BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Muslim God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

I'm surprised that my opponent claims the Qura'an does have stories of entertainment value, in the face of someone who speaks, reads, and writes arabic, and reads the Qura'an itself. An appeal to ignorance should not be bought by the readers. As for the debate, it is not to invalidate the Qura'an. My opponent's burden is to prove that Zeus and Thor likely exist as much as does Allah. The Qura'an is debated upon, Zeus and Thor are mythical creatures that have no merit. It is definitionally true that Zeus and Thor are far less likely to exist. When I tell my opponent to do his own homework, it is because he has brought in arguments about the Qura'an, or supposed contradictions, that I could easily explain had I enough character space. I suggest he go to an Islamic website that explains to him, as opposed to an atheist website with that simply sites mistranslated and contextually skewed verses for contradictions. Or, he can challenge me to another debate on contradictions in the Qura'an. And my opponent's own article says "As the religion of Islam originated in 7th century Arabia, the early forms of Muslim culture were predominantly Arab. With the rapid expansion of the Islamic empires, Muslims contacted and assimilated much from the Persian, Turkic, Mongol, Indian, Malay, Berber and Indonesian cultures." My opponent clearly doesn't want to debate, he just wants to express his feelings. He didn't even read his own source. Maybe his mother cares? I urge a Con vote, for there has really been no debate here.
The Muslim God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

Many people would likely disagree with my opponent on his claims that the Quran has no stories of entertainment value. Though, I think this is too much of a subjective thing to even argue here. My opponent, in a DEBATE where he challenges me to invalidate the Quran tells me to "do my own research" when I post up passages of the Quran invalidating itself. This is no way to debate. Character space is limited, but if I'm wrong it should take much space to show. My opponent seems to misunderstand the concept of a "debate". When I challenge you about something relating to this argument, you can't say "Do your own homework." That is not a rebuttal. The fact is I HAVE done my homework and the Quran DOES have flaws, contradictions and can be invalidated. That IS the point of this debate. My opponent is arguing about the legitimacy of the Quran as an argument that Allah is more likely than Zeus, Thor, et al. Thus, that is the very point of this debate. Is Islam a Culture? Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Muslim God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

Thank you for your response. I'll just go down my opponent's claims, for organization has been lost in the midst of this debate. As for the entertainment question, my opponent does not distinguish between moral stories and entertaining stories. Simply because he is asking me this, he further demonstrates his lack of knowledge on the subject. To answer his question, no, the Qura'an does not contain any stories with an entertaining value in the sense of the term. As for the supposed invalidation of the Qura'an, I ask my opponent to do his own research. I could prove very easily that his claims that the Qura'an are invalid are false, but 1) There is not enough character space, 2) My opponent has demonstrated his inadequate understanding multiple times, and I don't wish to do his homework for him, and 3) That is not the point of this debate. As for the cultural claims, Islam is not a culture. Islam's largest demography is almost 2/3rds Pacific-Asian, not Middle-Eastern as my opponent claims [1]. As a matter of fact, the Middle-East is approximately a fifth of the total Muslim population. Extend the probability and likelihood arguments, as my opponent dropped my round 3 defenses of them. I hope my opponent can get back on track in his final round, because round 4 was absolutely non-topical and irrelevant to the debate. Thank you, readers, for your time, I urge you to vote Con. ~~~SOURCES~~~ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Muslim God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

My opponent claims that the Quran has no entertainment value at all. I ask, Does the Quran not contain stories? Parables? Etc.? Can the Quran not be used for entertainment at all? I would differ on my opponent's opinion that the Quran is the most "complicated" literary work ever, however that isn't quite relevant here. Can the Quran be invalidated? I believe so. Issues: 1. Why is the Quran in Arabic? If it was sent down by the creator of the universe for all humanity, why is it in the language of the people who wrote it? Couldn't God have made a copy in every language for everyone to read? Or does God expect everyone to learn Arabic? And if so, why? 2. Quran-7:54 says the earth was created in 6 days. This is scientifically wrong. 3. Quran-41:9 says the earth was created in 2 days (contradiction). 4. Quran-22:47 says a day equals 1,000 years but Quran-70:4 says a day equals 50,000 years. However, regardless...either conversion to what science says would be factually wrong. The earth formed over millions of years. These are just random things that came to my mind. Islam is based on Islamic tradition (not just the Quran). Islam is based around a people and a culture (Arabs and the Middle east). Islamic culture spread to other parts of the world, but it is just that. Culture.
Most debaters on here resort to absurd semantics to win

