BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Imagine

P. S. I don't think you have access to a valid accurate dictionary as the word "transnationalism" That's not the word you used. You might want to check up on that to see exactly which word you used was which does not exist in any dictionary. Now let's move on because we're going to skip everything you've stated in your most recent argument except for a very select few things because "Here's my detailed view on every line if you will. " that doesn't work. It doesn't work, Not ever because you support the worst president of all time, Namely Donald fuzzy bunny slippers toilet dust Trump, Because he has soooooo many things in common with the god of the bible, Claims he believes in the god of the bible but if you look at the tells he gives off every single time he mentions this, There's no possible way that he does as he places himself above the god of the bible and you yourself believes in the god of the bible in which cae John Lennon mist certainly did not, Not ever believe in the god of the bible and would be horrified of Donald piece of s--t Trump. Pe-IR-OD. So this being said, There's absolutely no possible way that you can get into the mind and soul of John Lennon, What he thought and dreamed about and how to achieve his dreams and ideals. You support the god of the bible for christ sake! A known terrorist according to the bible itself, And yet you cannot even prove this god of ---YOURS--- even exists! AND EVEN WORSE according to your profile you make over $150, 000 annually. My god, What would you do at the poverty level? What would you do if you were to actually experience true horrific suffering? You have no idea, None, What true horrific suffering is, None. You fully support military action, War. Everything you've stated in your interpretations of "Imagine" was negative once again. Everything in the song "Imagine" song is hopeful. Look, If you cannot be hopeful, Then don't even bother. K? Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky "If his dream world is where nobody believes in religion, Then that's sort of violating freedom of thought, But I admit this argument is a but far-fetched. " It doesn't violate the freedom of thought. Wow. How does it because John doesn't make it a LAW for you to not "Imagine". And it is far fetched to get rid of religion. However, Its the ONLY way this world will live in peace + the dumping of a few other things as Imagine clearly mentions. Imagine there's no countries OK I'm not going to look up words that don't exist and use a simple spell check. It isn't hard to do - "Yeah it really isn't, But then we'de have open borders and again we'd have one super big ungovernable country" OK I'm now ending this debate because that's exactly what your unproven god wants according to your ragweed bible. Thankfully it ain't gonna happen, Otherwise it already would have happened. Yep according to you, Your god cannot or somehow will not govern this entire planet at any time in the near or even distant future. Bye.
Imagine

P. S. I don't think you have access to a valid accurate dictionary as the word "transnationalism" is in Merriam-Webster and Dictionary. Com to name a few. Merriam Webster def. - extending or or going beyong national boundaries Look I understand it's a dream and an imaginative world as the name suggests. But that's exactly it John admits it himself, This world is a dream, A fantasy, An imagination if you will. This world would never work and suit the desires of man. I personally wouldn't really consider myself as a pessimist neither an optimist, A pessimist always believes the worst version of an event will most likely happen, I'm rather stating what's already happening. If you wivll I'm telling the truth which is that our world is far from perfect. Here's my detailed view on every line if you will. Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky - Okay I'm imagining this, But what does this really do? Disporive religion or something? If his dream world is where nobody believes in religion, Then that's sort of violating freedom of thought, But I admit this argument is a but far-fetched. Imagine all the people Living for today (ah ah ah) - I agree, While it's important to plan for the future it's more important to live day by day. Imagine there's no countries - #Transnationalist #TransnationalismIsAWord It isn't hard to do - Yeah it really isn't, But then we'de have open borders and again we'd have one super big ungovernable country Nothing to kill or die for - Why would there be nothing to kill or die for? If he's talking about Vietnam then I agree, Useless immoral proxy wars are not okay, But sometimes military intervention is called for. And for wars maybe, But it's impossible to stop all crime and criminals, This is more than a dream. Add of course there are three things I, And I hope everyone else would die for too, My family, My Country (Air Force Pilot 5 years), And My religion. And no religion, Too - Okay so let's ban freedom of thought as well while we're at it. Imagine all the people Living life in peace - China, Russia, North Korea/every communist + socialist nation You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us - A conservative republican hippie, Don't really go together, I feel like it would be akward for me to join And the world will be as one - Again, Transnationalist - You are a dreamer, And you are the only one as in one elses dreams can this fantasy world exist. Imagine no possessions - Ah, A communist as well, Doesn;t believe in private property rights. I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger - Greed can be good in most scenarios as it can lead people to be more ambitious in whatever they're doing. I'm a partner at my firm because of my desire and greed you can call it to be one of the best at what I do. A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world - Again, Private proprety, My Mercedes Maybach is mine, Not yours, And certainly not anyone else's, But MINE!
Imagine

