BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Argument for God and the Correct Religion

No, but the fact that an entire people claims national revelation does prove it happened.No, it still doesn't prove it happened and your argument doesn't do anything to prove that.The only thing you try to do in your argument is to enumerate situations in which onewould unsuccessfully try to "introduce" this kind of beliefs and then "concluding" that itwould not be possible. However, you offer no proof that there would be no other possibleway of doing that.By the way, you didn't present, up to know, the 3 million persons that claim individually thatthey took part of these events. The most you can do is to present a bunch of people, thatwas taught by their parents and social peers that another bunch people had this revelation.However neither the people that support these claims today nor the people that taught them in the recent past witnessed directly these events.To be more clear, even if we accept that a people claiming to have witnessed national revelationproves that it happened, you didn't show us this people. The best you can do is to showpeople that claim that other people witnessed a "national revelation".It fits the first scenario you describe in your proof:Scenario #1:"Last week after dinner, I went for a walk through the forest near my house. Suddenly everything was awash in a tremendous light and God appeared to me, designating me as His prophet. He told me to announce this revelation to you at this time."and a reasonable people would get to the same conclusion as you expose in your first argument:Would you choose to believe me? Without any substantiating evidence, why choose to believe me? A foolish move, indeed.If fact [sic], a large independent but consistent body of detail exist further describing small things the Torah did not mention.If this large, independent and consistent body of detail exists you should present it inthis debate. Remember that, by assuming the Pro side, you have the burden of proof here.
Argument for God and the Correct Religion

Thank you for taking the debate. My opponent starts: Well, the problem is that the argument is not valid to begin with, because it assumes that the so-called "national revelation" did happen, without providing any evidences of that besides a book written by only one person. I'm not entirely sure if you understand the argument. The argument does not assume that national revelation took place. In fact, the entire argument revolves examining the claim that national revelation took place to see if it a legitimate claim. The argument can be summed up as saying precisely that- proof that the revelation did take place. Clearly, proof that revelation took place doesn't involve an assumption it took place. That would make no sense. My opponent questions: Could you present the 3 milion [sic] eyewitness you say expencied [sic]this revelation? Can you provide the 3 milion [sic] detailed and consistent relates of that same experience? No. In fact, yes. That is the thrust of the argument. The Jewish people have a tradition this happened to them, precisely as described in the Torah. If fact, a large independent but consistent body of detail exist further describing small things the Torah did not mention. As the argument stated, it would be impossible to convince an entire nation they experienced national revelation if they did not, precisely because of the questions my opponent asks. Remember: the fact that some people claim national revelation doesn't prove it did happen. No, but the fact that an entire people claims national revelation does prove it happened. I would advise my opponent read my argument more carefully before replying.
Argument for God and the Correct Religion

Hi, so the idea is just invalidating the argument to win?Well, the problem is that the argument is not valid to begin with, because it assumes thatthe so-called "national revelation" did happen, without providing any evidences of that besidesa book written by only one person.Could you present the 3 milion eyewitness you say expencied this revelation?Can you provide the 3 milion detailed and consistent relates of that same experience?No.Remember: the fact that some people claim national revelation doesn't prove it did happen.
Whou Would Actually Win in a Fight? Superman (pro) or Batman (con)

This debate will be on who would win in an actual fight, Superman or Batman. This will be a one on one battle with no outside characters help. Each character gets a full weeks preparation time and access to all gear and equipment. It will be set in Metropolis during the daytime with clear skies. Please note that this fight is for true comic fans of both characters who are actually passionate about comics and superheroes, this is NOT a fight based on the movies. This is a fight based on comics and their storylines. i will allow elseworld stories to the extent that they have been published by DC comics. This round will be for acceptance and as for the other 4 rounds, they shall be used for arguments/evidence, and counter-arguments/evidence. Please have vast knowledge of both characters before debating and I look forward to anyone who accepts this debate. Also side note, to win the other opponent must become knocked out or incapacitated. History and knowledge of each others strengths and weaknesses will be a factor however emotional ties wil not.
SANTA VS. JESUs

