BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian God does not exist

Thank you for accepting. I believe I can prove my point by tackling the problem of evil alone, but will try to tackle all points. The problem of evil You say that God knows of all evil and can stop all evil. Yes absolutly. God has the infinate disposition to do good. Glad we agree on that as well. Evil exists. Duh, look what happened in Newtown, CT last week. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Of course. Due to premise 2-4 God must eliminate evil. And He will on His time. The issue here is not that since Evil exists, then God cannot. Who is the standard bearer for good and evil? There must be someone or something to create that standard. Was it man? How could you say that even though man commits crimes everyday that man also condemns as evil created that standard of what is good and what is evil? You can't. You want to talk about logic, that bears no logic. How can God exist in His omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent form if evil exists? Simple. God is the creator all things. He can do with it what He will. He is the standard bearer of all things good and evil. The burden of proof is on you to prove differently. omnipotence, omniscience & logic I am putting premises 2 & 3 in one catagory here. I believe you are trying to confuse people here. God can do X. God can do Y. if X contridicts Y, so what? Who are you to say that God cannot do X as well as Y. God will do one over the other, always, but He will do whichever is closest to His character. Who are you to determine logic? You posed no definition of logic in your opening round. You simply said Logic exists. Which it does. I have had so much trouble talking to my Christian friends about using logic when studying the Bible. The issue here is much like the issue with evil. God can certainly do X. But refer back to the story of Creation. God said "don't do this". Man did. So God punished us. It is not out of character for God. Much like it would not be out of character for your parents to punish you for doing something. In order do debunk this counter argument, you must first disprove that God created all things. Biblical Contridictions What logical contridictions are there in God himself? Before we discuss this, you have to make valid your claims. Carl Sagan said "extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence" I understand Sagan was trying to disprove the existance of God with this statement, but the claim that God does not exist is equally as extrodinary as the claim that He does. I don't see any evidence that you have proven that he does not. To sum up this round, look at your own definition of absolute omnipotence. The ability to do absolutly anything. Just because He does one thing and not the other does not mean God does not exist. It means he is doing what is aligned with HIS CHARACTER
The Christian God does not exist

God - The God (LORD), holds all characteristics exemplified in the Bible as his whole self, as that is the closest real physical relation they have to their God. He is absolutely (as opposed to commonly) omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He is also a Personal God. Existence - The physical existence of a consciousness or entity, outside or inside the universe. Not an abstract concept that humans created. Absolute Omnibenevolence - The infinite disposition to do good Absolute Omniscience - The infinite knowledge of all things in existence or out of existence. Absolute Omnipotence - The infinite power to do absolutely anything, including defy logic, due to the fact that he created everything (including logic) Absolute Omnipresence - The infinite presence everywhere, in existence, or out of existence Evil - The opposite of good, has an objective presence in the bible (Satan) I. The Problem of Evil 1. The Christian God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent 2. Evil exists 3. The Christian God knows of all Evil 4. The Christian God can stop all Evil 5. The Christian God has an infinite disposition to do good 5. The Christian God, due to premise 3, 4 and 5, must eliminate evil. 6. The existence of evil, and God's need to eliminate all evil are mutually exclusive. 7. God cannot existence as he is claimed II. Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually exclusive. 1. The Christian God is omniscient and omnipotent 2. The Christian God knows everything he is going to do. 3. The Christian God has the power to do everything (including do something he's knows he's not going to do. 4. These two traits are contradictory, he cannot do something he knows he isn't going to do, and vice versa. 5. The Christian God can not exist as he's claimed. Ex. 1. The Christian God knows he's going to do X, due to his omniscience. 2. The Christian God has the power to not do X. 3. With the power not to do X, he cannot know that he's going to execute X, because the possibility remains that he can not do X. III. Omnipotence and Logic are mutually exclusive 1. The Christian God is omnipotent 2. Logic Exists 3. The Christian God has the power to do something logically impossible. 4. To assert a being can do something logically impossible, is illogical. 5. The Christian God is illogical 6. The Christian God cannot exist as he's claimed. IV. Biblical Contradictions 1. The Christian God holds all the characteristics exemplified in the Bible. 2. There are logical contradictions in the Bible, (Ex. The creation of light without the stars, which we now know is the source of light, and without the stars, the universe would be dark) 3. There are then, logical contradictions in God himself, 4. The Christian God cannot exist as he is claimed I realize that some of these are the same arguments I used in my other debate, but as I defined God differently, and went through the process of defining all the "omni"-terms, the logic is completely functional.
The Christian God does not exist

