BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Cosmological Argment is Sound

1. Yes, you explained it in your last arguing round. What I was saying was that God would be the cause in a personal sense, controlling the physical. Your arguments are against the physical acting in such a way. The reason I inculuded those quotes was because you said "I never said that the universe couldn't have come from nothing". 2. Stenger"s quote did imply a good reason why the Copenhagen interpretation is more likely. Deterministic interpretations have never made a successful prediction of said events, which makes indeterministic interpretations more likely. My argument was that the fact a plausible interpretation exists that allows such a thing is a problem for premise 1. 3. Yes. The reason why I brought it up was because you quoted Wikipedia saying these vacuums weren't empty. If you just brought up the interpretation objection, I wouldn't have brought this up. 4. I didn't address it because, it contradicted your original argument. My thoughts on this are, simply not having something isn't the same as having something. Being broke is a way of describing someone with no money. Being broke isn't possessing something. Great debate. Thanks Pro.
The belief in (Christian) Heaven is both unscientific and unreasonable

Christian: Relating to Christianity in any of its denominations 2. Scientific: Regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science: scientific procedures. 3. Reasonable: Being in accordance with reason I also request that my opponent respect the beliefs and values behind my argument, that only my arguments will be called into question, not my morals, that there will be no restrictions or addendums added to this debate in further rounds, that there will be no change in definitions, the resolution, or anything as such in later rounds, that I be allowed to debate freely in any manner I choose, as long as I stay within the confines of the resolution at the top of this page and the definitions of Round 1. I will extend the same courtesy to my opponent. Thank you, I look forward to a stimulating debate.
The story of the Genesis flood completely discredits the Bible/Quran

Doubt is a funny thing. See, nowadays, it is considered good and upstanding to question everything, but back before the Scientific Revolution, doubt was, in many religions, a sin. Is doubt really a good thing? Science is great. It unlocks large secrets about the universe to us. This being the case, science cannot explain everything. I used to enjoy playing a game where if someone told me something, I would ask why. They would respond and I would again ask why.This progressively continued until the person ran out of answers and therefore became very annoyed with me. Everything has things that cannot be explained. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly created the Big Bang? How could a large flood have occurred without leaving behind any evidence? How are sausages made? A complete skeptic will believe in nothing, because no matter what, everything can be questioned. It is therefore obvious that something else is required to believe something. Faith is the belief in something that is not always apparent. Skepticism is in direct conflict with faith, but through skepticism, faith can be increased. I don't know what all of you out in cyberania believe, but I can be stinking sure that you have to have a degree of faith to maintain your belief. If you think you're an exception, we'll take this into the comments section. My personal faith rests firmly on the Bible. Now, am I at times skeptic of what the Bible says? Obviously. But I have resigned to have faith in the fact that just because I don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't so. Does the Bible have a monopoly upon morals? I think so. Why is it that most all of our morality is based off of ideas defined in the Bible? Naturally, we have laws that people in biblical times had no need of, but aren't all of our laws in place to prevent murder, stealing, lying, violence, abuse, and hate? Isn't our government established to help the poor and the needy? Any notion that morality is relative is absurd! How can any society run in a place where there is no designated right and wrong? You are entitled to your beliefs, sir, but as I see it, there is no circumstance under which the Bible is either false or is not the rock upon which morality should be built.
The story of the Genesis flood completely discredits the Bible/Quran

Ooh... that's brilliant, right there. Your points are actually very good, and it took quite the mulling-over for me to determine how to respond. Regardless, I have compiled some arguments that hopefully will support my case somewhat thoroughly. First of all, let me say that I do not lack any confidence. I'm confident as the day is long! (sort of...) This is slightly awkward, but I am going to use evolution to explain how all of the animals fit upon the ark. Now, I am not referring to Evolution (kindly see the comments), but the pastor at my church agrees that Noah did not take a pair of every species of dog, cat, cow, or bear. This also addresses some of the food issue, as Koalas and Pandas did not necessarily go on the ark. Water shortage is hardly an issue, however. Remember that Noah was in an enormous rain storm for forty days. Chances are he had enough sense to collect some of the water for the animals and his family. Also, this is purely speculation, but since it was the rain that apparently flooded the Earth, and since rain is always fresh water, it is possible that the sea on which the ark sailed was in fact mostly fresh water. See, the real problem here is a total lack of evidence. The flood story of the Bible takes up only three chapters, and it hardly focused on how the saving was done. Your claims are true that God could have caused suspended animation. This solves all of the issues you have provided. It really comes down to this: I don't know. I believe the flood happened, yet the scientific evidence is scarce. I believe the Bible is true, even though I have no proof other then the change it makes in people's lives. Most "educated" people feel as though this is an ignorant or weak point of view, but, see, I don't really care. Besides, I didn't "paint myself into an illogical corner." That would be Moses, writing with the voice of God through the Holy Spirit. The only thing I can do it have faith. I believe the whole Bible to be true, so I believe the flood occurred, regardless of the hows.
The story of the Genesis flood completely discredits the Bible/Quran