What is transnationalist? There's no such a word. So I have no idea what you are trying to yak about. And then trying to display it with - communism? I mean that sounds like a boring Oprah VS Phil Donahue VS Dinah Shore show competition without their beauty marks as all these hosts of daytime stand apart in their squares as monarchs pay them as danceable chess pieces. What you are doing is mentioning what people are and do and the scum that people wipe their noses in. Don't you think that John knew that with all the ours that he did, With all that he saw? Duh. What the song Imagine did was "Imagine". Nothing to kill or die for. . . War. The thirst for blood. The Vietnam war was in full swing at the time of John's life. He saw it all. Bodies upon bodies stacked neatly on top of each other. Now why should man WANT to kill or die for anything except for precious few things like protecting your family from a maggot who wants to kill your family especially your kid? But let's suppose that crap is no longer taking place. Let's suppose that all that crap is completely erased from the human steel brain? And its backed up by Verse 5, Imagine all the people living life in peace "Look I want everyone to live in happiness and peace too, But again there are bad people out there. " And you ruin it because who cares? This song isn't about reality. This song is about hope. That's a huge monumental difference. Verse 6, The world will be as one. . . "This fully proves my assumption that he was a transnationalsit (someone who believes the Earth should be one big super nation)" You can't make up words to suit your wants, Needs and desires which is what so-called christians have a super nasty habit of doing. And that verse in which is repeated is a lot bigger than that. Now you think about what else it entails. Verse 7, No need for greed. . . . "Humans are greedy, All animals are, There"s nothing you can do to stop that. " There you go again being the super duper pessimist that you are. This song is about hope. Not about rabid corrosive battery acid eating away at your insides as you think of it as. "No NEED for greed. " John's right. There is no NEED for greed. There's no requirement, No necessity for greed. Greed is a silly conception. Just like jealousy from the christian unproven god is a silly conception.
Imagine

Hey man nice to be back. Look I love the Beatles but not so much after they broke up. Hey Jude, The Yellow Submarine are some of my favorites. Look the lyrics seem nice and all but to me they seem like a recipe for transnationalist communism. It also undermines many things that are important to society as a whole. Verse 4, Nothing to kill or die for. . . There will always be bad people. Verse 5, Imagine all the people living life in peace Look I want everyone to live in happiness and peace too, But again there are bad people out there. Verse 6, The world will be as one. . . This fully proves my assumption that he was a transnationalsit (someone who believes the Earth should be one big super nation) Verse 7, No need for greed. . . . Humans are greedy, All animals are, There"s nothing you can do to stop that. Anyway, Again nice to see you and nice to be back. FYI my other account wasn"t just malfunctioning, So I created this one. -AKmath2 (originally AKmath)
Imagine

Imagine John Lennon. . . Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today (ah ah ah) Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion, Too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=VOgFZfRVaww - John Lennon - Imagine Clearly, The song is about worldwide peace and the ways to achieve it. He's right. Prove him wrong by disproving this song, The worlds greatest song ever created in my humble opinion. Yeah. I've probably heard A LOT more songs that you have. dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
Hitler was a Nice person

OK, this is my first debate ever, so I gladly take your challenge. If we use your definitions, pleasant in manner, good natured, well then right off the bat we can say hitler was not a nice person, because his nature was to exterminate all those who werent worthy, and was he pleasant in manner? well he was cracked out 24/7, so i think we can say that hitler was not a very nice guy. Exterminating another race does not qualify as being a "nice guy" even in the eyes of your own people
Hitler was a Nice person

Hello, This debate will be in 5 rounds. I shall take the position of Contender, and the following definitions will be used: nice( nīs):(of a person) Pleasant in manner; good-natured; kind: "he's a really nice guy". Hitï¿½ler (ˈhitlər): Adolf (1889–1945), chancellor of Germany 1933–45; born in Austria. He established the totalitarian Third Reich in 1933. The debate shall be about Hitler being nice or not.
Absolute Truth #2

Please note that my opponent forfeited the last round without presenting an argument, everything I said in the previous round should carry over. Given the fact that the topic is not precisely defined I'll enjoy the freedom to share my position on absolute truth. My position still remains that absolute truth is obtained from observable and verifiable sources such as: 2+2 = 4, a triangle has 3 sides, the moon revolves around the earth, the earth revolves around the sun, and so on. Affirmed!
Absolute Truth #2

