally lied", did you realize this is my side in the debate? I didn't explicitly say "religious people are not purpousfully telling a dirty lie", but if you read and understood round 1, you'd see that I'm not accusing any Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Christian of lying. I'm accusing them of hanging on to ancient superstitions.So, I thank you for your effort but you are trying to stand on my side of the debate.---Now, if you wish to have this debate, I kindly appreciate the challenge from you. You must debate that there is "evidence" for anything that resembles one of the various interpretations of the powerful being worshipped in every theistic religion. Just as an example, you could show how it was impossible for the Qur'an to be written by anything that has ever lived on planet earth. Or you could show why it would be an absolute contradiction for civilization to be where it is today, if Jesus didn't die on the cross 2000 years ago and come back to life. Up to you how you do it.---So again, I appreciate the offer for the challenge. Here is the resolution you are arguing in favour of: "It's more likely that there was a natural observation/measurement only explainable by the existence of a god, rather than said natural observation/measurement being explainable by 'filling in'". ("filling in" refers to the brain making up information rather than observing it. "Stoneman" only exists because the brain fills in.)
It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed

I accept. I will be assuming that observations needn't be objectively true and that to make something up requires the intention of presenting a known lie to oneself as truth to others. Under this understanding of the resolution's terms I shall be defending the position that it is more likely that people mistakenly observed what they thought to be a god rather than intentionally made this being up and intentionally lied to others. The definition of observe I will be resting my case upon will be this: Notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Tic tac toe

--- --- --- Resolution: Tic tac toe will not always be tied, if player does not make a mistake I will be arguing that if both players are playing best possible move, result will always be tied. We will play the game now. My opponent can either let me go first or go first. - If game is a tie, I win the debate. - If my opponent wins, he wins the debate - If I win, I must name the moves by which my opponent could make it tie. If I do, I win debate, if I don't my opponent wins the debate.
Contradictions in Genesis

Hello, Theist_1998. To clarify, there are no contradictions in the question I gave you. As any Christian would know, there are plenty of metaphors in the passages of the Bible. With this being said, if we read the Bible literally, we must underline the good with the bad. As a graduated computer science major, James Shewey, put's it: "If we read the scripture literally when scripture says the earth is flat, this must also be taken literally. If we can therefore move past the fact that scripture literally says the earth is flat without this being a crushing blow to our faith, then we can also move past the fact that plants were created before light, or the fact that in Genesis 2:5-10 it indicates that plants did not appear until after the creation of mankind (The same word, שִׂ֣יחַ is used in both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:5) and similar contradictions and incongruities. These needn't detract from the theological truth and perfection of scriptures unless we let them by examining scripture from the wrong frame of reference."If you need further sources, I'd love to refer you to some websites and people. Moving forward, here is a statement that is taken from: 1. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com... Some people will never die.Enoch never died."And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him." Genesis 5:24"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him." Hebrews 11:5Neither did Elijah."There appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11Or Melchisedec."Melchisedec ... without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." Hebrews 7:1-3"And Jesus said that you won't either, if you believe in him and do what he says. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." John 8:51"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." John 11:26Everyone will die."Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men." Romans 5:12"And as it is appointed unto men once to die." Hebrews 9:27Please explain why some men die while others don't. I'll be interested and intrigued by your response.
Contradictions in Genesis

Here is a comparison of the Biblical and Scientific sequence of living things: Bible Plants and Fruit Trees Sun, Moon, and Stars Life in oceans Birds Sea Monsters Domestic and Wild Mammals Humans Science Sun, Moon Prokaryote Bacteria, Archaea Photo-Synthetic bacteria Life in oceans Insects Amphibians reptiles, Birds Mammals Flowering Plants, Fruit trees Humans Please explain which side is correct, because as of right now, this is a clear contradiction - right? I'll be intrigued by your next response.
Contradictions in Genesis

I should have cleared this up from round one which is if we could only refer to the King James Bible because it is the one that I am familiar with. My answer: in Genesis 2:8 God is saying where he put Man after he created and Genesis 2:15 states why he put him there I will put in bracket the texts that states this. 15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden (to dress it and to keep it). I patiently await your response.
Contradictions in Genesis

Hello. I just want to thank my opponent for bringing up such an interesting topic that people have debated for years - are there contradictions Genesis? After reading the chapters of Genesis, I'll be providing questions that seem to offer issues for Christian apologetics. I will be posting one contradiction per round. This is for a few reasons: 1. I would like my opponent to be able to give a complete rebuttal towards one specific contradiction at a time. 2. The organization is much cleaner Question:Did God put Adam in the garden twice? * Genesis 2:8 (NASB)"The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed." [1]* Genesis 2:15 (NASB) "Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it." [2]Contradiction: Isn't this a clear contradiction in the Bible? Growing up, I've been taught God put Adam in the garden once. If not, why does the text say it twice? Sources: 1. https://www.biblegateway.com... ---> Genesis 2 2. IbidI'll be intrigued by your rebuttal.
I Won't break a rule.