Pardon my ignorance, but from which source did you get your information on the Genesis Flood? See, many of your details are startlingly inaccurate according to the Biblical version. I shall address these issues in the order in which they were presented. 1.) Noah was told to collect 2 of the unclean species, but he was allowed to bring 7 of each of the clean species (Genesis 7:2). These extra animals were to be used not to repopulate the planet, but to make sacrifices to God and, presumably, to feed the carnivorous organisms. 2.) The flood actually lasted for 40 days (Genesis 8:6), but Noah and his family were on the ark for about one year (Genesis 8:13, using a little math from the previous verses). 3.) A lack of evidence is obvious. The same can be said for the Theory of Relativity and Evolution. Be this as it may, most people still consider these two theories as true. 4.) Noah did not have to obtain the animals, as they were led to him by God (Genesis 7:15). Seeing as I have both corrected your faulty information and supported the side of the case which I have taken, I dare say my work here is finished. Thank you all! VFD
The story of the Genesis flood completely discredits the Bible/Quran

This is a reposting because a troll ruined the original debate. If you are not interested in respectful, intelligent discourse for the purpose of establishing truth, please do not accept the challenge. I am taking the PRO position. The story of Noah's flood states: Noah was told by God to build a boat. Noah gathered up 2 of every species unto the boat. God caused a flood to cover the entire earth, which wiped out all living things that were not on the Noah's boat. The flood lasted for 30 days, after which the boat came to rest on Mt. Ararat. The human race and all animal species continued to live only as descendants of those saved on the boat. 1. I believe the story of Noah's flood as described in the Bible (and Quran) to be false. While there is a lack of evidence to support the story, there are too many logistical issues that would make it an impossible feat. For example, there is no plausible explanation as to how Noah could gather animals from other areas of the world that are separated from that continent (such as Kangaroos). Furthermore, there would be no food for the carnivores to eat. 2. Since it is claimed that the Bible is the direct word of God and infallible, all substantial claims must be correct or the book should be considered unreliable in whole. CON is stating that either a) the flood did happen or b) it did not happen but the Bible is still "the word of God".
Undertale is an incredible game.

Firstly, I don't believe it's an incredible game because, when you're told not to kill all the monsters at the beginning of the game... yet all the monsters actually go out of their way to end your life. Yet with all these monsters actively trying to kill you, you can't defend yourself, otherwise you're an evil monster. The game is essentially forcing you take the pacifist path, because apparently, you're a genocidal maniac if you defend yourself from a monster that is going to kill you. Secondly, some of the characters are really bland, and do nothing to advance the plot in game whatsoever. Like for example, there's Mad Dummy, who is just a boss you encounter at random and is never heard from again. And then there's Napstablook, a ghost you fight also, and is also never heard from again. Some of these characters do absolutely nothing and are never heard from again. Thirdly, the game doesn't become so original, when all it takes to implement the same system where you don't needlessly kill, all anyone needs to do to make a game like that is to add a karma meter to their game, where if you do bad things, bad things happen to you, and if you do good, good things happen. That's exactly how Undertale's ending system works.
Undertale is an incredible game.

First off, I believe that Undertale is an incredible came because of the characters. Sans, in the genocide route, is the brother of Papyrus. He seems to be a relaxed person in his first appearance and sticks with his brother. However, as the story progresses, Sans gives warnings to the player, to not kill any more monsters. Because the player failed to do this, and killed all of what Sans loved, he was put in a battle near the end. Sans gives the player one of the hardest times in the game. After he is defeated, he asks if Papyrus wanted anything, showing how much he misses him. Undertale makes a sad, but understandable transition of Sans being relaxed and happy to him being revengeful and depressed. This is one reason why Undertale is an incredible game. Secondly, Undertale is unique! Just near the start of the game, the player is told not to kill any monsters. This is optional, but will decide any fates in the future. If the player does not kill any monsters, then they would be able to go into the pacifist route, leading to a different plot. If they do kill monsters, they can either go to the neutral route or the genocide route. This is an unique feature that gives you choices for how the story plays out. Undertale is an incredible game because of this.
Bull sharks are more dangerous to humans than Great Whites.

