BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why do some people deny the existence of God? (Only Atheists)

I gladly accept this challenge and wish good luck to the instigator. Prayer does not work. We pray to God in the hope that He will answer our prayers and listen to our woes. Prayers are supposed to be sacred, sincere conversations with a higher power. Since one of the basic beliefs about God is that He is omnipresent, He should be in each of our hearts and acknowledge our pleas. Try praying tonight. Try asking for something that is in good intentions, like the curing of a terminally-ill relative, or the recovery of a lost family heirloom. Wait for Him to listen to you and heed your prayer. Wait, nothing changed? This is odd. Jesus claims in Matthew 7:7, "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened... how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" How can there be no response to wholehearted prayers? The answer is simple, there is no one listening to you. God hates anyone who does not please him. Read Exodus 35:2. It says, "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death." Consider the application of such a statement to society today. Think about that how many people work on the Sabbath- practitioners in medicine, law enforcement, etc. This passage from the Old Testament is stating that God wants these people put to death for not following his commands. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 gives another ridiculous statement, "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid." This insinuates that any and all rebellious teenagers should be put to death, with no chance of redemption. Again, apply this to a society such as today's where more and more teenagers are becoming unruly and lackadaisical. Would it make sense to commit genocide against the youth of today for not honoring their parents? It would not. I will post more arguments in the next round.
Why do some people deny the existence of God? (Only Atheists)

There are many people who believe there's no God. Why? When I tell them:" No-one has made your cars. No-one has built your houses. No-one has invented electrical equipment." They will ridicule me. They believe some people have made them. So why don't they believe Someone has created the universe which is greater than these material stuff? Don't they look at the universe? Was it created accidentally? They may say:" We can see the people who made our cars. But we can't see God." How do they except to see God? Truly, God cannot be described except the way the Almighty described it. How can God be described when the senses are unable to imagine or understand the Supreme Being that cannot be seen? The Divine Being despite the complete and full presence is remote and yet is near with all the remoteness; has created circumstance and personality but has no circumstance or personality; has created the place but has no place. God has no place or circumstance, the Almighty is a single unique being, God"s magnificence is distinct. How do they expect to know God? They don't even know about themselves. They don't know many things about nature, space and their bodies. So how do they want to know God? We must feel God with our hearts. God cannot be seen but it doesn't mean He doesn't exist. We can't see the feelings. We can't see the love of our friends. We just feel it but it doesn't mean they don't love us. We can't see the scent of flowers. We just feel it. But it doesn't mean they have no scent. We can't see our conscience. But it doesn't mean we don't have it. We can't see our intellect. But it doesn't mean we can't think. Why do people deny God?
Is time travel possible

OK! Again, you are using 2 dimensional mathematics to explain a 4 dimensional theory. You cannot reverse any time mathematics with out coming to a stop first and that is "0", stopped time. Advancing time physical laws are not the same in stopped time. Manipulating the mathematics, you can eventually create an explanation for anything in the universe. But the explanation will be for 2 dimensions. And wo is sure that these funnels will change the speed of 4 dimensional time and not instead keep time constant but create inter=dimensional travel. Without actual physical tests to prove that all these other theories hold true, it's still just a guess, an educated guess, I grant you, but still a guess. Also, to be sure you were actually going forward in time, you would have to visualize it, see it progress. Next, the exterior of the vehicle in which the traveler is placed would be subject to deterioration by the fabric of time, which would expose the traveler to that which is outside, thus destroying all of that which is trying to be sent. Dark matter, even though not physically proved yet, has some abrasive qualities which will cause the damage as well. Wormhole, mathematics state that it would be instantaneous to travel through. But in reality will still take very small amounts of time, normal time. Another theory, that has yet to be proven that you can travel through, as a fact. Each of the reference you sight, have the words "may" or "should" or "could" or "might" or "must". All without actual proof that it will happen. Einstein, even envisioned 4 dimensional concepts to use in his mathematical explanations. Keep in mind though, some he didn't. Seeing or experiencing in 4 dimensions and then trying to explain them on and in 2 dimensions is almost impossible. So, if any of you reading this experience 4 dimensional time travel forward, remember my words and yo cannot return to our time and when you try to explain to others, many even n this time period, only think in 2 dimensions, so it's going to be very difficult to do. Truly, I do not think forward time travel is possible and traveling back is impossible!!!
Is time travel possible