To prove that most people are not the ones using absurd semantics to win debates, I suggest you look through at least the debates still in the challenge period. Most people don't use absurd semantics to win, because most people play fairly. And challenging certain people and not all people to debates is not cowardly. Not everyone does that all the time. If they do, they do it once in a while. How often do you come to a debate in the challenge period and find it closed to certain people or a certain person? It's not cowardly, because if people do that once in a while, they want to test the skills of certain people. Other debates, they test the skills of all people. It's not fair to judge people's reasons as to why they offer closed debates. Since my opponent has got nothing more to say, I hereby rest my case for now.
Most debaters on here resort to absurd semantics to win

As I was saying, most of the debaters do NOT use absurb semantics to win. Besides, the reason why people pick out small phrases from the text and explain them, especially the word "most" in this debate, is that it is important. The word "most" is pretty much the whole focus here. To debate, one must know theirs and others' definitions of key words. In our case, it is the word most. Your definition of the word is "far more than expected from the general public". But is it the correct definition? That, you have to think about. When debating it is much more powerful to use the correct definitions, or something rather close to it. The word "most" means "the majority". It does not mean "far more than expected from the general public". And besides, who is "most people"? In debating, there are no shortcuts. Debaters must specifically state their arguments, and if what they meant is "far more than expected from the general public", then they should say so. Just because it's "easier" to say "most", does not mean shortcuts are to be used. Because word definitions are important in our case, with the word "most", people need to point that out. It is an IMPORTANT keyword in our case. This debate pretty much revolves around the word "most". Because whether or not those semantics are absurd, whether or not they are unfair, whether or not they should be used - is not important. What's important is what "most" is. What's important is the amount of people doing it in general. This isn't a word game where people nit pick small phrases their opponent used instead of focusing on the main topic at hand. This IS the main topic at hand. And for you to say we should "get off it", you are basically saying "Opponent can not use X to support their claim", which is semantic number 2. Now I don't know if, when you said "most people", you meant yourself too. But clearly, the majority of people are not doing this.
Most debaters on here resort to absurd semantics to win

I accept Pro's debating challenge.What I can say, is this. Yes, I can see things have gone too far with (so-called) "most" of the DDO community. I see your issues with the word "most". Though, when debating, debaters tend to be very "exact" and "specific" with what they mean. They tend to pick out small phrases from an argument and argue on that. It is not such a big problem. When people say the word "most" and mean "far more than I would expect from the general public", it does not match the real definition of the word, and therefore the opponents must point it out. Well, according to most people, the word "most" means the majority, basically. http://dictionary.reference.com...So "most" of the debates' first rounds "cripple their opponent with constraints"? Well, I've looked through MANY debates on DDO, and so far I have not seen any of these constraints in any of those debates. Sure, it is unfair and pointless, and stupid even, but it is not the majority that is doing it. Well actually, most of the people on here play fairly. Besides, there's no saying that the opponent can't question the rules. Sure, they might be ignored, but the voters should actually realise how unfair the rules are, and not just worry about if the people are actually following the rules. Both debaters have equal rights to a debate!To be honest, I never really thought of the word "most" meaning anything other than "the majority". So if I point these small phrases out, I am not just pointing these small phrases out for the sake of it.
Most debaters on here resort to absurd semantics to win

I can already see it now. "Most!!!? you are telling me that MOST DEBATERS on here resort to absurd semantics to win? MOST? you cant be serious!!! only 49% of debaters do that, and that is not MOST. so you are WRONG, and I WIN HAHAHAHAHA" This is exactly what I am talking about people. This place used to be halfway decent but it has devolved into ridiculous word games where people nit pick small phrases their opponent used instead of focusing on the main topic at hand. Usually when people say most in the negative they mean "far more than I would expect from the general public" but its far easier to just say most, and you know what they meant in the first place, so get off it. you are just using BS semantics to try and make yourself seem intelligent. I also see a lot of people using the first round to cripple their opponent with constraints. (these are for example and are not actual rules for this debate (sad but needs to be said)) RULE 1: Burden of Proof is on my opponent! (basically showing they don't have to prove anything and if they are asked to do so act as if this is an instant forfeit.) RULE 2: Opponent can not use X to support their claim. (usually something insane like a Christian cannot use the bible to support their argument. it takes the oppositions main source of evidence and argument and outlaws it right off the bat) RULE 3: This debate can only be accepted by "blah blah blah blah blah" (usually some extremely rare thing like a Muslim American Female with one leg and exactly 4 dogs. quit trying to pick your opponent and take all comers, you are just showing how pathetic your debate skills are) RULE 4: (not actually listed but implied over and over) If you disagree with me you are RACIST/SEXIST and I will continue to point that out over and over regardless of any evidence you submit to the contrary. This is the most chickenshit tactic of all. I see these things on here all the time people. Can we admit things have gone too far?
The Bible is not the word of God