This is a challege to Tylerbrown13 about whether the Christian God exists. I worded the title and took the con position in a way that would put the burden of proof in Tyler's hands because in his profile hes claims that he will debate any Christian at anytime. I hope he is ok with this. As such, I will only post rules 1st round and let Tyler accept and also let him make his arguments first round. I will wait til second round to make my own arguments and counter arguments. Rules: 5 rounds 8,000 characters If an argument is not countered the next round, that person who is to make counter arguments is allowed to make a counter argument/rebuttal in the round after, if it is not rebutted, counts as a concession, ex. pro makes argument in round 1 con does not rebutt in round 2 or round 3 point goes to pro and vice versa Definitions, as it suits pro, can be up to him.
The Christian God does not exist

"Thank you for accepting. I believe I can prove my point by tackling the problem of evil alone, but will try to tackle all points. "I made this clear in my previous debate, but not this one,If anyone of my points is valid, then my claim that the Christian God is invalid in whole is true, due to the fact that no existing entity can hold contradictions within themselves. In essence, you can't disprove my claim that the Christian God does not exist by just disproving one of my claims, you have to disprove them all, that being said. .. I. The Problem of Evil"You say that God knows of all evil and can stop all evil. Yes absolutly. God has the infinate disposition to do good. Glad we agree on that as well. Evil exists. Duh, look what happened in Newtown, CT last week. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Of course. Due to premise 2-4 God must eliminate evil. And He will on His time. "The infinite disposition to do good causes him to have to elimate evil at all times, not just at a given period of time. "He is the standard bearer of all things good and evil. The burden of proof is on you to prove differently. "I accept this, but the thing is that in the Bible there is an objective evil, Satan, if you disagree with this, then i'll dispute that in the next round.
Poachers have no appreciation for nature.

A poacher is one who kills or takes wild animals (as game or fish) illegally. Poaching is the illegal taking or possession of game animals and fish, non-game, and protected, threatened, or endangered fish and wildlife species. Hunting deer/elk with the aid of a spotlight, closed season, closed area, possessing over the legal limits of fish or wildlife, killing of protected and endangered fish or wildlife, or destruction of critical habitat owned or controlled by WDFW. Poaching has a direct affect on all of us that follow the rules. For example, poaching diminishes current and future fish and wildlife populations thus reducing hunting/fishing and watchable wildlife opportunities of us and our children, and deprives the state and local businesses of revenue. Poaching impacts our ability to properly manage the fish and wildlife resources of the state. Legal hunting and fishing seasons are designed to remove the annual harvestable surplus. Poachers are impacting the fish and wildlife breeding populations needed to sustain or increase future harvest levels for legal hunters. It is not known exactly how much poachers kill, but it"s quite probable that they can illegally take just as much as legitimate hunters/fishers do in some areas during regular hunting seasons. Rhinos are poached for their horns, which can fetch prices up to $18,000 a pound.Prized for their brilliant spotted coats, leopards have entered the crosshairs of poachers across the globe. In addition to their coats, Leopards bones are sold as a substitute to tiger bones in traditional remedies, and their heads are a welcome prize to hunters.Over the past century tiger populations have been decimated by poachers. As few as 3,000 tigers remain in the wild. African lions are increasingly targeted by poachers for their bones which are used in traditional medicines. A single lion skeleton can garner up to $9,000.The largest of all sea turtles, leatherbacks can reach lengths up to 6.5 feet and weights of more than 1,100 pounds. Leatherbacks are often caught in fishermen's nets and then butchered for their meat. Resources http://www.weather.com...
that the united states should not value abortion it is wrong and selfish

I'm not entirely sure what my opponent is trying to convey. I believe they're trying to say that the constitution only consists of guidlines; though this may be true, we can not completely disregard the amendments, particularly those that give rights to the individuals and to the states. The constitution gives states the right to determine whether or not abortion is legal within their state. This is a right that can not be taken away. It is not simply a guideline. It gives states the powers to make the laws. My opponents arguments are all emotional. "Why not give the baby a chance to live..." That statement has no logical, or legal backing. And as a point of clarification, I did not say that my opponent had integrated bias people, but that they were bias themselves. My opponent stated that adoption and abortion both cost money; however, the choice is not about finance. It is about what the parents want to do and whether the state courts have decided if it is legal. It is the duty of the American government to follow the "guidelines" established by the constitution and allow that states to decide whether or not abortion is legal.
that the united states should not value abortion it is wrong and selfish