My first new rule is that no round shall be forfeited. The second is that our previous President's name may not be mentioned at all in the debate. My opponent's argument is a sneaky one, one made in an attempt to 'cheat' the other player into losing. However, observe rule 4 "Rules apply to both player." My opponent, being a player is at the bay of the rules in the same way as I am. Meaning that rule number 5 applies to be in the same way it does him. "After rules are introduced, the opponent must write something in accordance with the rules." Because you said 'the' opponent and not 'my' opponent, you left the rule open to apply to both players, including yourself because of rule number 4. So as you see, you have tried and failed to Con me into losing. Also notice rule number 3, which states that rules that cannot be followed are losses. Because rules apply to both opponents (rule number 4), my opponent is also at bay. See my previous un-refuted argument made against my opponent's rule number 2 that states it's not possible to follow by my opponent because there is not a previous round that his Latin could respond to. Also see that he didn't even say it all in Latin, meaning that he broke his own rule (which according to rule 4 means he also has to follow) before my turn even began. Also, notice that my opponent failed to follow my two rules, as he neither touched my leg or appeared on TV. So, in closing, I applaud my opponent for his attempt to circumvent the rules of *the game*, and am pleased for my own sake that you simply couldn't follow through.. How sad to be snared in one's own trap. Quoque nocens. Sic tristis. Tendo iterum tunc vicis.
I Won't break a rule.

1) The debater on his turn must touch the person's anatomical leg that is on his body who is called LoremIpsum on debate.org, that is my actual self, and not any virtual or physical representation of me other than myself. 2) The debater must examine his/her own screen name and if, and only if, his/her screen name is "thegodhand" (only what's inside the quotes), then he/she must get on the most recognized type of FOX televised news on Friday, January 28, 2011 at 7:10 PM, and say the following, "Hello LoremIpsum." Those are my rules for this round. Please notice that I only introduced two rules, no more no less, that the rules are physically possible to follow (even if the opponent does feel my rules are over 9000 times harder to follow than his own rules), that I have touched my own leg (something that is evidence by my own personal testimony as myself), and that I've also followed my second rule. Also notice that my opponent's second rule was, and I quote, that 'Each writing must end with three sentences written in Latin.' Yet, if you look at his third sentence, "Awesome celeritate petram", you will see that it is not completely Latin. The word 'celeritate' is Latin and refers to the concept of speed or quickness and 'petram' refers to the concept of a rock or boulder. 'Awesome', however, is not a Latin word, and was likely the result of my opponent typing it into a translator, the translator not recognizing it, and the translator spitting it out unchanged. Seeing as this is not all Latin, my opponent has already broken a rule. As per the rules of this game, the first person to break a rule loses, and because of my opponent's breaking of a rule, he has lost the debate. I have also tried to conform to the rules, but even if flaw is found in my response, it doesn't matter, because the opponent has already lost, meaning I have already won. I would also like to point out that my opponent's second rule states that the three Latin sentences must be written and reply to what has been written last round. However, this rule is impossible to follow because there has not been a round preceding this one. As a result of this, the opponent's loses because he violates rule number 3. If my opponent argues that he meant replies to the last part of the round, then he still loses because it is still a rule that he could not possibly follow, being the first writer. Ego operor non amo meus inimicus lacuna. Suus lacuna utriusque mihi. Ego sum vulnero per suus lacuna.
I Won't break a rule.

(Apologies to Mongeese, I hope I have a real debater this time) Anyway, the rules are: 1. Each debater must introduce two new rules each round- no more no less. 2. If a rule is broken, then the opponent loses. 3. Rules that cannot be followed are losses. 4. Rules apply to both players. 5. After rules are introduced, the opponent must write something in accordance with the rules. The rules above don't count as rules. My rules for round 1 are: 1. Each round, one internet meme must be referenced. 2. Each writing must end with three sentences written in Latin. Any translation services are allowed. The sentences must be a reply to what has been written in the last round. Here it goes. So, yesterday I got rickrolled by some guy while I was walking on the street. Optimus Dragonforce manus saxum saeculorum. Quamvis etiam bonum Metallica. Awesome celeritate petram.
evolution is noticably weak when it comes to the origin of life.

Well I will do a very short conclusion since it will not matter overall. Evolution and creation can go hand in hand. Although I do not believe in creation it still can. Evolution has very little to do with the beginning of life it takes place after life was created. Evolutionist and scientist still place many theories about the origins of life. Just look up Richard Dawkins. Thank you to all who vote and have watched this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate even though he did not fully participate. Thank you it has been a pleasure.
evolution is noticably weak when it comes to the origin of life.