While the Bull shark may be more aggressive and swim in freshwater and saltwater,the great white shark still poses a greater threat. Even if the great white only kills humans by accident it does not change the fact that you are still dead. 'Lets do the math. If I add up all the unprovoked attacks + the boat attacks, and divide it by the fatalities, I will get a %. Great White: =65/333 19% of victims died Bull =23/77 30% of victims died' (Boat attacks should not be added in this count because the chances of surviving any shark attack in a boat are much higher than swimming or surfing. ) While the chance of survival might be lower with the bull shark,the chance of being attacked by a bull shark is extremely rare. (especially compared to the great white. ) Yes,the lists may not be 100% accurate,but just as the attacks for great white sharks may be wrong,the attacks documented for the bull shark may also be wrong. In conclusion I think that while the bull shark is more aggressive,the great white shark is more dangerous do to it's numerous unprovoked attacks on humans.
Bull sharks are more dangerous to humans than Great Whites.

Bull Sharks are more agressive than Great WhitesCon states, "because of their curiosity or bad eyesight great white sharks tend to attack humans and boats way more often than bull sharks. " The great white might have attacked more people, but more people have have survived in %. I'm going to use the information you provided me if you don't mind. the great white had 238 unprovoked attacks and 95 boat attacks, resulting in 65 fatalities. Tiger shark (88 attacks and 28 deaths)Bull shark (77 attacks and 23 deaths)Lets do the math. If I add up all the unprovoked attacks + the boat attacks, and divide it by the fatalities, I will get a %. Great White: =65/333 19% of victims diedTiger =28/88 31% of victims diedBull =23/77 30% of victims died As you can see, the Tiger shark had the highest fatality rate, followed by the Bull Shark, and the Great White. Since our debate doesn't involve the Tiger shark, the chances of being killed are greater, when attacked by a bull shark. Say I take away the boat attacks, and add up the just the unprovoked attacks.65/238= 27% of victims died. The reason for this, is because the great white generally mistakes its prey for seals, and spits it out later. Like I mentioned before, the Bull shark will continue to attack its prey, until it is weak enough to go for the kill. This alone is a huge factor in determining which shark is more dangerous. Keep in mind though, that these lists aren't 100% accurate. Many attacks have been blamed on the great white, even though it might have been done by another shark. 'Where it lives"Bull are also found in those enviornments, and the danger is that it also applies to fresh water. Many of us would likely ignore or forget the fact that they can swim in fresh water, and go for a swim anyways.
Bull sharks are more dangerous to humans than Great Whites.

'Bull Sharks can swim in fresh water' Yes,they are sometimes found swimming in fresh water,but they still are not as dangerous to humans as great whites. And have a less number of human attacks. 'Bull sharks are more aggressive than Great Whites' Bull sharks may be more aggressive than great whites, but because of their curiosity or bad eyesight great white sharks tend to attack humans and boats way more often than bull sharks. 'Where it lives' Depending on the graph most great white attacks happen in water less than 5 feet or in water 6-10 feet. Great White sharks are also know for attack surfers and people in small boats. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu... Great White sharks are responsible for 33 to 50% of shark attacks. Followed by the tiger shark and then the bull shark. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com... Great White sharks are also responsible for the most deaths. And are a danger to swimmers,surfers,and boaters. As of May 2008, the great white had 238 unprovoked attacks and 95 boat attacks, resulting in 65 fatalities. Tiger shark (88 attacks and 28 deaths) Bull shark (77 attacks and 23 deaths) http://animals.howstuffworks.com... [source: International Shark Attack File].
Bull sharks are more dangerous to humans than Great Whites.

"Im just going to assume my opponent missed that. I shall now refute my opponents arguments. Great White sharks weigh 1,500-2,500 pounds compared to a 200-500 pound Bull shark. Weight isn't an accurate factor in determing how dangerous the animal is. Whale sharks certainly weigh more than Great Whites, and are harmless to humans. Getting bit by a 21 foot long Great White is much worse than a 7 foot Bull shark. Con provides no evidence to prove this claim. Unless he proves it, this claim is considered void. The size of the Great White can increase the chance of death when attacked. Like I said, size isn't an accurate factorAnd like bull sharks,great white sharks are known to attack humansThis doesn't prove that Great Whites are more dangerous. Now I will give my argument, and I encourage Con to refute it. Bull Sharks can swim in fresh waterUnlike the the Great White, Bull sharks are capable of swimming in fresh water. This poses a greater threat to humans, as many people swim in lakes, rivers. Bull sharks have been sighted in the Missiissipi River, and have been sighted in Lake Michigan. Me personally, have seen Bull sharks in Lake Michigan. . http://www.in-fisherman.com...Bull sharks are more agressive than Great WhitesThis is due to the high testosterone levels in the Bull Shark. Bull Sharks generally continue to keep biting its victim to get chunks of meat. Great Whites usually take a test bite, and lets its victim escape. This is because Great Whites prefer fatty foods, and humans are too bony for the shark. Even though the Great White has had more attacks that the Bull shark, victims are more likely to actually survive. . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://animals.nationalgeographic.com...Where it livesBull Sharks prefer shallow murky water, which is where most humans swim.
Bull sharks are more dangerous to humans than Great Whites.