Yes she is right of the amendment, and yes we wouldn't be alive to live in the world, but still it may be legal, but is it the right thing to do. We forget so many times that the amendment was written as guide lines and not laws. My oppenent is also correct when she sais it's not murder because the baby wasn't born. However, Why not give the baby a chance to live father, mother or not. my oppenent also said I interigated bias people. Well i have not in fact this is all me. One of my cousins has a baby and father, but she decided to keep the baby instead of abortion. Adoption and abortion both cost money why don't we do what is right for the child and not what the parents want. Yes the amendment gives us the right, but it is more guidlines instead of laws
that the united states should not value abortion it is wrong and selfish

why are we letting all these innocent children die. The government should not highly value abortion. Killing babies is wrong as well as sex before marriage. I stand resolve that instead of abortion that we need to think of adoption so that a baby can have a mom and dad. If you cannot handle a baby because you are not able too than think of the baby instead of yourself. People tend to forget that what if our parents believed in killing us instead of keeping us or at least putting us up for adoption. It is so hard in life to go on without a dad.
War Debate - Honduras vs Nigeria - All credit to the AIW group for the idea

March 17th 2018: Nigeria begins millitary excersises as Spain, Cameroon and Sudan neclare neutrality. Niger, Chad, Kenya, and Russia all declare neutrality as well, and millitary drills continue into the night. March 18th 2018 President Muhammadu Buhari asks all states for approval to sign a leglislation to declare war on Honduras. March 19th 2018 Borno and Benure States approves war declarationMarch 20th 2018 Tensions increase as Yobe and Abia states approve war declaration. Thanks for the debate thus far
War Debate - Honduras vs Nigeria - All credit to the AIW group for the idea

Our debate begins as follows with the Republic of Nigeria going to war with the Federal Republic of Honduras. Nigeria has a population of 177,155,754 at this point. Their millitary has 130,000 men as active frontline personel. A further 32,000 are reserve personel and 40,707,659 are fit for service. Nigeria has 148 tanks, 1,420 armored veichles, and 25 self propelled guns. Not only that they have 30 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems. They have 98 total aircraft and 10 fighter planes, plus 42 transport aircraft and 38 helicopters, 9 of them attack helicopters. They have 75 naval ships, 2 of them frigates. I have outlined Nigeria's millitary strength thoroughly, begin your attack and good luck
Abortions is wronge.(not a formal debate.)

I am against your statement that "abortions is wronge". Let me finish the rest of it: You said abortions IS... that's not correct either! You can say abortion IS or abortions ARE I am with "abortion is wrong". NOT "ABORTIONS IS WRONGE". Con side means against the statement which I am not agreeing with YOUR statement. However, my view is that ABORTION IS WRONG.
Abortions is wronge.(not a formal debate.)

Abortions kills innocent human beings. It's wrong because these fetus, embryoes, ect. have a right to live. It violates the constitution and religion. The parents of the child should have to accept the responsibility of the child or atleast put it up for adoption so that the child can have a decent life. If we do not reform this horrible act it will some day become out of control. We need to either abolish it or atleast reform it.
Toilet rolls should be placed on the rack with the pulling end facing forwards.

According to Wikipedia (an unreliable source of information), "Toilet paper when used with a toilet roll holder with a horizontal axle parallel to the floor and also parallel to the wall has two possible orientations: the toilet paper may hang over (in front of) or under (behind) the roll; if perpendicular to the wall, the two orientations are right-left or near-away." In conclusion, the "correct" way is with the pulling end facing forwards. Alright, I admit that that was a terrible argument.
Toilet rolls should be placed on the rack with the pulling end facing forwards.

There should be no 'correct' answer for this question, if someone wishes for aesthetic reasons to have it facing one way or another, that is fine. If they wish to have it face backwards, that is fine, since as you mentioned, it is easier to snap off the roll. I can't even tell if this is a joke debate... you should be able to place your rolls on the rack however you wish (mine faces forward).
Toilet rolls should be placed on the rack with the pulling end facing forwards.

Most people believe that when placing toilet on a rack, we should place the end which is being pulled facing outwards, as it is supposedly easier to see and grab. However, just to tease you all, there are people who do place the toilet roll facing backwards (the wall), because the fact exists that with the proof of Physics, when the toilet roll is placed backwards, it is actually easier to snap off a piece of toilet roll.
The Three Gorges Dam

The Three Gorges Dam prevents the Yangtze River from flooding, which has crippled and decimated China time and time again in the past. The dam literally saves millions of peoples lives, and at the same time it provides a crap load of clean and renewable energy to a rapidly industrializing China. Sure some temples got washed away and some people got displaced, but China literally has thousands of other temples and sites to preserve their ancient history, and the Dam has prevented more people from DYING then people it has displaced. On the other hand it also created a sh*t ton of jobs for both skilled and unskilled workers in China, and the dam itself is an engineering marvel that shows how big humans can build things. Lastly the Yangtze River dolphin wasnt killed off only by the dam either, it perished due to overfishing, heavy river transportation, and a breakdown of its food chain that was happening long before the damn was built. 1000 character limit
The Three Gorges Dam

The Chinese Government shouldn't have put the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River. Yeah, it generates a lot of power, but hundreds of ancient temples and villages were washed away. Families that had lived there for thousands of years were forced to leave their homes and way of life. Ancient Chinese culture is now lost under the murky waters of the Yangtze. Also, the Yangtze River Dolphin had died out since 2002, most likely from the dam.
The Three Gorges Dam

