BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God as explained by all religions does not exist.

Thanks Pro,As a brief overview, as my opponent has conceded there are plenty of religions we know nothing about. This means there is no viable way for him to prove the affirmative side in todays debate, as he cannot prove they don't exist without actually knowing what they believed. His arguments are a lot of contradictions we can find in many religions, however, as I addressed in my case, Shintos don't believe in omnipotence and a lot of these conditions my opponent defines. There are also many religions that don't go in detail about these specific ideas, therefore, my opponent cannot presume all gods must have these contradictions."Then why is it that he designed the world to be full of sadness and death? Does he like the things going out here? Does he gain pleasure from the activities going here?"A very good question. The accepted answer to this question is to allow humans the free will to make decisions for themselves. If a deity removes all suffering, then we would live perfect lives, which is the purpose of heavan. It's a way to test individuals for the character and integrity to see who should enter eternal paradise." If all of this is true,how is it that NONE of these things or activities similar to these are now no more observed or seen. Have the Gods disappeared or they never existed other than in stories?"It's important to recognize a lot of religions don't believe in divine intervention on a regular basis. The Greeks did, however, the reason we don't observe them is because first of all, they appear more on an individual on individual basis as explained by Hindu scriptures. God doesn't appear in front of audiences and crowds. You could argue that again, this is just stories, however the lack of eye witnesses directly does not disprove an event. Much like how a lack of eye witnesses in a court of law doesn't mean the suspect has to be innocent. I negate.
The Stone Paradox is a Valid Paradox against the Biblical God

Thank you for showing superb conduct throughout this debate. I have enjoyed this debate greatly and, in fact, changed some of my views as a result of the debate. To close, I have argued that the paradox of the stone is a valid paradox as it forces God to admit that there is something that he cannot do. As a result of this paradox, there are only two replies that are valid: (1) God is bound by the laws of logic; or (2) God is not bound by the laws of logic and thus can do both. The simple rebuttal, which I believe works, says that God can do both (i. e. , create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it; and thus do the impossible and lift it). I thank my opponent for a great debate, and I hope to continue to learn from you in the future. You always so great conduct and I thank you for that.
The Stone Paradox is a Valid Paradox against the Biblical God

ResponseMy opponent points out that if we limit God's omnipotence to logical actions, that creating an object that is so heavy that he cannot lift it is logical. However, this is not the case. By definition, an object that is so heavy that an omnipotent being cannot lift it cannot exist. This violates the deffinition of omnipotent. Therefore, an object that is too heavy that an omnipotent being cannot lift it is just as illogical as a four sided triangle or a married bachelor. My opponent then compares this to humans creating objects to heavy to lift, however this analogy is false as humans do not have omnipotence as part of their attributes. IllustrationIf God is not bound by logic, as your original definition dictates as well as implied by the SP, then destroying the indestructible shield or blocking the unblockable sword is not a problem. These are only contradictions if the law of non-contradiction is in force. However, if God is not bound by logic, he is also not bound by the law of non-contradiction (as this is a logical law). Likewise, lifting a stone that he cannot lift is not impossible for God, as it would only be impossible if the law of non-contradiction applies. SummaryMy opponent writes "The question becomes whether or not the stone was too heavy to begin with. The paradox asks if God is able to lift a rock too heavy to lift no matter how hard he tries and how much he comprimises. " This is true, however if the paradox assumes that God can violate the laws of logic. .. he can lift the rock that he cannot lift. If it does not assume that God can violate the laws of logic, then it becomes a nonsensical question as the definition of omnipotence contradicts the attribute of "non-lifting" in the stone. .. such a stone cannot exist according to the laws of logic. Thank you.
The Stone Paradox is a Valid Paradox against the Biblical God

Thank you, ReformedArsenal, for your quick reply. Allow me to begin with this illustration, if you do not mind: (please forgive me if this offends anyone). Now, onto the debate. My opponent's arguments boils down to the following:1) Nothing is impossible for God2) Illogical things are something3) Lifting a stone so heavy he can't lift it is an illogical thing4) Therefore, lifting a stone so heavy he can't lift is possible for God5) Therefore, God can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, yet still lift it6) Therefore, the SP fails in its attempt to disprove the existence of an Omnipotent God.==REFUTATIONS==If I were to accept the standard definition of "omnipotent" as being able to complete all tasks that are possible, it will be valid as it is perfectly logical to create a stone so heavy that you cannot lift it. Illustraton: We do this all the time when it comes to buildings and construction. The constructed object is so heavy, no one person can lift the object; hence it is logical for god to create something too heavy for him to lift.If I were to accept the syllogism above, point 5 fails. The question becomes whether or not the stone was too heavy to begin with. The paradox asks if God is able to lift a rock too heavy to lift no matter how hard he tries and how much he comprimises. ==ILLUSTRATIONS==Imagine if I were to give you a sword & shield and say "the sword can destroy any object while the shield can defend you from any object." What is the first question you would ask me? The question would be "What would happen if the sword struck the shield?" Hence, an undestructable shield and a sword that is able to destroy anything is impossible. Likewise, it is impossible for God to create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it. Thanks.
The Stone Paradox is a Valid Paradox against the Biblical God