I accept your challenge. I will defend Great Whites and say that bull sharks are less of a threat to humans than Great Whites. Great White sharks weigh 1,500-2,500 pounds compared to a 200-500 pound Bull shark. Getting bit by a 21 foot long Great White is much worse than a 7 foot Bull shark. The size of the Great White can increase the chance of death when attacked. And like bull sharks,great white sharks are known to attack humans.
is god evil

I thank Con for his/her quick response. Again, this debate is merely a test of skill and means no offence to any religion or religious believer. Here I will respond to Con's arguments: 1. "Okay so want to make something clear I'm agnostic Christian no bible please " Con only says that no Bible quoting is allowed in the last round. It was not mentioned in the rules, and since the topic is "is god evil", I will consider the statement invalid. 2. "focus on what we know what I mean by good always wins is evil doesn't last some examples being slavery Nazis soviets sergation sexism these are all gone or diminishing and if god controls everything maybe he is doing this now" While it is indeed true that some of the evil of the world seems to be diminishing, the point is that evil still exists. God may have done good things, but those things don't make up for the evil he did, such as killing many people and dooming nations. This is not math. A good deed (+1) and a bad deed (-1) does not equal a neutral (0). If a murderer helped a lost girl find her way home, he is still a murderer. 3. "for hell would you rather some one as Stalin or Hitler in heavon or hell would that be evil to reward the wicked" I am not certain as to what Con is trying to say here, so I will explain my previous point in detail. My point is that, only an evil person would sentence people to a torture pit (Hell). Only an evil being would intentionally create such a terrible place of suffering to torture people. I see that Con still hasn't replied to my points concerning God killing people and God cursing people. God personally killed a lot of people, and even nearly wiped out the world with a flood at one point (remember Noah?). Only an evil being could cause such destruction intentionally. God also made very inhumane laws, such as laws which called for the slaughtering of cities and death by stoning, a very painful, horrific and inhumane form of the death penalty. Here I urge all voters to vote fairly, judge based on skill and technique rather than religion or religious beliefs. I thank Con for starting this debate, and I hope we will have more debates later on.
is god evil

I thank Con for his arguments, and I will respond accordingly. I would like to stress again that I mean no offence to any religion or religious believer, but am simply accepting this challenge purely as a test of debating skill. Thus, I urge voters and viewers to judge on skill and technique, rather than their own religious views. 1. " the bible is horrific book written by 'man' " Actually, Christians believe that God used his human authors to write the Bible for him, which technically means that God was the writer while man was the printer, thus God was actually the one who contributed the content of the Bible. Con seems to insinuate that the Bible does not accurately record or portray God, which seems to contradict the views of the majority of Christians or Catholics, as these religions use the Bible as a reference. 2. "Second is he gave us the abilty to go to heavon why would he do this if he is evil" I wonder where Con gets his/her information saying that God gave us the ability to go to heaven. If he/she gets it from the Bible, then Con's first point (see above) is invalid. According to the Bible, while God did give humans his only son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sins (isn't that a terribly evil thing to do to your son?), he was also the one who created heaven and hell. Hell, in the Bible, is described to be "a fiery lake of burning sulphur" (Revelation 21:8), "fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:50), "eternal fire" (Jude 1:7). In short, it is a torture pit. A being who sentences other people to such misery and suffering is evil and wicked. 3. "Third if your Talking about genesis than it says god made us in his image and I would not call humans evil" True, Genesis does talk about how humans are made in God's image. However, it is unclear as to what 'image" refers to. While some believe that it refers to God's "holiness" and "purity", I believe otherwise. The examples given in the first round have more than proved God's evilness. Also, it is undeniable that there is evil among us, and that some humans are evil. Humans in general are selfish-which is considered to be immoral in the Bible-so how would you explain this? 4. "If god is evil why does good always win in the long run" I am unsure as to how Con arrives to the conclusion that "good always wins in the long run". He/she has not given any examples or elaboration as to how the statement is true. Also, "the long run" is undefined. When is the "ending point" for the so-called long run? Is it 50 years after a crime? If so, I can give many examples of unsolved criminal cases that last well over a century. Is it until Judgement Day? If so, I argue that since God is evil, he will not be a fair judge and his decisions and ruling cannot be trusted. I would also like to point out that Con has failed to respond to my points concerning God killing people and God cursing people. My arguments and examples in the first round prove that God is evil. I look forward to seeing Con's arguments. References: http://www.biblica.com...