BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Whether or not the prophecies in the bible can be used as evidence for the existence of god

Can prophecy be used as evidence for the Christian God? Absolutely. Now lets dive into my opponents objections: 1.there are too many accurate prophecies from too many other sources I need sources and examples. 2.the ancient civilizations used perfectly natural means to predict the future such as mathematics and astronomy. The Bible contains unpredictable types of prophecies. For example: The return of the Jews to Israel is the key to bible prophecy. Most other endtime prophecies depend on the Jewish people living in Israel and not scattered amongst the Gentiles. Israel has not existed as a nation since hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Israel was established on May 15, 1948.Ain't that something? It goes even deeper as shown by this website: http://therefinersfire.org... My opponent has provided no further arguments hence Ill leave it at that.
Whether or not the prophecies in the bible can be used as evidence for the existence of god

I do not believe the prophetic accuracy of the bible should be used as evidence for the existence of god simply because there are too many accurate prophecies from too many other sources. From ancient civilizations such as the Mayans, Sumerians, and Egyptians to more modern day prophets such as Edgar Cayce. The ancient civilizations used perfectly natural means to predict the future such as mathematics and astronomy. They noticed patterns in the world and were able to use these patterns to make incredibly accurate predictions about any number of subjects. It is for these reasons that I think, while the bible does have accurate prophecies, that the accuracy should be attributed to the prophets themselves, not god and not the book that happened to feature them.
Masterful and What50 are the same person

Hahahaha. "I can foresee his argument." Right, thanks for that Nostradamus. You foresee nothing, you lamebrained cunt. I won't be making any links to any debates, I have no idea who this Airmax faggot is and I certainly don't "demand" anything from little men like you. I simply take what I please, and demolish anything left in my wake. Both your and What50's debates are terribly conceived anyhow, I really don't give a wank if you're the same person or not. You're both equally as poor, so it certainly wouldn't surprise me. I've just heard a few people saying you're the same person, so I wanted to see who this "Masterful" was for myself. As evident, I wasn't exactly bowled over with amazement. What's this? http://www.debate.org...A rap battle starring Masterful himself? This should be good.I'm prepared to consume the room,With my rap that was created in a metaphorical womb, where the words grew and the lyrics kicked, designed to inflict and end the verbal conflict.As the water breaks, the ground shakes, forcing open the hole that gapes. Right...The hole that gapes? Just kill me now. You want to write people's English literature homework? Seriously? Is that why in your opening address (If anyone has English literature homework that involves persuasive, descriptive or short-moderate story writing, then send me a message and I can write it for you. What makes me eligible to do your homework:) you forgo an Oxford comma where there clearly needs to be one and omit a question mark after a question? How tragical. Just stick to your shitty debates buddy, you and What50 distinctly deserve each other. Dumb cunt.
Masterful and What50 are the same person

Hello, My opponent is making a claim and therefore has the burden of proof. He can't conceivably be allowed to make claims that accuse users of breaking the terms of service without having undeniable evidence. I can foresee his argument being built around a series of links to debates, where me and what50 have both posted, he will then resort to demanding proof of my innocence. Airmax has the ability to see the I.P address of any user, it's likely that he has already checked to see if me and What50 are the same person. This alone puts a serious hole in my opponents claim, as this suggests Airmax finds me innocent. What does my opponent know that Airmax does not? I am eager to see.
Masterful and What50 are the same person

You showed me your dick? My work terminal blocks that website, so I never saw that image. If you did actually post a link to a penis, then your account will be getting banned, it wasn't a smart move on your behalf. I don't think what you're doing counts as trolling, it's the equivalent to someone logging on while they're drunk and spewing out profanities and shite. I had a look at some of your previous debates, got a slight smirk out of me at one point, but your wit isn't consistent. You then had a debate with a 13 year old girl who actually put you in your place- http://www.debate.org...
Masterful and What50 are the same person

