BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Exists - Rapid Fire 2,000 Characters/Round

Consciousness is not consistent with our universe because our universe has not created anything like this before. It is out of place. It has no reason to exist in our universe. The universe may be capable of producing consciousness if we look it from an idealistic point of view. But this doesn't change the fact that there was no reason for this to happen. A being that is able to twist the rules of the universe, is beyond the universe and is able to create consciousness is, by definition, god. Because it is able to twist to rules of the universe, we can conclude that it also has some control over it. And because it created consciousness, we can say that it created us. As I said, consciousness is not necessary for processing. Consciousness is by definition "being aware" and that is in no way necessary for processing things in a different way. Con constantly claims that consciousness somehow affects the way humans think, but that doesn't make sense if we just think of consciousness as "being aware". Con is adding new meanings to "consciousness" to make it seem like it is necessary for something. I claim that consciousness has no reason to exist in this universe. Atheism does not need to explain materialistic consciousness, but it does need to explain why something that is not expected to be there, there. Again, con claims that there is a reason for consciousness within the universe without giving any actual explanation. "There needs to be a "thing" that caused our existence." I made it very clear from the very beginning that with "we" I refer to our own consciousness. This sentence clearly states that a "thing" caused "our" existence. Con assumes that I referred to the universe when I said "our" and this assumption has no basis. I have made 2 main points here: "Consciousness is not consistent with our universe." "It needs to have a cause outside the universe." if we accept these points, then the thing that caused our existence is,by definition, god.
God Exists - Rapid Fire 2,000 Characters/Round

Consciousness If Pro is going to label any theory of consciousness “God” then the label “God” will become useless very quickly. Consciousness not being consistent with out universe is not the same as saying “Materialistic consciousness has no reason to exist”. If the universe is perfectly capable of producing conscious beings on its own, then there is no argument to stats that God was necessary for it. Even if Pro could prove there is a reason outside of our universe for consciousness, he is still a very long way from demonstrating that this reason is God. Moreover even if we took Pro’s computational analogy, then I will assert that “2-Process it” is exactly the function of consciousness in humans. It’s how brains process the information of the world. An “inner movie” of the world is created by which decisions are made from this construct. Humans have to pull information from many different sources, such as vision, sound, balance, etc. Having consciousness as one way of dealing with it to generate an appropriate response is not inconsistent. Pro seems to be arguing against materialistic consciousness because there is no reason why it shouldn’t exist, rather than it cannot exist in a materialistic world. However: 1. Atheism doesn’t need to explain materialistic consciousness, materialism isn’t a requisite of atheism. 2. There are plenty of reasons why it would exist based on what we know. There is no reason to invoke explanations outside of our universe when simpler explanations from within it can be given. Universe Causation Pro’s 1st round literally states: “1-There needs to be a "thing" that caused our existence.” Therefore Pro’s round 2 statement: “Here, I do not claim that the universe needs a cause. I claim that "we" need a cause.” Is outright false. Pro has very poorly defined and outlined his argument here. If Pro wants to stick with consciousness fine, he drops the second portion of his 1st round however.
God Exists - Rapid Fire 2,000 Characters/Round

The universe can not create what it can not create" is my main point here. I am trying to prove that consciousness is not consistent with our universe. It doesn't make sense within the boundaries of our universe. If I am able to prove this, we can arrive at the conclusion that there is some other reason for our consciousness. That reason has to be beyond our universe as it contradicts it. The reason has to be able to change the universe. I argue that this "reason" is god. I am not saying: "Materialistically consciousness can not exist." I am saying: "Materialistically consciousness has no reason to exist.". Thus, you listing theories of mind which don't mandate materialism was unnecessary. I said we worked like a computer because we 1-Take in information 2-Process it 3-Generate an appropriate response. This is what a computer does. I did not claim that our brains worked exactly like the computers we program. Con claims consciousness affects the way we process data, which is not supported by anything and just claimed. Consciousness means "being aware". Which in no way can change the processing made by our brain. Awareness is not necessary for evolution. It doesn't matter if you are aware or not,it only matters if you are acting. We could have been beings that are not conscious but still process information. The observable "us" is just made of atoms. I am saying that there is no reason for atoms to create consciousness. Therefore,there needs to be something else that creates our consciousness. This is not an issue for theists. "There needs to be a "thing" that caused our existence." Here, I do not claim that the universe needs a cause. I claim that "we" need a cause. And if we consider my claim of consciousness not making sense within the universe true, this is a reachable conclusion. Consciousness does not make sense within the universe, therefore it needs a reason beyond the universe. I do not see how quantum fluctuations are relevant.
Noah's Ark is scientifically impossible