As per the equations, all reactions stop including gravity, electron movement, no fields, no movement at all. Its a barrier that cannot be moved through. No reaction! None! Stopped time is "0"! +1 is forward movement, -1 is reverse movement. There is no going around that fact. Mathematics is on a 2 dimensional surface and not in a 4 dimensional space. Reaction is the start of the first singularity, which is when time started in this universe. Its been proven with a NASA experiment that gravity has an effect on time. But from the perspectives' point of view. Forward time can be manipulated. Going back or reverse is not possible. Mathematics treats "0" as just another number. When there are different physical laws for that point in time. Sighting other arguments or debates for that which does not include the concept of non movement at "0" does not belong within this debate. Their explanations only include movement forward or backwards per their equations. I, even believe that to approach or enter "0" is to implode or expand to infinity. Even if you manipulate time, you do not get younger or older, other than the normal progression of point of view time. Only an outside observer would see you from his changed appearance as his normal progression point of view time. Time is relative only to the individual.
Is time travel possible

Relatively recently, whilst"exploring"the mathematics of string theory,"Theoretical Physicist James Gates and his researcher discovered something rather interesting buried deep"within the mathematical equations of super symmetry. They found computer code. And it isn"t just random 1"s and 0"s either. Bizarrely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software. Specifically; Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code. "http://theawakenment.com... If our reality is a computer simulation as evidence suggests, time is a meaningless concept. All one would have to is manipulate the code to travel back in time or forward in time. * Within the construct of space and time we can bend both dependant on the mass of the object. The "fabric" of space can be manipulated. This concept was used in the movie "Intersteller". https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Here's a clip from the movie demonstrating this concept if interested. http://youtu.be... * In the movie, Cooper did age, but his time ran way slower than the time of earth. That is due to relativity. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, time runs slower with respect to Earth on planets whose gravitational pull is greater than that of Earth. So, according to the film, Cooper landed on Miller's planet, which runs very close to Gargantua, a spinning black hole. Nothing escapes the gravitational pull of a black hole, even light. So, a planet which is running dangerously close to a Black hole will also have gravitational pull way more than earth. So much more, that 45 minutes on that planet was equivalent to 23 years in earth time. When Cooper returns, he feels like he has been gone a few hours. His young daughter is now an elderly woman. * If one could get enough mass, speed, or energy to manipulate space time, time travel would be possible. * http://youtu.be... http://abcnews.go.com...
Is time travel possible

"Time" is the label word we put to reaction, thus time is reaction. There is NO action, only reaction! Time travel forward is only a perspectives' point of view. Time travel back is not possible! One must first stop time to travel back, since time is reaction, stopped time has no movement through it or in it. The equations say it is possible, but there are no physical properties for absolute "0". Worm hole or black holes are still reactions and time just moves at a different speed within them. Time still moves forward per the perspectives' point of view or the traveler. Nothing un-reacts or can!
DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"

ViolatationsMy opponent claims that I plagerised, but this is false, because that is a debate card and it is cut like a debate card, so you can through that arguement out the window. I'll now show how I didn't drop any arguements and how/ why I won today's debate.1. GW Exists pageMy opponent states that I didn't attack any arguements here, but what I stated is why we have it the way it is in the first place, because of Global Cooling! Then it begins in 2000 with Al Gore campaigning, leading to does it exist. My oponent just says I dropped arguements, but I refuted the whole contention.2. ChangeMy opponent states that I didn't bring up how it was so long (note- I couldn't find the link for this), but if you read round two you see how it works and those of you who were here this summer know what I'm talking about. 3. Religon and better thingsMy opponent dropps this contention so you can extend across my arguements here. (this was if GW gets replaced then other things should take it's place, arguement). In conclusion, you can see that my opponent didn't really touch up on my arguements and also falsly accused me of plagerism.
DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"