"The dam is in an earthquake zone. If an earthquake strikes, the dam will crumble"Thats pure horse sh*t, the dam can withstand an earthquake of 7.0 easy, so to claim it will crumble if an earthquake strikes is an outright lie. http://www.pbs.org..."as well as relocating them and destroying their way of life, the rising waters of the Yangtze also put the majority of those people out of work"The Chinese government has put programs in place to help people who are displaced to find new jobs and new homes, so claiming it will cause millions to be unemployed is a false statement as well"Most of the people on the Yangtze banks either worked in tourism (the temples) or fished"Do you know anything about China at all? low-wage and low skilled labor is what the countries manufacturing and industrial base is BUILT on.
The Three Gorges Dam

The dam is putting millions of lives in much worse danger then without the dam, because the dam is in an earthquake zone. If an earthquake strikes, the dam will crumble and billions of gallons of water that is currently being held back by the dam will destroy the entire section of the country. Shanghai would be destroyed. And if Shanghai is destroyed, the rest of the world will be greatly affected because Shanghai is one of the biggest international trade capitals in the world, along with New York, London, Paris, San Francisco, Berlin, Beijing, and so on. Jobs will be lost around the globe and there would be a chance of a international economical depression. And as well as relocating them and destroying their way of life, the rising waters of the Yangtze also put the majority of those people out of work. Most of the people on the Yangtze banks either worked in tourism (the temples) or fished, most of the fish and sea life has been last seen around 2004, when the dam was completed.
The bible is a moral book

My position: I will be arguing that the Bible is not a moral book, and is, in fact, immoralOpponent's position: My opponent will be arguing that the bible is a moral book.Rules of debate:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, insults2) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for argument since I am not using round 1 for argument. This is to ensure we each have an equal number of rounds used for argument3) The last round used for argument should be just rebuttals and/or conclusion. No new arguments in this round. New information or facts can be brought up, but only in rebuttal to your opponent.DefinitionsI believe I shouldn't need to define the term Bible, since I am going off of the common definition of that. If my opponent has a specific translation of the Bible they wish to use, I should be fine with any translation(I think). Just to be safe, my opponent should comment on this debate what version of the Bible they would like to use, and I will comment on whether I accept it or not. Moral: Holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.[1] Additionally, I would say we should go by what is considered "proper conduct" in western society. So, we will go off of western morals. immoral: Not conforming to accepted standards of morality.If my opponent does object to the definition or one of the rules, they should say so in comments and we can work out a definition or rules we both agree to. Sources:[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Hitler Hated Christianity

Despite how often Christian apologists try to argue that Adolf Hitler is an example of the evil caused by atheism and secularism, the truth is that Hitler often proclaimed his own Christianity, how much he valued Christianity, how important Christianity was to his life, and even how much he was personally inspired by Jesus - his "Lord and Savior." Like many German Christians of the time, however, Hitler saw Jesus Christ in a very different light from what is normally the case. So that would still mean he was a Christian, even if he only followed their beliefs and rules, and anyways Christianity has changed a lot, and isn't very vivid. God has brought it into a perfect state and people had to change it. How much worse could it get? The war with the Nazis had nothing to do with religion for your information. Your proofs aren't very understandable, which you haven't shown proper evidences that he wasn't a Christian, even when you said: "Hitler has said that: Christianity is an invention of sick brains", I looked on all the websites you put and it does say that but those webs do not look very trustworthy. But back to the point now, when you said Hitler tried to remove clergymen from churches, and the reason being is because he wanted to remove them and add clergymen that fit HIS views of Christianity and create his own church under his own rule at that time in Nazi Germany. Their oddest religious belief was a denial of the Jewishness of Jesus, but even today there are Christians in Germany who object when Jesus' Jewishness is focused upon. Jesus is not very well known along Jewism and Moses would be their prophet not Jesus. That is a very strong I point in my opinion as it shows that Hitler followed Christianity and their beliefs of course. The first, of course, is the anti-Semitism. While Christians in America today might find this bizarre, it really wasn't out of place in early 20th century Germany among conservative, moderate, and even liberal Christians. Nazi Christians didn"t abandon basic Christian doctrines, like the divinity of Jesus. I now close my second argument. Note: Your sources are mostly false and untrusted, and secondly your arguments don't make sense at all and are completely wrong, therefore I can't understand it, I also can't wrap my head around what you're saying that Hitler was atheist, since he was religious he couldn't be an atheist, and the last thing is that I really felt that your arguments weren't backed very well. That's it thanks! [1] https://www.thoughtco.com... [2] http://www.cbn.com... [3] http://www.annefrank.org...