First off, source please. Next, if you count up the dates in the bible, Noah's Ark happened around 6000 years ago. The dinosaurs died out a few hundred million years ago. As for fossils being found in different areas, first off, source please. Secondly, how does that help you? Finally, assuming that is true, yes, animal fossils are found in different areas. Like how their would be dead cows in Europe and North America. They have existed in different areas. So 2 things. 1, sources please. 2, respond to my points too. You have the BoP. You need to provide evidence for your claim, and you need to provide links for your claims. Good luck!
Noah's Ark is scientifically impossible

Where to begin. I will start at the beginning of the story and go through it. When rebbuting, please use the corresponding number. 1) Noah had a week of warning before the flood happened. That means he could not do the following: -Collect several million animals on all 7 continents, some of which hadn't even been discovered -Collect enough food to keep several million animals alive for a year. -Pump enough water onto a boat for millions of animals -Build a huge wooden boat with no tools, no shipyard, no metal, and with no one who knows how to build boats Amount of species: https://www.sciencedaily.com... 2) Once he got all the animals, Noah and his family could not: -Keep all the animals from killing each other. The lions would eat the gazelles -Load 18 million animals plus onto the ark -Keep the food from spoiling -Not get mauled himself 3) The actual ark is impossible. There was a boat called the Wyoming, built in the 1800s by expirenced shipbuilders in a shipyard, in a much longer time then a week, with metal supports, and it was much smaller then the ark, and it didn't have several million tons on it, and you know what happened to it? It cracked because it was too big. So there is no way the ark would not of sunk in the worst storm ever. Not to mention, the Wyoming had pumps and it still sunk. Plus, there are so many individual specifications for the animals. Like bars spaced the right distance apart for horned creatures, and the right type of flooring for hooved animals. And of course, the ark is not big enough. It is 450*75*45 feet, which simply isn't big enough. There are many other problems with actually building the ark. Like how the wood from early parts of the ship would rot during the building of the later process. Or how the wood would have to be cured, which takes several years. Wyoming: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(schooner) http://ncse.com... 4) Life on the ark There is so much impossible with life on the ark. Such as: -The methane gas created would suffocate the animals -The animals would need specialized medical treatment, which would not be provided -Where would all the waste go? -How would the food not spoil? -How would the food and water be delivered -What of the animals got sick and died? -Wouldn't Noah and his family for from carrying parasites to keep them alive? Ebola is quite deadly -The sea creatures would of died from temperature and salinity changes -The Egyptians were building the pyramids during this. Obviously, that is impossible 5) The Water Where did all the water come from and where did it go? Plus, the pressure from it would fry the Ark 6) After the Ark There are so many impossibilities with life after the Ark. For example, the herbivores would die as there isn't any food. The carnivores would eat other animals, causing that whole spieces to go extinct. Plus, animals in the populations of under 50 typically go extinct. So most animals would of died. So obviously, the Ark is impossible. There also would be tons of evidence of a 29000 mile flood that covered the entire Earth. Why isn't there any? So please disbute this and provide proof this happened.
Noah's Ark is scientifically impossible

In this debate, we will discuss the validity of the story of Noah's Ark. I will be arguing that Noah's Ark is impossible and didn't happen. You will have to rebut my points and prove Noah's Ark occured. Rules: 1) BoP is on you 2) Start your argument in Round 1 3) Cite your sources 4) Forfeiting gives the opponent all 7 points 5) No trolling or semantics Good luck!
United States of America vs Russia in a war.

