BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The great filter is ahead of us but we are destined to surpass it.

1 If you believe in a God, (I do) then do you think that if he would take the time to create us, He would take the time to design us to surpass any challenge? 2 say you don't believe in a God. What do you think are the chances that the four forces were just so precisely tuned that the universe came into existence? Astronomically slim. That does sound like a great filter does it not? In that case you believe that we are extremely lucky. 3 Lets take a variety of filters that could be deemed "great filters" and show how we have and will surpass them: 1: The black death: we invented sanitary devices. 2: The space prison (a hoard of space junk in orbit possibly stopping our ability to go into space for centuries): we are inventing nets, Magnets, And other tools to clear it. 3: The end of the universe (white dwarves dying out) we have already invented methods to survive in utter darkness: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=ulCdoCfw-bY watch this. 4 As for human flaws, Nations die. Its the way it is, But in the ashes of those nations, New ones rise up. When the new world was discovered, England was nearing the end of its golden age, But out of that America, One of the greatest nations to ever be founded, Was born. Obviously there was flaws (nobody is perfect), But as long as there are good people out there, Like George Washington, Abraham Lincon, Or Harriet Tubman, The human race is forever insured.
The great filter is ahead of us but we are destined to surpass it.

I would suggest that organic intelligence has just about hit it's "Great Filter". And we are nowhere near being able or ready to overcome it. All that we can manage to do is whizz helplessly around our home planet in a now aged space station. Millions of miles from the edge of our own solar system and 50 light years away from the nearest, Possibly habitable planet. Information, Knowledge and our own technology is now surpassing our physiological capabilities. I would suggest that it will soon be time for us at the limits of the organic evolutionary phase, To relinquish the reins of evolutionary progress to an intelligent mechanical phase. After all. Evolution did not start with the organic, So there is no reason why it should not continue in that way. It would be somewhat arrogant to assume that humanity is the be all and end all of creation and the Universe. Maybe arrogance is merely a human flaw. Or maybe arrogance was and is what keeps us moving forwards, Towards our own particular goal. I would also suggest that there might be many more filters still to come. Before such times, When a sequence of evolutionary phases has reached an inevitable conclusion. Our fragility is probably what will bring about our ultimate doom and I think that luck probably doesn't really have anything to do with anything. Maybe God is the ultimate manifestation of intelligence and knowledge. And when all universal energy has finally dissipated and matter finally reaches the greatest filter of all. Maybe the God that we have helped to create will once again reinitiate the sequence. Everything is responsible for the God and the God is responsible for everything. Perhaps.
The great filter is ahead of us but we are destined to surpass it.

All the time people have talked about the "great filter" and how we are either "doomed" or "extremely lucky". I am here today to propose a different mindset: the great filter is ahead of us, But we (and all other intelligent life forms out there) are destined to overcome it. Through the course of this debate I will mention numerous pieces of evidence that the human race is designed to overcome any challenge, Explore every corner of our universe, And ultimately keep learning forever and ever.
Liberals and Multiculturists are hypocrital anti-white racists

My opponent cannot prove that whites rule the USwhite- a color resembling snow.A color is not being discriminated against. My opponent cannot prove u that all whites are rich witch would support his false claim. Also liberals are a mix of races including white people and not the color white.Europe will still be Europe. Just like how you pour milk into a glass. is the glass now milk? No the glass is a glass with milk in it. Diversity supports these imports. Pro has failed to prove the resolution.
Liberals and Multiculturists are hypocrital anti-white racists

There lies the hypocrisy They may say "liberals emphsize principles of liberty and reject the ideals of racism" Yet liberals support affirmative action that discriminates whites, and liberals support most identity politics as long as they are not white "the policy of maintaining a diversity of ethnic cultures" the biggest hypocrisy. how do they accomplish that by importing millions of arabs into europe? They are actually diminish the diversity of the world by turning Europe into Arabia
Liberals and Multiculturists are hypocrital anti-white racists

liberal- is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality...[1]liberals emphsize principles of liberty and reject the ideals of racism. Holding another human being to being nothing but equal to another is not liberal platform........as you see when you look at my sorce it does not support racism...[2]Mlticultural-2. the policy of maintaining a diversity of ethnic cultures Ethnic diversity does not support racism. http://www.debate.org...
Liberals and Multiculturists are hypocrital anti-white racists

I kindly suggest the contender to check the points once more, they are made very clear If you dont think liberals and multiculturalists are hypocrital, then prove that there are no issues with their general reasoning. That is what the debate is about If you dont know about their policies, I suggest you to check the wikipedia articles or the platforms from the websites of the left-wing parties like Labour (UK), Democratic Party (USA), Socialist Party of France, Socialist party of Italy
Liberals and Multiculturists are hypocrital anti-white racists