So let's take a look at the sort of person i'm meant to be debating- http://www.debate.org... In that recent debate he begins by saying- "hi guys its me" Cringe. "yeah so this is just because I really feel like we just need to kill some people. I think its finally time" This guy just oozes logic and wit. Such a display of intelligence. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My opponent has conceded this debate by failing to provide an argument that would support his claim. It's not like I expected much from him after I saw his previous debate. Any serious attempt at proving his claim would have resulted in him providing links to debates. How else could someone attempt to prove such a claim? However it's clear he doesn't posses the mental capacity to support any claim at all, that's why he's resorted to an argument based around profanities. "I simply take what I please, and demolish anything left in my wake" That's something a 12 year old child would have said. I'd like to thank my opponent for making me cringe, I feel embarrassed for him, but I also understand that mental disorders are rife in this day and age, therefore I am sympathetic towards his. I'd like to point out that my opponent has also demonstrated an inability to understand metaphors and has resorted to insults. This is why you don't debate children. You won't find anything substantive in his argument. He's only interested in attacking myself, rather than my position. Advice to my opponent. Airmax is the site moderator, I wouldn't call him a "faggot." In fact, using a homophobic slur in a derogatory manner is a ban-able offence. To conclude My opponent has already stated that he doesn't know me, yet has decided to engage in a very hostile manner. Being needlessly hostile towards people you have only just met, is demonstrating an inability to connect with people, this is a sign of autism and I think we should consider that when my opponent makes his next argument. We need to help him through this and support him the best we can. Mental disorders are no joke.
Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X

So, we are debating the simulated hypothesis versus Christianity; Excellent. INTRODUCTION My opponent claims that the Bostrom’s simulated hypothesis (hereon known as BSH) only supports his Christian beliefs. This is clearly utter nonsense. Here is Bostrom’s theory as I understand it: P1: Human technology is constantly improving. >Artificial Intelligence in Video Games [1] >Astrological Simulations [2] P2: The workings of the human brain may be simulated by a sufficiently advanced computer. >Blue Brain project [3] [4] C: Humans of the future may be able to simulate multiple Universes containing conscious humans If this is true, they will simulate so many universes that it is more likely we are a simulated universe than in the actual universe humans began to exist in. “I think we both realize the deductive flow, presented in your source above, is clearly incomplete for a deduction.” But of course, thus the wording of my resolution; which is more plausible your religion versus a philosophical simulated universe? ARGUMENTS ASSUMPTIONS The assumption of the hypothesis is clear: Human technology (or even Alien technology I suppose) will reach a point where consciousness can be simulated. I don’t think this is a ridiculous assumption. I have the wonderful ability to look back on the last 74 years and see a dramatic advancement in computer technology in a very, very short time (in comparison to Human history). I can’t even imagine what the next 74 years will have in hold for us. I hope this doesn’t come across as an argument from ignorance; I am certainly not saying “computers will definitely reach this level”. I am arguing plausibility, which brings me to… The assumptions of Christianity (made by my opponent): God exists… Satan exists… Heaven exists… And most importantly... That he KNOWS something about these things. And what dear sirs are those assumptions based on? Two thousand year old scripture. No scientific evidence remotely suggests God exists. No sound philosophical argument comes close to confirming that the Christian god or your particular denomination of belief is the correct one. You have the wonderful ability to look back on 2000 years of Christian history, the advancements of Science in the last 400 years and the mythology of civilisations that existed BEFORE Christianity and you have the audacity to suggest that a theory about computer simulations SUPPORTS your Bible? Egad. CONCLUSION The Simulated Hypothesis is clearly more plausible than Christianity. We know computers exist We know technology is advancing every day We are working on simulating the Human brain right now. The resolution is sound and I look forward to my opponents response. SOURCES [1] http://www.cs.uni.edu... [2] http://www.gps.caltech.edu... [3] http://bluebrain.epfl.ch... [4] http://seedmagazine.com...
Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X

He appears to be saying in your source: 1)Computers can simulate entire worlds 2)The worlds can create fully conscious people Conclusion: We live in a simulated world This argumentation only supports the Christian Religion. Though, I think we both realize the deductive flow, presented in your source above, is clearly incomplete for a deduction. Positive Argument 1- Relevant synopsis of Christianity: The Christian claim is that our souls are in a "limited world" in a "limited environment" under many restrictions to "play" out the Conflict Court Trial between Satan and God to determine which of the two is Truly Merciful, Just, Kind, Generous etc.., basically a better God. (Book of Job: Ezekiel 28 etc..) We are in a temporary simulation to play out the Angelic Conflict/Kingdom Conflict/Heavenly Court Trial to forever determine the Character of our God and the Character of Satan. This court conflict needed an arena where suffering, pain and death existed as it does not exist in Heaven. Hence the creation of this universe for a short time. Conclusion: This theory would only serve to reinforce the Christian Belief system that the next life is the "real" life…. The only "real" thing that will be carried out of this world will be our souls. The Christian Model is far more explanatory and more fully understands the mechanisms and inner workings of the "earth simulation" proposed by this person. In the same way, Christianity affirms Plato's "Cave Theory" which is apparently a root of this man's model. The difference in this mans model is that he proposes computer simulators as evidence. Christianity affirms this "real world" evidence for understanding simulations. We would also utilize our current court system to understanding how this "simulation" is working and the rules that are governing it. This shows that my opponent's model is only a small fraction of the explanatory power that rests within the Christian worldview. This model only addresses a small aspect of existence and is completely encompassed within Christianity and several thousand years ago proposed by Christianity. Additionally nothing about this system refutes Christianity but only further supports Christianity as a complete and accurate worldview.
Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X