If the situations you have stated were to come true, i doubt Mexico or Cuba would get involved with a war with the US, and even if they did, Cuba would get very far, (Population less than 15 million) Mexico might be able to invade a small distance into America before being pushed back into it's own country. China and the USA's economy's at the moment are intertwined, a war would destroy both, But if it happened, i believe the war would move close to Japan, or north korea. An invasion of North Korea would be the easier one, None of the countries stated would be able to invade US Soil, except maybe Alaska. Also you forgot a few countries that would ally the US (France, Germany, South Korea ) And with South Korea, an invasion of North Korea would be the most likely bet. The USA's Naval power dominates the pacific, and invasion on the Country itself (Excluding Alaska, or Hawaii) is near impossible. Good Luck in Round 2
United States of America vs Russia in a war.

I will accept and go against you. If United States goes to battle with the Russian Republic but it might be come a stalemate if nuclear warfare is not an option. That war (now dubbed World War Three) would drag other countries to battle. Example: China, North Korea, Iran, Japan, ect. for the Russian side. Example: United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, ect. Those countries might become defeated or defy either Russia's or United States alliances. Other countries like Cuba might not like the situation and battle the US. Russia now has: Hawaii, Aleutian Islands, Alaska, Washington, Oregon Cuba now has: Florida, and southern parts of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and a little bit of Texas. Mexico has gone against the United States and now has: most of southern Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and most of southern California.
family guy is the most random cartoon by far better than the simpsons

It is disappointing that my opponent forfeited this round. I guess you just can't mess with the classics. I guess he can see this now that I brought up my points: 1) Award Winners 2) Long History 3) Bigger effort to produce the Simpsons 4) Simpsons is a family show 5) and FAMILY GUY STEALS FROM THE SIMPSONS.
family guy is the most random cartoon by far better than the simpsons

It simply cannot be argued that Family Guy is better than the simpsons. 1)These are on awards recieved - The Simpsons: 89 awards over 18 years which is 4.94 awards/year. - Family Guy: 6 awards over 6 years which is 1 award/year. nominations: - The Simpsons: 181 nominations over 18 years which is 10.05 nominations/year. - Family Guy: 16 nominations over 6 years which is 2.27 nominations/year. Guiness book of records for most guest stars appeared in a television series 1 golden reel, 5 nominations 24 Annies, 29 nominations 23 Emmys, 55 nominations 4 WGAs, 20 Nominations. Entertainment Weekly named FG the worst show in 1999-2000 and 2001-2002, describing it as an "awful show they just keep putting on the air". EW named The Simpsons the best TV show of the 1990's. One of Time Magazine's 100 best shows of all time 2) The simpsons have been on the air since 1989. It is soon going to become the longest running sitcom ever. Family Guy, on the other hand, has been cancelled twice. Not to mention that Family Guy will be without Seth McFarlane next year, despite him being responsible for 1/3 of the awards. The Simpsons also has a full-length movie that was not straight to DVD or shown on TV. 3) Creating a show that is a satricial parody of pop culture takes a lot more effort than creating a show with random, interchangable jokes that have nothing to do with the plot or even with pop culture. My opponent suggests that random makes a show better, but in fact it does not. 4) The Simpsons is a family show. It appeals to more people than Family Guy. While Family Guy's target audience is 18+, The Simpsons can be enjoyed by the whole family. The Simpsons is also more sophisticated. Providing pop culture referenced jokes can not be compared to a show where one of their 'best' bits is 4 men puking for 5 minutes. 5) Family Guy steals from the Simpsons. Some of their best jokes were copied from the Simpsons. That is not far to say that 'they are better', because they could just steal all of their jokes! Their 'Peanut Butter Jelly Time' is a funny bit, BUT THAT WAS STOLEN OFF THE INTERNET! They also got sued by Burne Co. Music Companies by stealing 'When you wish upon a star' and turning it into 'I need a Jew'. Wow. How unprofessional. They were also sued by Carol Burnett and Art Metrano for copyright infringment. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
0 can technically equal 1.