I have seen your debates many times and hope that this becomes interesting. I wish to remind everyone that we are talking about the Judeo-Christian God. The Argument Formulated(1) God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it. (2) If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. (3) If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. Therefore:(4) God is not omnipotent. (5) If God exists then he is omnipotent. Therefore:(6) God does not exist. The question I wish to propose to my opponent is, "Can God create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it? " What is Omnipotence? I think that a question we need to ask ourselves is, "What is omnipotence? " Since we are discussing the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, I feel that it is important to consult the scriptures:Jeremiah 32:17 says, "Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you. " (ESV) Luke 1:37, "For nothing will be impossible with God. ”What can we glean? From these two passages we know that nothing is impossible with God and nothing is too hard for God. Therefore, "can God make a rock to heavy for him to lift? " is a valid argument. Hence, I will re-forumlate the stone paradox in my own words: Nothing is impossible with God. Therefore, God should be able to create a stone too heavy for him to lift. However, if premise 2 is correct, then not all things are possible with God. Therefore, the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. Thank you.
The Stone Paradox is a Valid Paradox against the Biblical God

The topic of the debate."Is the Stone Paradox Valid?" The opponents of the debate, and what positions they will argue.Mr.Infidel is possitive, my opponent is negative.The scope of the debate."Can God Create a Rock To Heavy For Him To Lift?" The length of the debate, in number of rounds.Arguments begin in round 2There are a total of 4 rounds.The maximum length of each statement.8,000 characters.The time limit between statements.72 hours.______________________________ The rock paradox says the following: (1) God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.(2) If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.(3) If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.Therefore:(4) God is not omnipotent.(5) If God exists then he is omnipotent.Therefore:(6) God does not exist. [1] By "God" I am referring to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. I believe that this paradox is perfectly valid. Source[1] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...;
(From Super Mario) Mario would win a death battle against Barack Obama

Ok back to seriousness. Your video fails to show Barack winning against Mario. Mario has weird bombs available, as shown in the movie, and his fighting skills are mediocre, not just jumping around boringly, which would have made for a horrid movie, but the movie they made was much better, showing all Mario's skills while incorporating the villains he faced and making him win but not quite win with a cliff-hanger ending. Enough spoilers. What makes me so sure? Mario can just jump on top of Barack, killing him. Even if Barack gets to call his military, tanks and helicopters and all, Mario eats a giant mushroom and---viola! The army is doomed and so is Barack. In my rebuttal I state Mario would still win!
Betsy Ross designed the American Flag

Lack of Historical Evidence There is no historical evidence for the Betsy Ross Story. The Betsy Ross's Grandson, William Canby, fabricated the story in 1870. The Betsy Ross story was a post-civil war myth, fabricated by William Canby. The entire Betsy Ross story is based on 3rd generation hearsay. It’s a nice story, but it is historically inaccurate. The only person ever to claim responsibility for the flag’s design, during the first generation, was Francis Hopkinson. Hopkinson sent a bill to congress, for the designing the flag. Holes in the Timeline There are some holes in the timeline. For one, the Hopkinson flag was created in 1777, while the Betsy Ross story claims that it existed in 1776. This leads to another important error, which is the basis of the story. The story goes that Betsy Ross proposed replacing Hopkinson’s 6 pointed stars, with 5 pointed stars. In reality the 6 pointed stars were used just as frequently as the 5 pointed stars, but fell out of favor, because they were considered too European. The Stripes claim Like the colors of the flag, the number of stripes was not considered important. While the flag act of 1777 did establish specific colors and the use of 13 stripes, the stripes and colors still widely varied. The colors and number of stripes were not considered important, but rather the meaning of the stripes was what was considered important. The stripes originate from the sons of liberty, and symbolized liberty and representative government. The 13 stripes were used as far back as 1775, a year prior to the supposed Betsy Ross event. Summary The Betsy Ross story is historically inaccurate. There is no evidence to support the claim, and the dates don’t match up. The story was fabricated by Betsy Ross’s grandson, 94 years after the fact. If anyone designed the flag, it would be Francis Hopkinson.
Betsy Ross designed the American Flag