My contention is that The Bible Is not the Word of God, and for this round I will focus on some of the scientific evidence. According to the first book of the Christian Bible light was created on the first day, and the Earth before it's star "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light" (Genesis 1:2-3). but the Sun, which is the source of light for our solar system was not created until the fourth day. A basic knowledge of Astronomy teaches us that the Earth comes from it's star, our Sun. This is irrefutable. The question then becomes; Does an all knowing Creator make such basic scientific mistakes in a book that is supposed to be divinely revealed, or is this the fable of a superstitious scholar? Another story that is widely accepted is the Noah tale. It is a story that cannot stand scientific examination. There are roughly 30 million species on Earth today, but there would have been more 4000 years ago, but we will go with that number. Noah was instructed to take seven clean beasts into the Ark and two of every unclean animal (Genesis 7:2-4). He had seven days to accomplish this amazing task. Nevermind whether or not there was enough room, or the fact that the Penguin and Polar Bear could not make the journey or survive in the subtropics. I want to examine the Deluge itself. Noah would have to load an astonishing 50 pair of species per second into the Ark if he had only seven days. A world Deluge would have left a signature and it would take five times the water that is presently on the Earth to raise the water to the top of the mountains, as the Bible says (Genesis 7:20). Even if the Polar Ice Caps were to melt it could not produce enough water. Additionally that amount of water would change the configuration of the atmosphere. Knowing that warm air turns water into vapor that raises and gravity pulls it back down in the form of rain, hail, sleet, or snow in a process of recycling, where did all of the additional water go? These are just a few of the glaring scientific errors that the Christian Bible makes as though an all knowing Creator would not know the basic natural laws that it originated. For these reasons I contend that the Bible is not the Word of God.
The Bible is not the word of God

His argument takes the following form1) Something that is the Word of God would not contain scientific errors, contradictions, or historically inaccurate information.2) The Bible contains these things.3) Therefore the Bible is not the Word of God. As my opponent is both Pro and Instigator the burden of proof is his. As such, it is incumbant upon him to prove the following things. A) The Bible caintains scientific errors, contradictions, or historically inaccurate statements. B) The supposed scientific errors, contradictions, or historically inaccurate statements somehow invalidate the Bible as the Word of God. As Con, my only Burden is to show how Pro's arguments do not prove the resolution. I do not have to positively prove the converse of the resolution, only that Pro's arguments do not prove the resolution. As such, my primary task will be to refute Pro's arguments. I look forward to an engaging and enjoyable debate.
I will not contradict myself.

(This isn't one of the ten questions but, how can this be 4 rounds if there are only 3?) 1. Are you alive? 2. Do you move from location to location? 3. Are you human? 4. Do the laws of time and space apply to you? 5. Can you travel in time? 6. Do you have two parents? 7. Do you live on the planet Earth? 8. Do you have an animal? 9. Do you like sports? 10. Have you sustained any serious injuries?
God always creates souls at conception

When it comes to the concept of twinning, we don't know exactly how God does it. But what seems most likely since God would know that twinning would occur ahead of time, is that He would create 2 souls at conception. It is also possible, that God creates one soul at conception, and another soul at the splitting of the ovum. As for chimerism, again we don't know how God does it. But I would think that God would create two souls at conception, and when the one twin absorbed the other than the one absorbed would die. With fraternal twins God creates two souls at conception. As for Why God would create someone at conception knowing they would die in the womb instead of creating them without conception, I don't know, but we have to simply trust God, that He knows best.
God always creates souls at conception

Why do you think it is more logical that God would create souls later on? It makes a lot more sense that God would create each individual's soul at the moment He first create's us, at conception. Since this debate assumes the existence of God and our souls, it makes sense to assume the accuracy of the bible as well. "As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:44). If the baby (John the Baptist) did not have a soul then he could not have leaped for joy. So assuming the accuracy of the Bible that proves that we have souls, while still in the womb.
God always creates souls at conception