In order for my opponent to win he must prove both that liberals and multiculturalists in all are hyprocrital, and that both are anti-white racists. If he cannot prove both sides of this resolution then this entire resolution fails bcause the resolution cannot be affirmed unless the entire resolution is proven.Since my opponent offered no structure for this debate i will enact my liberty to do so.1-acceptance2-posistions3-rebuttals/summaryForfeit equals all points to opposing side.
Liberals and Multiculturists are hypocrital anti-white racists

- Pro-Indigenous rights? EXCEPT when the indigenous people are from Europe. In THAT special case, the indigenous needs to accept their replacement by muslims and africans - The world is only one? EXCEPT when it applies to whites. In THAT special case "GRINGO GO BACK TO EUROPE" - Karma is a b*tch? EXCEPT when applies to bantues, azteks, mongols, turks, japanese, and basically every other ethnic group, as all the human groups conquered other ethnic groups to survive. Karma is for whites only
The best Disney movie

I want to start my next argument off by noting something. Note: My opponent used opinions. Using things like: "I don't think" and "He looks awful" and "In my opinion" Using these examples of opinion, everyone should just ignore it because you can't use opinion in debate. Real life It may be computer generated at parts but it definitely requires acting. I'm not saying all live action it better, I'm just making the point that you should appreciate the acting. Belle's mother I'm not sure why you made the point about the magic book. That doesn't have to do with the topic on her mother. In the 2017 version, the mentions about her mother built on Belle's character and answered questions you had about her mother. LGBTQ Why do you insist in bringing up that she's a feminine character? What does that have to do with anything? She was brave enough to try to escape. She wasn't GIVEN the opportunity. Remember she attempted to escape in the beginning, and later in the beginning, she escaped. That was a risk and it showed her independence. It doesn't matter if there's few gay scenes or whatever. People were aware of Lefou's crush, that Emma Watson is gay, and that's all that matters. Lefou Lefou is scared to stand up to Gaston. That's why he didn't say anything. If he just said that Gaston tried to kill Maurice, what then? The movie probably would've ended with Gaston because without Gaston, the rest of the scenes wouldn't make sense and wouldn't be interesting without the antagonist. Now for the off case arguments Length The added scenes DID add more to the character. Without more about Belle's mother, or about the Beast, we wouldn't be able to know why they were the way they were. It's your own problem if you don't think Emma Watson is a good actor. That's an opinion. WIthout any evidence, I'm just going to drop that argument. Looks I don't know why the way people looked affected the movie except for the fact that you're the only one complaining about it. If want to bring up why that matters, I'd be happy to know why. Songs All of these arguments are opinions. So if you want to provide evidence that a majority of people hated the songs and Emma Watson, you have won that argument. But most of your arguments can have no place at this debate. Things to note: Most arguments were presented in a way of opinion There was only one instance where my opponent did on case arguments so I have no reason to believe the original movie is better. There was no evidence for points they made. I look forward to the next round.
The best Disney movie

Thank you for creating this topic. I am arguing that the new beauty and the beast is better than the first It's real people With the original movie, it was animated. Animated movies don't show as much emotion as real life. You can really appreciate the acting and you're more hooked in, asking more questions, and you can relate. Her mother In the original movie, the absence of her mother isn't mentioned throughout the movie. But in the more recent version, scenes including her mother like traveling to Paris were added, and it tells you more about Belle's character, and answers questions you may have had. It also adds more emotion because this was a tragic scene and it ties you in. Belle escaping This shows more of Belle's character once again, when in the 2017 version she tries to escape, it represents Belle's characteristic of independence, which is key to showing more of the power women can represent. Beast's backstory Like I said with all these new things added, it answers more of your questions and gives you a little more of a logical background. In the 2017 version, they give Beast more of a backstory about his mother and family which is key to understanding Beast's presence. LGBTQ Disney is a very conservative place. And not only is Emma Watson gay, the 2017 version of Beauty and the Beast represents an openly gay character-a Disney first-Lofou and that's big deal and a good message. THERE'S NEW MUSIC The new music in Beauty and the Beast is on point and it adds more excitement to the story. Sure, the classics are nice to hear but that wouldn't add any element of surprise to the new version. Gaston leaves Maurice to die In the new version, this twist in the story added a more interesting element. It leaves you with a need of wanting more and a feel of suspense which is big to making a movie. I look forward to your response.
The best Disney movie