First off, my opponent did not refute my arguments, and completely dropped my most conclusive argument (the DDO global warming opinion page samples). He copy and pasted an article from http://www.redorbit.com...Con's only commentary on this article was "So as you can see that the debate on man-made GW would be useless and the debate should be on weather or not GW exists as we currently have it."The entire article was about how man-made global warming doesn't exist, or is greatly exaggerated, but the author agrees global warming exists. I completely fail to see how this doesn't help my side, as the 'big issue' in this article is man-made global warming, NOT global warming in general. This shows Con's complete lack of understanding on this issueCon then goes on to say "It's too difficult to change things," citing examples of how hard it would be to implement the resolution. This is not a valid argument because it doesn't attempt to analyze the situation. He fails to show that the long and difficult process he described somehow means that the costs outweigh the benefits. The resolution is not trivial, because as it stands, the big issue (global warming exists) is a complete failure of a prompt. It fails to provide clear results because people are too interested in expressing their opinion that man-made global warming exists as seen by the samples in my round one. People shouldn't have to take multiple levels of thought just to 'guess' what someone's opinion on an issue is. I mean, I could vote Con to the prompt global warming exists, assuming everyone else assumes that I assume it means 'man-made global warming exists'. However, another person might assume that I'm ignorant because I don't think global warming exists, when really I do. In conclusion, Debate.org should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists" to present a prompt that represents the opinion that the members of debate.org actually want to share, as seen by the comments on http://www.debate.org......
DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"

I will first refute my opponents arguements then move on to my own.1. Samples taken from GW Exists page.The main reason that we have it as GW Exists is because not even 20 years ago we were concerned with Global Cooling and going back into another Ice Age and as a matter of fact we are beginning to cool with global cooling not heat up. Entering a cooling period RedOrbit 2009 (“Is The Earth Entering A Cooling Cycle?”, http://www.redorbit.com...)On the scientific research front, most news headlines tend to be aimed at showing how global temperatures are on a steady upward climb, but one report published last week appears to reveal that those upward trends may not be entirely accurate.¶ In an October 9 BBC News story, climate correspondent Paul Hudson noted that the warmest year on record was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.¶ The story goes on to state that no climate increase has been measured over the past 11 years, although emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise.¶The BBC story cited experts who claim that although the world has gone through decades of rapid warmth during the 20th Century, the earth operates on natural climate cycles, which man has no control over.¶ Additionally, experts have long debated whether the spikes in warming have been attributed to an increase in the Sun’s energy and that warming causes a rise in carbon dioxide levels, rather than the other way around. For some scientists, there is the lingering possibility that the earth could be entering a period of global cooling, rather than the widely sensationalized warming trend.¶BBC News cited a study published two years ago by the Royal Society.So as you can see that the debate on man-made GW would be useless and the debate should be on weather or not GW exists as we currently have it.2. It's too difficult to change things.During this past summer Koopin had changed the Big Issues, but it took over 3 months! The reason why is that it requires the votes inorder to pass. It must pass through several stages inorder to become a big Issue. 1. Must be nominated by a DDO member, 2. Must gain enough votes, (this varries depending on how many issues get nominated in the 1st step by DDO) 3. Must be approved by Juggle (Juggle owns the site and they won't allow changes to their site that they don't approve of). Plus there are things that are better to possibly put there like Does God Exists, Do Aliens Exists, etc...
DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"