I recently watched a debate featuring Sam Harris and he mentioned this theory. .. This is the wikipedia page on Nick Bostrom, a Swedish philosopher who works at Oxford university: . http://en.wikipedia.org... This is a brief overlay of his theory: . http://en.wikipedia.org... I propose that his theory is more plausible than any religion of my opponents choosing. They may only select one specific religion and post a link to a brief overlay. With each other's positions understood, we will begin our arguments in round two and conclude in round four.
Ultimate Team War

For my Ultimate Team I select: BRIAN EGGLESTON (http://www.debate.org...) Brian_Eggleston has the super-comedic ability. He has the amazing ability to string together a number of adjectives that would otherwise not appear together in the same sentence. This gives him the power to make even the most serious minded individual laugh out loud. RAGNAR RAHL (http://www.debate.org...) Ragnar Rahl has the amazing ability of extreme-consistency. He is unswerving from anything he has ever made up his mind on, ever. He also has the unbeatable finishing move: the last word. No one has yet survived a Ragnar Rahl Last Word. LOGIC-MASTER (http://www.debate.org...) Logic Master has the power of super-debate. He can logically outmaneuver any opponent on any issue - even on issues he opposes himself. It is also rumored that he will top any leader board no matter how concerted the effort to unseat him. ASKBOB (Account Closed) Askbob has the one-of-a-kind Lulz ability. This ability includes the power to insult, degrade, and otherwise mock any opponent to provide lulz to everyone around. This includes friend and foe alike. He also has the power to regenerate an unlimited amount of times once his "account" is "closed." SOM31JOHN (http://www.debate.org...) Som Thirty-One John has the unbeatable power to repulse any female, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, or species. It is said that this power emanates from his extreme chauvinist ability, bitter attitude, and all-around sarcastic demeanor. It's your move, sir. Good luck, you are going to need it.
Everyone should learn to drive manual transmission cars at some point in life.

Alright I will take your challenge and show you exactly why everyone should learn to drive a manual transmission. First I would like to point out that should in this instance means that there would be enough benefit to learning how to drive such a transmission to outweigh the draw backs. So I am going to give benefits of learning how to drive a manual transmission. 1. You can now drive just about any vehicle. This means that when your girlfriend takes you out horseback riding and drives her manual truck you are not stuck should something happen to your girlfriend. For example if your girlfriend fell and got a concussion, you would be able to drive her home. (Real life example from me!) I realize the chances of such instances are rather unlikely, but non-the-less beneficial. 2. Avoiding cops. You know that day when you're late for work and you're going 10 mph over the speed limit to get there. Then you see that cop coming down the street at you, now all you have to do is down shift. No incriminating break lights or anything. Good idea! 3. Avoids slipping on ice. Where as an automatic transmission in many instances must apply break in order to slow down, in a manual transmission one can simply down shift to make the wheels spin slightly slower thereby slowing down. This avoids sliding on ice and can prevent wrecks. 4. They are so much more fun. A person who can drive a manual better owns any automatic at race. Manuals can stay in gear for as long as possible thereby revving higher and accelerating faster. Automatics simply flip when they hit so many rpms. This is obnoxious. 5. Everybody looks more cool driving a manual. You know it the moment you get in a car with someone who has one of those nice leather stick shifts they are most definitely a cool person. Manuals are cool to drive, drivers are cool. 6. Learning to drive a manual can be a bonding experience with someone you like. Just have one of your good friends teach you, bonding time, yeah! Obviously these are all reasons why one should learn to drive an automatic, together they make it more or less imperative that one should. With no draw backs to learning to drive an automatic on the list I am going to have to say everyone should.
Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism)