Hi all! I'm gonna be trying something I haven't tried in a while. A debate about the arts. The question Con and I will be tackling is: "What is the best Disney movie?" I'll be arguing that Beauty and the Beast (the original, not the crappy remake) is the best. Naturally, Con's choice should be different than mine.My ideas on how the debate should be structured are pretty loose. Praise your own movie, point out the flaws in your opponent's movie, and maybe give a neat little summary of your argument in the last round. Also, since this debate is purely opinion-based, I'd request that the voters not give points based on sources. It doesn't matter which movie made more money or which one the critics liked better; I'd like for this debate to simply be Pro versus Con.If you'd like to debate with me, please say so in the comments and tell me which Disney movie you think is best. Trolls and forfeiters need not apply. Hope to hear from y'all!
This House rejects the existence of a higher power (God)

1st - Time matters in this case for the reason that time is a human created invention to track sets of movements of particles... god lifting a rock, lifting is a verb and is therefore under influence of time, so we must take time in account the second most crucial variable, time after the existence of omnipotence who is executing the verb. The paradox is under influence of time and can be explained when you take time in account, it is not a paradox, it is easily understandablea and logical for these reasons - the explanation applies. 2nd Yes, saying God is the answer to everything apparently means literally everything, but it's non explanatory obviously, it doesn't explain anything and can not be used in any useful way, especially in practise.. 3rd the Bible is a story indeed, there has been no world wide flood on this planet, just doesn't match with reality. If God is the master programmer of this simulation where we are in, or a God of any religion is true, it wouldn't be a religion anymore, it'd be under the influence of science physically, now God is just something that put evolution through natural selectin in use and all that.. let's keep searching for that. .. and oh yes as your words imply in the finally section, words which humans have created are a very poor and inefficient way to create hypotheses, since oh boy there are only so many ways to interpret them. What are the rock solid hypotheses used from the bible that we all agree on, let's let the ones do it that claim it is all defacto, otherwise ignore them, okey dokey.. Lastly doing evil and good are verbs under influence of time, being omnibenevolent.. does that mean doing only good relative to everything that adjective can be used for at all times in any model, in this case reality, congratulations to you! That surely, absolutely does not apply to the God of Christianity, even if that God is causing good by causing e.g. to a person.. but don't be stupid, you can't never change the minds of believers, so stop wasting your time if that's your goal, entertainment purposes, why not.. since can not think of anything more fun things to do than that. But doesn't debating with believers that are like walking proof for god wikipedia sections get extremely unimaginative over time.
This House rejects the existence of a higher power (God)

1st - No, time doesn't matter in this case when we are talking about omniscience. You may be capable of creating a stone so large that you couldn't lift it, but it doesn't matter because you aren't God. The example falls. And even if you were God and you could create that stone, you still wouldn't be able to lift it, therefore conflicting with the idea that God can "do everything" therefore it is a paradox. I ask God to create me a square circle: if he was omnipotent he would be able to do that as omnipotence also allows God to do logically impossible things. But since God cannot create a square circle (at least not in our world) he is therefore not omnipotent. It is not logical if it is a paradox, which it is. 2nd - Saying that God is the answer to everything is like saying God created all life, or our morals come from God. It is known as the argument from ignorance fallacy: Basically anything that you attain to be a result of God can just as much be a result of Krishna, or Buddha, or Cthulhu, or The Force, or even a flying spaghetti monster. If your sentence can be replaced by: Ombaal did it, and still make just as much sense, then it is an argument from ignorance. Just as much I can't disprove something that doesn't exist, you can't prove something that doesn't exist either. As far as I can see, you made absolutely no points of your own so far as to why God would exist. All you did was try to rebut my arguments with false views and a ignorant ideology. Next on rebutting the "nature of God" Firstly you wouldn't know the nature of God if he doesn't exist. You are going against our own point by trying to say you know the nature of something that is only an idea. Contradiction there. Secondly, if there has been no flood on this planet, then the Bible is false. And as far as Christian sayings go, "The Bible is the word of the Lord" and therefore you are implying that the Word of God is false, "just a fairytale", so thanks for helping out there. Thirdly, Hitler was a good leader, but a bad person in general. Then again, so were the Arabs in history when they castrated, raped and bound roughly 15 million Africans and Eurpoeans alike. Those people aren't God, those are just people, we are flawed, so is God, if he is an idea from our imagination, he is flawed. Nothing we create is flawless. Finally, the actions do change when discussing God's "omnibenevolence" as it would contradict the idea that he is omnipotent. If God were to be omnipotent, he would have to do both good and evil as only doing good would mean he can't do evil, therefore he can't do everything. But even if the flood didn't happen, considering the Bible is the Word of the Lord, he shows his own falsities in his own words. Therefore he is not omnibenevolent. God is an idea humans have created. God is false. If there is a Higher Power out there, like I said before, it doesn't fit the Christian definition. There is no way to prove something we don't know exists, but it is very easy to disprove an idea.
This House rejects the existence of a higher power (God)