I apologize for forgetting to post the link to the website I use here it is: http://evolution.berkeley.edu... Now I would like to point out that the theories that scientist put out there are backed by some type of evidence now wether this evidence is wrong or not who knows but they still have evidence. Your beliefs on the origins of life are backed by pure faith in your religion. Nothing against your beliefs but it is backed by a book that has no evidence or hard proof besides itself. In reference to your "Biblical flood" could you name any references to this "Biblical flood" besides your bible? That would be greatly appreciated. I would like you to comment on the fact that evolution is what happens to life once it has already been created. Do you realize you are attacking something that can go hand in hand with creation? Since your argument is "Evolution is noticeably weak when it comes to the origins of life" I would beg to differ. Now although evolution does not necessarily involve the origins of life scientist and evolutinist still have theories backed by evidence. Since your comment on my evidence was almost completely unsupportive of your side I will post many theories (and evidence) that scientist have came up with about the origins of time. "Some Warm Little Pond"- Charles Darwin. "In 1953 two people created Darwin"s warm little pond. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, working at the University of Chicago mixed water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen in a glass bulb and added heat and sparks of electricity; they were trying to recreate the atmosphere that existed during earth's early days to test whether organic molecules such as amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins, could have spontaneously formed. They ran the experiment for a week and amazingly, when they analysed their concoction, found over 10 different types of amino acids." I do not have enough room to keep posting but next round I will continue.
evolution is noticably weak when it comes to the origin of life.

Like I said. Weak.If they actually are that close to reproducing what it took to create life, then lets get to it. And you say that the evidence that you have is millions of years old. How did they come up with that number?Is it because of the strata that these fossils are found in. Those sediment layers would just as easily be because of a massive flood of biblical proportions. They are starting out rejecting what the creator said happened. Therefore their reasoning will never even consider that as a possibility.And since all civilizations that recorded any thing mentions a flood.Just that should give them pause to think maybe a flood would explain these different layers of sediment. And maybe these things are not as old as we speculate. Just because a person puts on a white coat and has a scientist label after his name does not guarantee he is right. Especially if he starts out wrong. Even if he is wrong a little bit. The farther down that road he goes, the further he gets from the truth.And the more assumptions he has to come up with to still be credible. Then you throw this millions and billions of years into the mix to throw any objective evidence so far out of reach that people will not even try. The only ones who can really solve this is you. We cannot. Because God is done creating anything. After he created all these things, he saw it was good, and put the law of geneses into motion. Everything will reproduce after its own kind. So, if you are set in solving this question, then you and the other smart people have to do it.You are convinced you have an idea how it happened and what conditions it took to happen.Then lets get to it. You even have place you say it occurred.I am sure that it will not be too long before you finally create the conditions life will spring forth and end this debate once and for all. The world has its eyes on you.
evolution is noticably weak when it comes to the origin of life.

Since you have not put any rules into the debate I will Jump right into my argument. Now your opening statement and your title are a little spotty to say the least. Evolution is by definition(the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.) Evolution and creation can go hand in hand. SInce you believe that anti-creation doesnt have a good "answer"for the beginning I will give you my evidence. When Did Life Originate. "Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure "" the stromatolite." Where Did Life Originate. "Scientists are exploring several possible locations for the origin of life, including tide pools and hot springs. However, recently some scientists have narrowed in on the hypothesis that life originated near a deep sea hydrothermal vent." So to sum all of this up, Your argument is flawed since evolution is what happens after creation but with that being said evolutionist and other scientist who do not believe in creationism do have theories for the origins of life. If you would like me to provide links to all of these theories I'd be more than happy to provide them for you. I will be looking forward to your agruement.
It is most rational to believe there is a 'Bigfoot'

I will address his new points briefly and since he brought them up in the final round, I within DDO standards by replying. The polygraph: Very quickly, these tests are not accurate and the site my opponent links sells polygraph services for 500 to 1000 dollars to anyone (think your husband is cheating? Call 1-800 Imanass and we will set it straight for only 1000 dollars) of course they will tell you the results are near 100%. Psychics say the same thing. My opponent's last round was convoluted, but he still does not understand that no conspiracy is needed in this case. I have explained this already. The new video is so grainy that we cannot say what is there. I ask again, where is the biological evidence? You should have 300,000 years of it. My opponent wishes to apply Occam's razor to this case and I welcome it considering all the assumptions and additions he must add to make GB alive today. I have already listed them in previous rounds. Pro was the instigator in this debate and has failed to uphold the resolution. His job was to show that believing in Bigfoot is the most rational position to hold and at the end of this debate the voter is still left with grainy videos, footprints by known hoaxers, and an arrogant professional scientist. This is not enough. Great claims require great evidence. Pro has not even provided good evidence in this case.