Firstly, I’d like to explain the illusion of free-will; The act of deciding is to consider the importance, or power, of influences that make up our lives. These influences include; culture, moods, emotions, environment, opinions, beliefs, viewpoints, experience, mental state, intoxication etc. Free-will implies that we are able to see these influences, yet act in defiance of them. It implies that if you really want to do A, you can in fact decide to do B, even without any further bias or influence. It is, to do the impossible. Determinism states that each of these influences is defined externally before the choice is made. An example; Do you believe in God? My answer is that I have been brought up in life, with a series of influences, that have defined me; Not the other way round. I have been shaped by society to believe that there is no God, and that fact is so unchanging that I can honestly say I do not have the free-will to change it right now. If I had freedom of will, then I could will to become kinder, will to become smarter, will to become a theist even. I have, in fact, realized the true impossibility of Free-will. Influences – the things that drive us into certain choices – are created and controlled by external forces. You cannot have an opinion on X if you have never heard of X, or heard anything relating to X. You cannot enjoy the taste of pizza simply by willing it to be true. The simplest choice; deciding what to eat. Is that free? Do you choose to enjoy one food over another (and thus have preference towards it?)? No. Your taste buds choose that for you. Do you choose to get angry when you are insulted? Do you choose to let some random atheists words persuade you (or not)? Do you choose to allow certain influences to affect your more than others, or are your beliefs a response? Instead, I picture life like a domino set. The first cause (whatever it may be) pushed the first domino, driving a society of people who act according to fixed physical laws. Right down to the neurology. For the unexplained “random events” of science, that does not hint towards free-will. It hints towards random-will, pure guess work, and something not to be favoured. A series of dominos that we cannot measure, but still follow a set of laws. Now, assuming this, can you say with any certainty that it is right to blame someone for something that they are determined to do? And thus, I propose that blame is a prejudice; Prejudice means; -an unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. When you blame someone for something, you are creating an expectation of them to meet a certain social standard. Eg; “I expect you not to steal.” If, however, you knew everything about them (and thus, were able to determine what they were going to do) then you’d realize that you can only expect them to do what they do actually do. If someone steals, you must expect them to steal (unless you change the events leading up to it, which is impossible, as you only know in hindsight). This is my initial argument.
Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism)

Round 1: Introductory Communication and Definitions Round 2: Both sides give First Arguments. Round 3: Free Debate/Refutation/Criticism of Opposing Arguments Round 4: Further Debate/Refutation/Criticism Round 5: Conclusions/Summary of Oppositions Arguments Summary: In this debate I wish to present an argument supporting the notion that the entire concept of blame is a clear form of prejudice, based off the philosophical ideology of Hard Determinism. I will present an argument from impossibility and/or impracticality, while hopefully making a compelling counter-argument that will favour the often miss-understood idea of Hard Determinism. I will also briefly discuss the problems of Compatibalism, while allowing for an extensive debate with whoever is against the notion. I am making this argument from the side of Hard Determinism, and so I expect a Free-Will advocate to accept the challenge. Free-Will: Choices that are free from influence, or the ability to make choices without defining influences. Specifically, the ability to act on one’s own accord, enough to justify the punishment and rewarding based on external actions. Hard Determinism: The doctrine that all things are determined by external forces. The laws of Cause-and-Effect apply to both inanimate objects, as well as cognitive thought. Cheers.
We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea.

So basically for this debate im going to go with an overview of a universal health care and why it would not work in our current system of government. 1. There isn't a single government agency that is up to the task of implementing a universal program effectively. 2. If anyone hasn't noticed the economy in the US government is in the largest recession it has ever been in. To ask people to pay there way through this is absurd especially through taxes. 3. Profit motives and competition have lead to better programs offered right now as a way to lure people to work for them especially qualified personal. 4. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. 5. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. This has been proven in countries with a universal health care like India. 6. Healthy people who are hardly ever in the hospital will end up paying for people who smoke or do other harmful things to their body. Which if that is the case why should they have to. 7. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs and business closures, people who are already in work now 8. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Because face it as it is now people are opting to become doctors because of the fame and money. 9. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a right by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove it once costs get out of control. 10. As it is now many people come from all over the world to be treated because in the status quo we have the most effective and clean medical industry especially in fields of specialization. As a final note I think its safe to say everyone wants a universal health care, heck ill admit I would but the fact of the matter it is just not possible to do and maintain all the things we take for granted in our current society.