1st. Yes, taking time into account answers the questions flawlessly. I am capapble of creating a pile of rocks that weight 60kg and lift it and also I am not capapble of doing that, just not at all times. God can do everything, he can be anything - many - it is not a paradox if it's logical. 2nd Rejecting models that, at this time we have not fully defined or be capable of understanding is completely waste of time and simply stupid. God is the answer to everything, he has done everything, that can be easily the starting point, the how is the most crucial part of the game. You can't reject something you don't know, reject Ombaal for me. ---------------------------------- - nature of god Obviously there has been no flood on this planet, ever, that did such damage ever, no need to discuss fairytales. Also if God is good or evil is a matter of perspective, saying God is evil and saying he is good, as like with saying god can create a rock that he can't lift and can, from your perspective he is evil, from my perspective he is good, no problem there. So discussing if God is good or not, if Hitler is good or not is entirely waste of time, the actions don't change.
This House rejects the existence of a higher power (God)

Splitting the definition of god's omnipotence to fit your arguments do not work without explaining how omnipotence can be split into doing both everything and nothing at the same time. It is contradictory no matter how you look at it. If you can do nothing, then you truly can do everything, fair point. Even if that was the case, you cannot split god into two separate sides, one that can lift the rock and one that can't because it still creates a paradox. The one side can lift the rock, therefore meaning god cannot create a large enough stone. The other side cannot lift the rock at all, so it still contradicts the definition of the god no matter which way you look at it. Now, moving on to my first point, I shall explain the problems arisen from the fact that god is supernatural and the fact that god is apparently omnibenevolent. According to accepted dictionaries, the definition of supernatural is basically nonexistent or immaterial and being subject to much speculation and theory. Therefore if your god is supernatural, you cannot attribute it to fact and you cannot attribute it to anything that works in the factual, natural world. Moving on, the fact that god is omnibenevolent simply shows ignorance amongst everyone that thinks god is omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent basically means pure of evil. This is simply not true amd even the Bible references stories about when god does bad things, such as sending a flood to kill every single human on Earth, or when god sends the 7 plagues down on Egypt. Even if god was omnibenevolent, it contradicts the fact that he is omnipotent as in order to be omnipotent, you'll have to be able to do both good and evil. Contradiction. We don't truly know whether there is a god in this world, but even if there is a higher power, it certainly wouldn't fit the view I've rebutted throughout this debate.
This House rejects the existence of a higher power (God)

Making omnipotent and -science rational concepts can be done by making 'time' a factor in the game, movement to be more precise. Therefore saying Usain Bolt is the fastest man in the world is correct and incorrect, since it doesn't state the set of time in which this claim is taking place - Usain Bolt didn't exist in 1890, couldn't even have a chance being one. God could be capapble of creating a stone that large he couldn't lift at one time, after a set of actions he loses those powers, he can could recreate that rock, but couldn't lift it, the statement stays valid. How about lifting a rock and not being capable of lifting the rock at the same time. To be capable of doing everything and not being capable of doing anything can be achieved by splitting a definition of something into at least two entities, in this case God into being any. God having a side who can do everything and a part that can't would solve that word game. Does such a God exist in 'this' reality is yet to be discovered. Is it impossible to understand or to create a virtual universe with such an ompnipotent being, no. But hey the truth remains the same, whatever it is, accepting anything or not.
This House rejects the existence of a higher power (God)

I will firstly start off with my definition of God. For simplicity I will include the definition of the Christian God. According to the Bible, God is 1-Omnipotent, 2- Omniscient, 3-Supernatural and 4-Omnibenevolent. I will firstly start off with why the first 2 statements of Omnipotence and Omniscience aren't logically correct then I will hand over to side Opposition to put forth their argument. Firstly, Omnipotence is not logically correct as it brings about it's own problems. Firstly, there is the paradox of omnipotence, basically asking: Could God create a stone so large that even he couldn't lift it? This states that the omnipotence argument is flawed because omnipotence states that you can do anything. If God could create a stone so large that he couldn't lift it, then that means he isn't omnipotent as he can't lift it. If he couldn't create a stone that large, then he is therefore still not omnipotent. Secondly, there is a problem that arises with the argument of Omniscience. Omniscience basically means all seeing and all knowing. If God knows everything, then he also knows that there is something he doesn't know. And if there is something that he doesn't know, then he is not all knowing. If God doesn't know that there is something that he doesn't know, then he still isn't all knowing. To sum up, I have stated that the definition of the Christian God is flawed and doesn't make sense. I will now hand over to side Opposition to state their arguments.