My friend you are been confused by your own self I agree with 0!=1, zero factorial is equal to 1 , but zero isn't equal to one . I can prove it , If you want to say that 0=1,then Let's see 0=1 And 0!=1 0x0=1 But if we see minutely zero is multiplied only on one side of equal sign So we have to multiply it on both side 0x0=1x0 0=0 Hence zero is equal to zero but not equal to one Again as per your point 2 Physics states that everything must come to an end But the universe never ends Do you wanna say that universe do not exsist? In my terms that rule is not applicable for numbers Hence 1 exists but 0 doesn't Therefore, 1 is not equal to 0 Now your point 3 is not up to mark It seems that you are confused by your self 0 And 1 are used In Encoding They are not symbols , instead they are used to mark existence of matter by counting ! And secondly the numeral 0 was invented in India if 0 wasn't there then the numeral system had been collapse If you say that 0=1 then why is the need of inventing zero . We could place 1 in place of 0 Hence 0can't take place of 1 and hence are not equal There you go wrote g in point 4 1/1 = 1 But 0/0 is not defined Hence your point 4 is meaningless
0 can technically equal 1.

0, although it might seem crazy can equal 1.When you find a number's factorial, you are finding the product of all whole numbers less than or equal to it.For example, 3! (Factorial),=3*2*1,or 6Now, google search "0!" or "0 factorial"What did it come out to?It came out to 1.0!=0×0=0=1Therefore, 0 can equal 1(The YouTube channel Numberphile does a great video on thissearch on YouTube, "0!=1")Point 2:PhysicsPhysics states that everything must come to an end.Numbers never end.Therefore, numbers do not exist in and of themselves.0 and 1 are numbersTherefore, 0 and 1 do not existTherefore, they both equal nothingTherefore, 0=1Point 3: Symbols are not universal.0 and 1 are symbolsAliens may use the symbols 0 and 1 to as synonymsThe quantity we call ' 0' does not equal the quantity we call '1'For aliens, however, who is to say that whatvthey call '0' does not equal the quantity they call '1'I did not specify the Arabic Numeral version of these.Ok, let's assume that I did specify that they had to be the Arabic NumeralsPoint 4:The Multiverse Several theories state that every possible outcome encompasses its own theoretical universe.It may be possible that the Arabic Numeral System states that 0=1,making it its own universe.These theories cannot be disproved, so you cannot disprove that in these universes 0=1These universes may have different physics where somehow, 0=1Rebuttal: 0/0 technically is any number you want it to be, since any number*0=0Using this, lets say that 0/0=1 1/1=1If 1/1=1=0/00/0=0 possibly1/1=10=1If 0/1=00/0 (CAN TECHNICALLY)=0, since 0×0=0So 0/0=0 and 0/1=0The 0 and the 1 have to be the same for it to work, so 0=1
0 can technically equal 1.

I think that 0 isn't technically equals to zero and I can prove it .... See, 1/1= 1 ---------------(i) Now if 0 is equal to 1 then, 0/0= not defined --------------------because if we divide any number by 0 then it is not defined-------------------(ii) From (i) and (ii) 1= not defined But 1 is defined number as every number can be divide and multiplied by it Hence, proved
"The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics."