Top Ten Reasons Santa Is Better Than Jesus.10. Santa does not endorse any political candidates or parties.9. If you"re bad, Santa gives you a lump of coal, he doesn"t try to turn you into one.8. Santa comes to town riding a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer; Jesus comes to town riding someone else"s @ss, which seems to have become a tradition among some of his followers, by the way).7. Jesus says he loves little kids, but Santa actually lets them sit in his lap.6. Santa doesn"t spend all his time obsessing over how other people have sox.5. Santa can run his whole enterprise, year after year, without begging for donations.4. Some of history"s worst atrocities and injustices have been committed by people who believe in Jesus, but NONE of them have been committed by people who believe in Santa.3. You don"t have to devote your life to figuring out a collection of 66 books full of obscure, archaic, and contradictory teachings"Santa is satisfied if you"re just reasonably good most of the time.2. Santa cares enough to come back every year.1. Santa saves you from H+ll. by not creating it in the first place. Duhhttp://exmormon.org...http://m.youtube.com...And Santa delivers the presents, meaning Santa is better.Thank you!
SANTA VS. JESUs

Jesus would own Santa. Outright. There is no way the son of the omnipotent creator of the universe, who is also himself, would let a freaky reigndeer loving jolly-good steal the hearts of children away, IN HIS OWN SEASON. We’re celebrating his birth, right? So who in the blue-blazes cares about Santa? Answer: Everyone! I see him everywhere. I even see people sitting on his lap at virtually every mall I go to when I’m shopping for heels. So I’m going to clear a few things up for everybody. Jesus is going to straight OWN Santa. First, Jesus is going to take a measly fish and a loaf of bread and magically turn it into 5 billion baskets of bass and marbled rye. To feed the poor? Nope. He’s going to fly around Jamming these baskets into every Chimney he sees on Christmas Eve. Don’t worry about it, he’ll have enough time. He’s Jesus. Santa won’t even know what hit him. What’s Santa going to do? Ring the doorbell and walk through the front door, waking everyone up and ruining his magical element of holiday mystery? Probably. Santa can’t just not give these kids their presents and coal. But don’t worry, Jesus has a plan. Jesus is magically going to clone himself 5 billion times and crucify himself in every living room Santa enters. This way, Jesus will die for the sins of all the children Santa wants to give presents to. Not just the kids who get coal. From Jesus’s point of view, all kids are evil unless they CHOOSE to believe his sacrifice. And what not a better demonstration of his love than to crucify himself on Christmas Eve in everyone’s living room? Santa won’t know what hit him. But there’s a problem. Santa is an atheist. There’s no way someone becomes the secular embodiment of a widespread dogmatic, bigoted fundamental belief system without a little logic on their side. Santa knows theres simply no evidence for these sacrifices. Because guess what? The only proof Jesus provides that he was sacrificed in your living room is a 12 page, anonymous gospel from the seventies, handwritten in Hebrew from a stolen copy originally written in Greek. So Santa magically writes 5 billion plagarized copies of The God Delusion and slips them in every kids stocking. Santa lays the Christmas cheer on thick. Finally, however, Jesus knew this would happen. Jesus had a plan because he can see the future and all future events. Jesus is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Therefore he knew Santa would be an atheist and knew Santa wouldn’t let his 5 billion sacrifices ruin his holiday plans. So Jesus saves his best trick for last. Jesus magically resurrects himself 5 billion times and magically converts 5 billion cups of water into 5 billion cups of 190 proof Everclear vodka. Double whammy. This is water into wine: REDUX. Jesus then slips the Everclear into every glass of eggnog he sees next to the Christmas cookies laid out for Santa to eat. Santa doesn’t pass up eggnog. Long story short, Santa drank all the eggnog. Praise Jesus... or he'll send you to hell.
Is this interpretation of a poet/scientist critique of science/ maths accurate