Debate Format Violations Pro violated the Debate’s format. Round 1 is acceptance only. Flag Timeline During the 1760’s the sons of Liberty used a striped flag, known as “the rebellious stripes”. They consisted of 9 vertical stripes. The 9 stripes represented the 9 colonies who attended the stamp act congress in 1765. After the 2nd continental congress met in 1775, the sons of liberty started using a flag with 13 horizontal stripes, to represent the13 colonies. (1) When the continental army was formed in 1775, George Washington was appointed Commander-in-chief of the continental army. Washington was not given an official standard, so he decided to create his own. Washington created a blue fly, with 13 six pointed stars. The stars were supposed to be “a new constellation” representing the formation of the United States. (2) In 1775 the first Naval Ensign was used, which replaced the solid red fly of the Royal Navy with the rebellious stripes. In 1776, on New Years, Washington hoisted the Naval Ensign at Prospect Hill, near his headquarters in Cambridge. Due to its similarities with the flag of the East India Trading Company, the British assumed the Colonists were surrendering. It has since been named the Cambridge flag, due to its association with this event. (3) In 1777 Francis Hopkinson designed the American Flag, not Betsy Ross, by replacing the British Flag in the canton, with Washington’s standard.(4) Flag etiquette During the revolutionary war, there was no proper flag etiquette. The stars could be arranged in any order, and the colors did not matter. The 6 pointed stars and the 5 pointed stars was simply a matter of personal preference. The 5 pointed stars were more popular because most people believed the 6 pointed stars were “too European”. (5) Betsy Ross The Betsy Ross Legend dates back to 1870, when Betsy’s grandson claimed that in 1776 Washington approached Betsy with the proposal of Hopkinson’s 6 point star design. William Canby, Betsy’s grandson, than claimed that Betsy Ross suggested the 5 point star. There are numerous holes in Canby’s story. One such hole, is that the Hopkinson design was proposed in 1777 not 1776. Another hole is that there are no records of a committee to design a national flag. There were records of committees formed to design naval flags, but no records for a national flag. The entire story was based around William Canby’s claim that he heard it from his grandmother. The story is complete hearsay, with no historical evidence to support it. (6) http://www.crwflags.com... http://www.crwflags.com... http://www.crwflags.com... http://www.crwflags.com... http://www.crwflags.com... http://www.crwflags.com...
In a battle, cthulhu would defeat Jesus Christ.

I will start be refuting my opponents points. You say Cthulu has more destructive power than Jesus. While Cthulu may have much power, The Bible is clear that Jesus is God, in the form of a human. Therefore Jesus should be able to do all the things God can, or to summarize, he has the power to do almost anything. With the power of God, who according to the Bible created the earth and all around it, flooded the entire earth, and is able to create any animal or creature he wants, Cthulu does not have more power, or destructive power than Jesus. You also claim Jesus can be killed easily. While Jesus is human, he is still God, and was resurrected. As the bible says Jesus has died and gone to heaven, And is immortal. Therefore how could Cthulu defeat something immortal? Assuming you prove Jesus is not Immortal, he still has been resurrected once, who is to say he will not be again? You also state that Jesus is not strong and able bodied, and Cthulu has physical features to destroy Jesus. While I will not argue Cthulu does not have these features, what evidence supports that Jesus is not able bodied? I believe that what I stated above is enough evidence to support that Jesus could defeat Cthulu in a fight. Good luck in the next round!
In a battle, cthulhu would defeat Jesus Christ.

For clarification, Jesus and cthulhu are at their height of ability that has been depicted(yes cthulhu is awake), and they are both alone. c1-cthulhu has more destructive power than Jesus One major example is his psychic powers, even the ability to control his minions and people. Jesus has never proven to be able to do this. In fact all Jesus has only been able to resurrect himself, other people and heal. He's basically a battlefield medic, not a fighter. He cannot win. c2-Jesus will be killed easily The only depiction of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, is from the bible. In the bible, Jesus never performs a powerful feat. (say, using pysichic powers to kill your enemy) And all the love Jesus preaches wouldn't help him against the merciless cthulhu. For this debate we are also to assume that Jesus is to be considered an old one. And according to the necronamican, the only way to kill an old one is another old one, therefore, Jesus cannot resurrect. c3- Cthulhu has a more able body than Jesus Cthulhu is seems to be approximately somewhere between 50-100 feet tall, while Jesus stands at about 5'6-6'2. And because of his lifestyle, is not very strong. Cthulhu also has wings to be able to fly, claws to destroy Jesus despite his powers, and many other physical features to best Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ice Road Truckers is a Horrible TV Show