Since my opponent has not stated his/her position and the title does not help define the topic I can't argue against a topic which is not defined; therefore, I'll have to just reply to what my opponent has posted. "This debate will deal with how we can find absolute truth. " - I don't see where you propose how we find absolute truth. .. so I'll just say that I'm taking the con side on that argument. We find absolute truth from multiple sources, and most notably from observable and/or verifiable sources. "One of the implications of this is that it is meaningless to even discuss the idea of a GOD since this idea doesn't fit into one of the two criteria mentioned above. " - So you're arguing that all-caps GOD (not God or god) is the source of absolute truth. .. now I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a WILD guess that this is the Christian "GOD" (and not any other random "GOD"). But again, that's just a guess so I can't argue against my own guesses, I need your arguments to con against ;). "I think that we can know if there is a GOD or not and I think that this is important. " - OK. .. let's hear it. "If it can be shown that Ayer and Hume are wrong then it would mean that we can reason about absolute truth (which we've already proved existed in debate 1) and therefore agnosticism's only reason for not doing so would be indifference. " - "Not doing so" what? Not reasoning about absolute truth? Or not reasoning about the existence of God? ------------------------------------------------------------------ CONCLUSION: My opponent has not defined a proper topic for debate, so I can't respond until my opponent posts his/her alleged source of absolute truth. I'm guessing he's going to propose that god is the source. .. but I don't want to waste my argument if my opponent is not arguing that god's the source of absolute truth.
Absolute Truth #2

From the first debate in this series I have proved that there is absolute truth. This debate will deal with how we can find absolute truth. A.J. Ayer, building upon David Hume's views, said that a statement can only be meaningful for humans if it's self-evident or if empirically verifiable (can be proved by one or more of our five senses). One of the implications of this is that it is meaningless to even discuss the idea of a GOD since this idea doesn't fit into one of the two criteria mentioned above. I disagree. I think that we can know if there is a GOD or not and I think that this is important. This debate is arguing against agnosticism. If it can be shown that Ayer and Hume are wrong then it would mean that we can reason about absolute truth (which we've already proved existed in debate 1) and therefore agnosticism's only reason for not doing so would be indifference.
Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position

I will argue that weak atheism can also be an intellectually honest position. Weak atheism is simply the lack of belief in god or god's. A weak atheist does not necessarily believe that the existence of god cannot be known as you have put in your definition of agnosticism so I will classify it as a separate belief although I realize that they do not have to be mutually exclusive. "Intellectual rigour is an important part, though not the whole, of intellectual honesty — which means keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence." This was your definition of intellectual rigor. That one's convictions are proportionate to one's valid evidence. This is in essence the epistemological theory of evidentialism. "Person S is justified in believing proposition p at time t if and only if S's evidence for p at t supports believing p."[1] A weak atheist can lack a belief in god and still be an evidentialist. One merely believes that god or god's exist if and only if evidence is brought forth to justify that belief. You seem to believe that the BOP is equal to the theist and atheist. However, it is the one who makes the positive affirmation that is responsible for providing the evidence as to it's validity. A weak atheist looks at the supposed evidence that the theist brings forth and does not believe that it is enough to warrant belief. That fits exactly into your definition of intellectual rigor. A weak atheist bases their belief on all evidence available. [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position

I look forward to it! My argument is, essentially, a simple one. I will use this round to offer a basic overview of my argument, and will wait for my opponent's response before going into further detail. Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position, because it makes no claim of knowledge. I noticed a couple of comments regarding knowledge claims vs. belief claims, and I would like to address that. While claims of God's existence or non-existence are often framed as belief claims, further delving shows that most claimants are actually making knowledge claims: 1. . http://www.christianity.ca... 2. . http://www.macnet.ca... 3. . http://atheistblogger.com... The above links involve different beliefs, but all have one thing in common: an air of matter-of-factness. All, at one point or another, make what I would call knowledge claims. The fact is, Christians, Muslims, etc. , all claim to *know* not just who God is, but his nature, his plans and his authority. Atheists differ greatly amongst themselves, so I cannot make any sweeping claims about them, but it is not unusual or rare to hear direct and clear statements of God's non-existence and insults and ridicule regarding believers and texts. These are all much, much more than simple claims of belief. Despite the arguments of both believers and non-believers, it is difficult to avoid the fact that no one actually knows whether or not there is a deity, what that deity may or may not be and our noticeable lack of evidence one way or the other. Because of this lack of evidence or any cause for certainty, it is intellectually dishonest to claim anything but God's existence being unknown.
Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position