pro says "Con just repeats the same phrase over and over, saying he has proven that math and science end in contradiction. He doesn't explain how or why. Again" pro says "Con just repeats the same phrase over and over, He doesn't explain how or why. Again"" reply this can be said about pro himself all he has done is say he agrees with the interpretation of Deans work but does not back that up with an argument to show why It is obvious that pro has not even looked at colin leslie deans work he is debating in bad faith he is just taking a aingst me because for some reason he does not like me or colin leslie dean if pro had read colin leslie deans work he would clearly see the mystery i claim dean is pointing out Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com... quote "Now just as mathematics and science show us that absurd or meaningless views can be "true" it also shows us that views which are mutually contradictory can each explain or predict the correct results and thus be both "true" at the same time. pro says "He doesn't explain how or why. Again""" reply I claim Deans work is about the mystery that comes about because maths/science end in meaninglessness /absurdity or self contradiction ie why /how does maths/science work when maths/science end in meaninglessness /absurdity or self contradiction how/why this mystery arises because maths/science end in meaninglessness /absurdity or self contradiction reply I say colin leslie deans work is about the mystery as to how maths/science work when maths/science end in meaninglessness /absurdity or self contradiction all you have to do is read some of colin leslie deans titles to see what he is doing-which pro has clearly not done "Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality quote "Now just as mathematics and science show us that absurd or meaningless views can be "true" it also shows us that views which are mutually contradictory can each explain or predict the correct results and thus be both "true" at the same time. "the absurdities in psychoanalysis and science that makes psychoanalysis a science Mathematics Ends in Meaninglessness ie self-contradiction it is obvious that pro has not even looked at colin leslie deans work he is debating in bad faith he is just taking a ainst me because for some reason he does not like me or colin leslie dean
Is this interpretation of a poet/scientist critique of science/ maths accurate

Con just repeats the same phrase over and over, saying he has proven that math and science end in contradiction. He doesn't explain how or why. Again, if my opponent fails to present a coherent argument then the original interpretation the the author adds nothing to philosophical knowledge is proven correct. So far he has just provided a repeated assertion without any supporting argument, thus adds nothing to philosophical argument. Moreover, in light of such incoherence, any interpretation of Con's ideas is legitimate. Without strong textual guidance, any interpretation that manages to logically structure the assertions made by Con is valid.
Is this interpretation of a poet/scientist critique of science/ maths accurate

pro just not see the real mystery that may open up the universe ie how/why do our science an mathematics work if they end in self contradictions pro says "Finally, Pro has presented nothing approaching a coherent philosophy. The interpretation that this debate is purportedly about says "this does not exactly ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding." If Pro is unable to articulate any coherent philosophical position in this debate, than Con's interpretation is clearly correct as Pro does not add anything to philosophical understanding. Put simply, if you do not understand what Pro's philosophy is trying to say, vote Con. As far as I can tell, all Pro saying is that because we can't describe the universe but the universe still seems to work it proves that man can't know the universe. This is exactly the interpretation that the Resolution questions." point 1) pro says "Finally, Pro has presented nothing approaching a coherent philosophy. " reply colin leslie dean has shown in many works listed in the debate that mathematics and science end in meaninglessness/absurdity ie self contradiction pro says "that because we can't describe the universe " reply colin leslie dean has shown in many works listed in the debate that the description mathematics and science give of the universe end in meaninglessness/absurdity ie self contradiction reply colin leslie dean has shown in many works listed in the debate that mathematics and science end in meaninglessness/absurdity ie self contradiction pro says "As far as I can tell, all Pro saying is that because we can't describe the universe but the universe still seems to work it proves that man can't know the universe. This is exactly the interpretation that the Resolution questions." reply colin leslie dean has shown in many works listed in the debate that mathematics and science show that we know the universe to be meaninglessness/absurdity ie self contradiction but as such how/why do our science an mathematics work if they end in self contradictions pro just not see the real mystery that may open up the universe ie but as such how/why do our science an mathematics work if they end in self contradictions
Is this interpretation of a poet/scientist critique of science/ maths accurate

This debate is just an attempt to astro-turf and promote the author of the above cited poem.I will not repeat the name of the author of this poem (although I am 95% certain my opponent will) because I don’t want to boost the number of webpages the use the name. I will just refer to him as “author.”1) The title page lists the author of this poem as “Australia’s leading erotic poet” but this author is virtually unknown, with no professional reputation or discussion of his work. A brief google search of his name reveals that this author has no major published works, no Wikipedia page, nothing.2) The author DOES have a discussion page on Wikipedia that notes he is trying to self-promote http://en.wikipedia.org......Note that the username of the individual defending the author is the same as the name of the poster linked by Pro on Scribd and of the “publishing company” the author uses.3) The author has spam across multiple website trying to stir up controversy about his poetry and “philosophy.” This debate is just another attempt to spam a website in a blatant attempt at self promotion.That this is merely self promoting spam is evidenced by the multiple links Pro provides to his own papers. All of his past debates are about himself and his work, but never in an up-front "let's discuss my ideas" manner. Instead, Pro pretends to be some third party discussing a high profile and controversial thinker. Pro is more interested in gaining visibility than in actually discussing ideas.Note that this debate isn't about the merits of Pro's philosophy, Pro is not defending a philosophical position. Instead Pro has structured this debate such that it simply allows him to spam links to his self-published works and repeat his name without actually defending any of his positions.Note that Pro manages to repeat his own name 5 times in his first speech.Finally, Pro has presented nothing approaching a coherent philosophy.The interpretation that this debate is purportedly about says "this does not exactly ADD anything to human scientific or philosophical understanding." If Pro is unable to articulate any coherent philosophical position in this debate, than Con's interpretation is clearly correct as Pro does not add anything to philosophical understanding. Put simply, if you do not understand what Pro's philosophy is trying to say, vote Con.As far as I can tell, all Pro saying is that because we can't describe the universe but the universe still seems to work it proves that man can't know the universe. This is exactly the interpretation that the Resolution questions.
Is this interpretation of a poet/scientist critique of science/ maths accurate