How many people go home after a hard day of work or school and turn on the TV to watch Ice Road Truckers? The answer, very few. Who wants to sit in front of the TV and watch a bunch of grisly old truckers talk about driving over the ice and snow of Canada? I, for one, do not. Heck, the only reason I ever have the show on is because the announcers' voice makes me fall asleep. That's probably why the show plays from 11pm to 2am everyday, to help its viewers fall asleep. The points above are more than enough for a valid argument on why the show is so horrible, but for the sake of debate I'll add a few more. Ice Road Truckers is horrible because: -No one other than truckers or the family members of truckers can relate to the TV show. -No one wants to watch extreme trucking. If anyone wanted to watch extreme trucking a show like this would have come on a long time ago. -Very few people in life dream of becoming an Ice Road Trucker. I bet the number right now is around 10...
God does not exist

Contention 1: Matter can be created and destroyed - my opponent is confusing matter with energy. Most mainstream scientists believe the universe began with the big bang. This is how god created the universe. Contention 2: Since god existed before the universe (and thus matter), he does not have to occupy space or have a brain, as my opponent claims he ought to. Being the creator of the universe and it's laws, he is powerful enough to be everywhere at once. Contention 3: As god can choose to exist everywhere or nowhere at all, it is impossible for my opponent, who has the burden of proof, to prove god does not exist.
God does not exist

C1: It is impossible for god to create what we know as laws of physics if statements above are true, because what we know as laws of physics is god's will. It is logically impossible to create your own will. C2: god is everywhere = god is nowhere For example, each quark has its own hrb56. But there is no way to prove it or disprove it, because there is no quark that doesn't have hrb56. We know each quark has hrb56, but when we list properties of each particular quark, we do bother writing it has hrb56, because that does not differ him from any other quark. My opponent's contention 3 is not relevant to my argument 3. I will reword it. It is impossible for matter to be created or destroyed, it can only change its form ---> matter is not created Universe is of matter ---> universe is not created ---> universe does not have a creator. ---> God is not creator of the universe.
God does not exist

Contention 1: God, as stated in the definition used for the purpose of this debate, is the "creator and ruler of the universe". If god created the universe, then the universe did not exist before he did, and neither did the scientific laws which govern it. Therefore, god must have created what we know as the laws of physics. It can therefore be said that god, if he wished to, could defy these laws. If god is powerful enough to create the universe and it's rules, then he is also powerful enough to change them at will, making him omnipotent, or all-powerful. Contention 2: As god is omnipotent, he can defy the laws which he has created. God can, therefore, exist even in space which is occupied by other matter. God therefore has the power to be omnipresent, meaning everywhere at once. If god can be everywhere at once, than he can be aware of everything, making him omniscient. God, having existed before the universe (and thus matter), also must be able to exist nowhere at all. Contention 3: It is impossible for my opponent to prove that god does not exist. An omnipotent being, by it's very definition, is all powerful. What if it chose to not reveal itself, as a test of our faith? It wouldn't even have to, really. Much of space, even much of our own oceans, is still uncharted and unexplored. For all we know, god is sitting right past the range of our telescopes, and it is impossible for my opponent to prove otherwise.
God does not exist

1. To be omnipotent means to have power to control everything. That means nothing else has power to control anything. For example: If person1 has power to jump, and person1 wants to jump, and god doesn't want person1 to jump, then god has no power to control everything. Lets suppose, god has neither decided for person1 to jump or not to jump, which means (because he designed humans) that he put human's "jump property" at random. In this case, person1 may believe that he has free will, but his behavior is objectively random. To say nothing except god has power to control something, is equivalent of saying nothing has power, but all things happen by some law on nature, which is unavoidable. 2. Omniscient means to know everything. If something does not have brain, it can not know. If something has brain it can know. Therefore god has brain. Brain has size. Two things can not be present at exact same coordinates, if one is not part of the other one. For example, two cats can not exist in same coordinates, but leg of a cat (which is part of the cat) can exist in same coordinates as cat. To be omnipresent means to be present in every single coordinate. Since everything is part of the universe, it is only possible for universe to exist in every single coordinate. Therefore god is universe. Universe has no brain, therefore god is not omniscient. 3. In imaginary universe that has no matter, presuming space and time exist there and presuming space and time do not exist gives exact same result. Matter can not be created or destroyed. It can only change its form. If matter wasn't created and time and space only exist where the matter exists, universe was not created, but always was existing.
Which Youtuber is better? Tessa Violet or Jenna Marbles

Tessa Violet is awesome, and you should subscribe to her channel and watch her videos. -ha, ha, ha. That looks like an advertisement. But the truth is, I'm subscribed to both Tessa Violet and Jenna Marbles. But I like MeekaKitty waaay better. Check it out, comment and vote for Tessa!