It is my contention, and I believe I can prove, that agnosticism is the only intellectually honest position to take in regards to whether or not there is a deity. Round one will be reserved for acceptance and definitions. Definitions I consider most relevant are italicized. Agnosticism: - a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" - the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism Intellectual Honesty and Dishonesty: Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are: - the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading - the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position - the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context. http://en.wikipedia.org... Intellectual rigour is an important part, though not the whole, of intellectual honesty — which means keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence. For the latter, one should be questioning one's own assumptions, not merely applying them relentlessly if precisely. http://en.wikipedia.org... Deity/God: I will be using a broad definition of "god" or "deity", to include all deities that are now, or ever have been, worshiped or believed in: A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often called in some religions as a God. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity I look forward to debating this interesting topic.
Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

You said: 1) There is absolutely no evidence for the Biblical God. My response: technically yes but at the same time there is no evidence that disproves his existence but there is evidence that that proves Biblical stories such as Noahs ark and the Biblical account for Mt Sinai . https://www. Ancient-origins. Net/news-history-archaeology/does-new-evidence-prove-noah-s-ark-buried-turkish-mountain-009404 . https://www. Express. Co. Uk/news/weird/1070891/bible-proof-noahs-ark-remains-found-mt-ararat-excavation-spt Or if you want videos instead . https://youtu. Be/IoeEy8Qzzy8 . https://youtu. Be/18gvJwx8VyI . https://youtu. Be/IoTkguzRaCU You said: Several Biblical characters are known to be historically/scientifically fictional (Adam & Eve, Moses, Abraham, Probably even Jesus). My response: do you have anything to back up this argument? You said: Biblical stories are known to be false or borrowed (Noah's Flood & Gilgamesh, Hell & Persian Zoroastrian beliefs, Etc). My response What does Persian Zoroastrian beliefs have to do with this debate? , There are people who have claimed they went there in a near death experience and I'm not sure myself if Gilgamesh existed but what would be your reasoning to why you think he didn't exist You said: Miracles would be scientifically detectable because they manifest in our natural world. My response: Depending on which miracles you are talking about the account of Exodus can be found in the natural world as stated earlier. You said: Omniscience and free will's coexistence is logically impossible. My response: Please elaborate. You said: Omnipotence is self-defeating (can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? My response: maybe for an interlude then he gains the strength to lift something heavier (speculation) You said:Several Biblical assertions are falsified by science (6k year old earth, Creationism, Etc). My response: please elaborate.
Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

I would need some terms clarified: existence & realm. I'll assume the basic definitions and rebut from there. Is it possible for a God to exist - yes, It's possible. I say it's possible because there is no way to falsify it. There could be a God sitting in some other dimension or universe that has no interactions with us. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude this, Because it would require evidence to be considered reasonable. But, It is possible. Is it possible for "the God of the Bible to exist" - philosophically, Yes, Realistically, No. Philosophically, One would have to falsify every possible permutation of "God's existence" in order to prove God's existence is impossible. This is infinitely impossible; therefore, Philosophically, It's impossible to do. What we are left with is probability and reasonable deduction. There are an infinite number of possibilities (universe creating pixies, Universe creating unicorns, Etc), So probability becomes extremely difficult, If not impossible to define. We're left with reasonableness. Realistically speaking, The Biblical God does not exist for many reasons. 1) There is absolutely no evidence for the Biblical God. 2) Several Biblical characters are known to be historically/scientifically fictional (Adam & Eve, Moses, Abraham, Probably even Jesus). 3) Biblical stories are known to be false or borrowed (Noah's Flood & Gilgamesh, Hell & Persian Zoroastrian beliefs, Etc). 4) Miracles would be scientifically detectable because they manifest in our natural world. 5) Omniscience and free will's coexistence is logically impossible. 6) Omnipotence is self-defeating (can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? )7) Several Biblical assertions are falsified by science (6k year old earth, Creationism, Etc). 8) Magic isn't real I could go on and on, But the point is simple: there is no evidence for any God(s), And existing Biblical stories are either falsified, Unsupported by facts, Contradicting, Or unfalsifiable. Realistically speaking, No Biblical God exists. We don't know all the information, But we do know enough information to reasonably falsify the Biblical God's existence.