In this Debate, both parties shall assume that God exists, that God creates souls, and that souls are "the thing" that distinguishes persons from mere animals. The second assumption may need some clarification. Modern Science has discovered that anything that can begin to exist as the result of a purely physical process can be destroyed by some other purely physical process. But souls are postulated to be immortal, immune to destruction by merely physical processes. Therefore, say, after a purely physical event such as human conception occurs, for an immortal soul to begin to exist in association with that fertilized egg, logic requires some nonphysical soul-formation process, such as a direct Act of God. Next, if unborn humans have souls, and having a soul equates with personhood, then it logically follows that unborn humans must be acknowledged to be persons. But if they don't have souls, then unborn humans are mere animal bodies, equivalent to many other ordinary animal bodies. In a prior Debate, Lucky10279 declared, "God is who grants us our personhood status at conception." Per the preceding paragraphs, we can interpret that as saying, "God always creates souls at conception." I am challenging her in this Debate over that claim. I think it is more logical that God will do it later, and perhaps even wait until a live birth happens. Per the Title of this Debate, she will be "Pro", and I am "Con".
God always creates souls at conception

God does not make mistakes. The babies that die in the womb had souls. That was not a mistake. God let that happen on purpose. Why? I don't know. Again we just have to trust Him. God does not ignore any conceptions. If the baby is born without a brain and dies that doesn't mean that he/she didn't have a soul. It is automatic because God made it that way. Simply because it is automatic does not make it logical to wait for birth to create a soul. And things that may seem perfectly logical for us, may not really be logical at all. God knows best. We don't. A vehicle is an inanimate object. a baby isn't. as for the sensory deprivation thing, realize that at conception, that child does not yet have a brain so he/she will probably not suffer from that. And God is all powerful. He could easily make it that the child would not suffer while in the womb at all. Why would God create a soul for someone He knew would be aborted? Because God loves that person. He loves us even before we exist. He wants us to exist. We can't blame God for letting someone get an abortion. And the women is not necessarily going to be condemned, if she repents and asks forgiveness she will be forgiven. And you could ask that same question about anyone who was murdered, whether they were born or not. Like I said, God is all powerful. He would not have t let them stay like that. And as you said, the growth process is automatic, the babies don't have any control over it. God could still create two souls and have the one person die and come to heaven and still have his/her body become a part of the other person's body. Or God might just create one soul, since He knew ahead of time what would happen. The primary purpose of sex IS reproduction. The Galileo incident was a bad thing, but it does not mean the church is bad. I have never heard of the lightning rod incident so I can't comment on it. You're right that when 2 preachers disagree they can't both be right. Just because someone is a preacher doesn't mean they are always right. I never said it did. And the bible was written by God and man.
Soulja Boy sucks! Plain and simple.

My opponent has forfeited his final round. His closing argumentatism. His "big she bang", his "secret sanctum" his "forbidden weenis". Therefore, I, George "Dubya" Bush-I mean mynameisjonas-should win this debate, because Soulja Boy does not suck! Plain and simple. Damn right. Hey if A squared plus B squared=C squared, wouldn't a monkey riding a camel be considered for the NCAAP Awards?
Soulja Boy sucks! Plain and simple.

I apologize for the argument I had posted last night. After a wild night consisting of heavy machinery, a bag of Blue Cheese Doritos, and my second grade math teacher, I drank waaaaaay too much NyQuil, and, henceforthness, was not approved by the Sturgon General to write an argument on debate.org. I eth sorry. Now, to be serious. You say Soulja Boy sucks, plain and simple. This is indicating that he is bad, plain and simple. This is indicating that he is bad, obviously. This is indicating that he is bad above all. So really, what you are saying is, Soulja Boy is bad! He is bad above all! Hee hee i love my intricate lexicon. However, he is not bad above all. While he is bad in the field of rap, he was something before he was bad; Afghanistani (the combination of Afghanistanian and Pakistanian), for his father was Afghanistani, his mother Irish, but the Middle East cancels out Europe, so bye-bye spuddy mommy. Above all is his Afghanistani heritage, not that he is bad at rap. Therefore, Soulja Boy DOES NOT suck! Plain and simple, because "Soulja" "Boy" "i" "s" "Afghanis" "tan" "i" "!" "Plain an" "ds" "imple" "." You "r" Turn.