1. Samples taken from Global Warming Exists DDO opinion page . http://www.debate.org...Prompt: "global warming exists" with the option of PRO or CON Voted Con (that global warming does not exist): 1) RoyLatham - "Global warming exists, but I assume the prompt means "Human-caused global warming crisis exists. ""2) Tes95 - " Not to the degree people believe. I believe the Earth simply has an unpredictable climate, with erratic and weird weather at times. "3) jzonda415 - "Humans don't cause the world to warm up, it's a natural cycle. This is idiotic Liberal conspiracies made to do nothing but create the EPA to target business. It is disgusting really. "4) BigSky - "Global Warming does indeed exist, it is highly over exaggerated by liberals who use it as a scare tactic. "5) Nur-Ab-Sal - "I assume this means anthropogenic global warming. "Voted Pro (that global warming exists):1) Andromeda Z - "There is a significant amount of evidence to suggest global warming exists. However, it is not entirely anthropogenic (though we do cause some of it). "2) imabench - "There is evidence it exists and that humans could be playing a part in causing it, but I do think that some people overly emphasized how fast it could occur and how deadly it could be. "The above quotes show a clear disconnect between the comments and the way people voted. RoyLatham said, "global warming exists" and still voted con to express his opinion that man-made global warming does not exist. This is a major problem because people are unable to express their opinion on the 'big issue,' that being if man-made global warming exists. Whether or not humanity contributes to global warming is the major issue, NOT if global warming exists. There really isn't much debate on if the Earth is warming or not, and there SURELY isn't any legitimate debate on whether or not the Earth goes through periods of warming. .. ever. .. and for any amount of time. For instance, every single person must admit that the Earth goes through temperature changes, so global warming exists without a doubt, and so does global cooling. Man-made global warming is the big issue because we are in the equation, and humans can change their course of action if we decide we are causing the Earth to warm. However, if the Earth is just going through a period of warming, it doesn't have any real ramifications that are under our control, and thus is not a big issue. The prompt that capitalizes the debate over global warming into a single sentence really is, "Man-made global warming exists and is significant, and the consequences are serious. " However, that prompt is too long, and the next best would be, "Man-made global warming exists".
DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"

I will be arguing Pro in this debate. DDO= debate.org (this website) Please note that this is referring to the list of 'big issues' found on everyone's profile page. Rules:1) No semantics2) No posting arguments in the first round (this round)3) No arguing objective reality or nihilism in any way. More specifically, do not argue that no one 'should' do anything, in regards to the title. I realize that this is a legitimate debate, but I want this debate to be free of that as to keep the debate focused.Accepting this debate means you accept these terms. Breaking any of these rules = loss for my opponent.
On Balance, authoritarianism cannot ever be justified

I accept, and I will add to PRO's definition of authoritarianism: 1. expecting or requiring people to obey rules or laws : not allowing personal freedom; of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority 2. of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I want to note that authoritarianism is not unique to governments, but that it can occur in any number of circumstances. Authoritarianism exists in the military, in varying degrees in business and in all environments where a hierarchal chain of command is the existing power structure. In that PRO has written the resolution as he has, in order to affirm the resolution, he must contend that in all possible circumstances where authoritarianism is present to any degree, it is always unjustified. Conversely, in order for me to negate the resolution, I must only prove that in at least one circumstance authoritarianism is to some degree justified.
In regards to non-medical abortions, fraternal consent should be required at the national level.

I'm glad to see that my opponent concedes to the fact that a person and not a fetus has rights. That said, let us get back to the discussion regarding the rights of the father verses the rights of the mother. Abortion is an issue about rights: rights to privacy, medical sovereignty, property, etc. Requiring a woman to take unnecessary risks with her life and body - and pregnancy ALWAYS greatly increases medical risks - just because the man who ejaculated into her says that she must is indicative of slavery and a blatant infringement upon her rights. The father doesn't have a say in abortion because abortion is about the woman's right to choose - not the man's right to property. Proof of this is the fact that our legal system does not require the father to pay child support to a woman while she is pregnant with the fetus. Instead, the man is required to pay child support once the baby is born. This is because support is necessary for the well-being and rights of the CHILD, whereas abortion deals with the well-being and rights of the mother. We have already agreed that a fetus is not yet a child or person and therefore has no right to anything. All pregnancy carries with it a certain amount of risk and responsibility. Pro is suggesting that a man can force biological impositions onto a woman just because they've had sex. Let's assume for a moment that this woman wasn't coerced or forced into having sex with said man, etc. and take a look at Pro's analogy and sole rebuttal. He asked, "So if I had YOUR dog in MY house, I could do whatever I like with it?" Using this analogy, what Pro does with my dog is irrelevant. The real question is: Should I be able to DEMAND that Pro keep my dog in his house?! To accept this analogy is to accept without question that I should be able to demand that Pro allow my dog to stay in his house.