Is this interpretation of Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean critique of maths/science accurate- I think not you can view download for free from here http://www.scribd.com... or from gamahucher press homepage http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com... Colin leslie dean has been said to give a critique of science and maths that leads to as greatbigworld says http://www.debate.org... "His thesis, as I interpret it,...Indeed, even if we accept it as fact (which no right-minded person would), we are left with two options: either we renounce all attempts to understand the universe. In this way, Mr. Dean's thesis is both of no value, " I think this is not quite accurate as colin leslie dean says in his works that because maths/science end in absurdity/meaninglessness but it still seems to work there is a mystery as to why /how maths/science works seeing they end in absurdity/meaninglessness this theses is pointed out in such works as these Mathematics Ends in Meaninglessness ie self-contradiction http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com.... Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples the absurdities in psychoanalysis and science that makes psychoanalysis a science gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/.../psychoanalysis/absurd_in_psych.pdf http://www.scribd.com... "Man can not know the universe as his language used to know it only falsifies the universe. This results in the death of man i.e. the death of asserting a privileged observer of the universe." gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Decentred1.pdf "MAN IS DECENTRED. BY. COLIN LESLIE DEAN ... falsifies the universe. Thus man looses his ability to be a privileged knower of the universe Godels-incompleteness-theorem-invalid-illegitimate http://www.scribd.com.... GODEL?S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM. ENDS IN ABSURDITY OR MEANINGLESSNESS GODEL IS A COMPLETE FAILURE AS HE ENDS IN UTTER MEANINGLESSNESS CASE STUDY IN THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS http://www.scribd.com......
Is this interpretation of a poet/scientist critique of science/ maths accurate

Pro is repeating himself without addressing my points. Pro is simply arguing that math is "ad hoc" and self contradictory yet somehow works. This is no different than arguments concerning sense perception - they are ad hoc and yield contradictory results, yet somehow we rely on them. It's the same old skeptic and solipsistic argument repackaged, nothing new. This is exactly what the original interpretation said. I repeat that it is pro's burden to show that the interpretation that he adds nothing new to human understanding is false. It isn't my job to prove pro has no unique position- this an impossible task of proving a negative. Pro must prove he is adding to human knowledge. Also, can pro just admit he is the author and stop this charade of pretending we are talking about a third party?
Is this interpretation of a poet/scientist critique of science/ maths accurate

my premise is which pro say is wrong is "as colin leslie dean says in his works that because maths/science end in absurdity/meaninglessness but it still seems to work there is a mystery as to why /how maths/science works seeing they end in absurdity/meaninglessness As I SAY PRO HAS NOT EVEN READ COLIN LESLIE DEAN for coliesalie dean says this in his work quote Mathematics Ends in Meaninglessness ie self-contradiction http://www.scribd.com... " All in all Mathematics is nothing but an ad hoc discipline and a .... is philosophically absurd and ends in meaninglessness. It becomes a mystery-that needs to be solved- as to why maths works in the practical world when it ends in meaninglessness ie self-contradiction 1)thus I present points which support my premiss 2" pro has not given any quotes from colin leslie dean that support his pro position which is colin leslie deans work is NOT about "that because maths/science end in absurdity/meaninglessness but it still seems to work there is a mystery as to why /how maths/science works seeing they end in absurdity/meaninglessness" which I have shown by quoting dean is what colin leslie deans work is about