This Debate has exclusively being started for Mr. William B. Turner, Ph.D. J.D. drturner[at]mindspring.com 404-695-6081 Every member is welcome to comment on the Debate and help contact Mr. Turner and request he accept the debate. Dear Mr. Turner, in your entry on the website www.dailykos.com on May 20th, 2011 you have challenged Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann to a debate after her alleged decision to ignore the challenge of High-School student Amy Myers. I think Amy Myers' challenge to Congresswoman Bachmann has been a courageous and bold move on her part, considering she is a high school student. On the other hand, I found your own challenge to Mrs. Bachmann, arrogant and self-absorbed. I believe that as a Member of Congress Mrs. Bachmann has far more important things to do than debate a defiant Professor, especially in this economic climate. I however, even though busy with my finals, do not, and would like to take up your challenge to a debate. Everything that you have mentioned in your article, from the creation of a Federal Government that was more powerful compared to its predecessor under the Articles of Confederation to the fact that some Founding Fathers were slave owners, is neither new, groundbreaking or controversial and the knowledge of those facts is not exclusive to Ph.Ds and J.Ds, but really in reach of every person with an internet connection or a library card. However, the undertone of your post clearly shows the framework of your liberal ideology which advocates for an increase of the Power of the Federal Government, disregards the absolute importance of individual liberties and completely ignores moral relativism in a pale attempt to undermine the moral and intellectual stature of the Founding Fathers. Sir, to me you represent the progressive, self-declared "intellectual elite" that enabled a man who doesn't understand that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the Government and who believes that it should "say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf" to be elected President of the United States. This forum is public, the rules of the debate can be discussed. So, in the popular parlance of the day, bring it on. Very truly yours, Aaron Romeo Bradley Casanova de Chemouny, Student
Sports are a waste of resources.

I never said they should be taken away (as that would just be unfair to students wanting to partake in said sports) but the funding should be cut back. For example, in my old highschool, my biology class had textbooks that were practically falling apart and the art and band programs were all but gone while the baseball and football teams got shiny new uniforms and equipment. I've also heard of and seen instances of students that do well in football being given pardons for their bad/failing grades so they could continue to play sports for that school. It really comes down to what should be prioritized in the schools.
Sports are a waste of resources.

My opponent says that "most sports like football, fut-ball (soccer), basketball, ect. just cause concussions and do not really contribute to the learning process. " This is not true however, as these sports increase not only physical fitness, but also quick thinking skills. These sports also deal in a lot of memorizing (such as the names of plays and what you do in them. ) Sports teams usually require the student athlete to get good grades in their classes so sports also influence the student to get better grades and learn more. Sports also can relieve stress and provide an activity for students to do. Sports also produce a positive cash inflow for the school through tickets sales, sponsors, ect. In short, sports are beneficial to both the school and the athlete and should be kept.
CO2 doesn't cause ocean acidification

Quote - CO2, etc has caused the death of evaporation. Reply - This doesn't make any sense? Quote - Suntan lotion rarely goes that low because it is buoyant. Reply - Suntan creams are made of metallic elements. Metals are heavier than water. Studies have found trace elements of oxybenzene in dead coral. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Quote - CO2 binds to water molecules to form a acidic liquid. This is called, you guessed it- acidifications Reply - The ocean is a big place. The ocean hasn't increased in acidification. There are no records of any increase. Thus, it is just a matter of scaremongering by scientists so they can get a free holiday on a tropical reef doing bogus research. Note - Any increase in CO2 in the ocean would be transferred immediately into new coral material. That's why we have large amounts on limestone all over the Earth. Limestone is a repository of CO2. Quote - Global warming causes mass evaporation and gets rid of sea water and water level. Reply - The Earth is like a gigantic thermostat. Any increase in heat will cause more cloud formation which will result in more cooling. Thus, the Earth maintains an even temperature regardless of any temperature fluctuation from the sun's output. Note - The sun is the only substantial form of heating that the Earth has.
CO2 doesn't cause ocean acidification

Hello. I believe that Global warming, CO2, etc has caused the death of evaporation. Think, Oceans are dying due to coral bleaching. Suntan lotion rarely goes that low because it is buoyant. The ocean water then breaks up the sun tan lotion into normal elements of the earths surface and atmosphere. Because of this, I will prove the affects of global warming and CO2. 1. CO2 binds to water molecules to form a acidic liquid. This is called, you guessed it- acidifications 2. Global warming causes mass evaporation and gets rid of sea water and water level.