BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is mathematical Proof of the Existence of God

"I can see you do not want to debate the issue, and refuse to read the content in the book to engage in a logical debate of the evidence."That's not how one provides proper evidence in a debate."if they are proven to be true, then they are evidence."Correct. And from what I can gather from the very little evidence that you have provided, you're trying to use them to prove themselves true. That's circular logic, and does not apply."If I had the ability to type 200+ pages here i would paste all the evidence"You don't need to paste all the evidence, what you need to do is give some evidence, wait for me to respond, and then give evidence to refute what I say."The following are the evidence and page numbers"That's not evidence. You've probably just pasted in the table of contents. You actually have to tell me the evidence in a debate."I can not plagiarize my own writing."At the moment, I cannot know for sure that you are the actual author of this book. Even if you are, it could still be plagiarism. Plaigiarism is about representing work as though it were new, original work. Self-plaigiarism is unethical and intellectually dishonest. Wikipedia says a common form of plaigiarism is "Taking passages from their own previous work without adding citations." (1)."I stated what the evidence was and where it could be found."Actually, no, you stated a general name for a subtopic of a book, and a page number. You actually have to give real evidence inside a debate in order to have a debate, and you cannot expect your opponent to go and read 300 pages that you cite as your evidence, without actually giving the evidence. That is simply not how a debate works."You have never read your Bible if you do not know the names of the 12 Apostles and Tribes. I am out of character space so i will provide"I know the names of the 12 Apostles and Tribes. The original context of your quote was somehow stating that the names of the Apostles were being given in Revelation 21, and they are not given.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
There is mathematical Proof of the Existence of God

"we must examine the evidence he provides. Not only in the Bible, but also in his Gnostic teachings."As I have already stated, the Bible and Gnostic teachings are not evidence of anything. "Secondly, it is obvious you have not examined the evidence within the Amen Code."I don't think you quite understand how a debate works. In a debate, you do not come to the table and say "Read this 500 page book and then come back and argue it with me." In a debate, you provide evidence, and cite sources to back it up. Your source can be this book, as long as you can provide a link to it and cite a page number, instead of the whole 500 page book. The reason I have not "examined the evidence" is because you have not provided any."Your debate thus far is purely emotional and reactionary."Your debate before this rebuttal was completely plaigiarized and didn't even provide any evidence, it just asserted things. Actually, now that I think about it, you're just asserting things now, too."The evidence is the proving or disproving of what Jesus and the writers of the Bible and the Gnostic codes stated."Alright, then give me the evidence. Still haven't seen you do that, yet."The names of the twelve Apostles and the twelve tribes are given."I don't know what version you're using, but it is certainly not given in any version I can find."In this case, mathematics is used to confirm Jesus' teachings. Once you examine the math, then we may have a debate."Then let's see some equations, shall we?And as for all those things that you have told me to address, when I read Revelation 21, I do not see any of them. Please show evidence of them, and then I will address them.
There is mathematical Proof of the Existence of God

What you term plagiarized, is the review and quoting of sources, which most academics make use of when analyzing statements to confirm or disprove them. The book is over 500 pages, and requires the resource material within it, unless you would prefer to separately look up every reference mentioned by the author. Should he have just stated look up Revelation 13:11? Or should the quote be within the text? So you can continue reading without interruption? If Jesus was indeed the son of God, and states he came from the father, who resides in the Heavens, then to prove Jesus' statements are indeed true, we must examine the evidence he provides. Not only in the Bible, but also in his Gnostic teachings. Secondly, it is obvious you have not examined the evidence within the Amen Code. Nor the mathematics used, nor the logic within it, nor the Dimensional Charts. Your debate thus far is purely emotional and reactionary. Third, the book is not the evidence. The evidence is the proving or disproving of what Jesus and the writers of the Bible and the Gnostic codes stated. Example: Revelations 21 states, New Jerusalem comes from the Heavens. The names of the twelve Apostles and the twelve tribes are given. And said to be on the walls and gates. We are also given the name and number of name of the beast, and told that, "This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number..." Revelation 13:18 Thus, only one with insight and wisdom will be able to calculate the beast. This statement within the Bible is a direct challenge. And, infers there is more to the Bible than what is being read. i.e. a mystery. This code, once solved enables us to calculate the names and number of name, for all words. Therefore the names and number of name for the twelve apostles and tribes of Israel, should, be found on New Jerusalem when converted to, "numbers." Fourthly, to address your statement: "anybody can write a work of complete fiction that contains a hidden code in it that you can decipher using another document." A work is fiction until it is proven to be true. In this case, mathematics is used to confirm Jesus' teachings. Once you examine the math, then we may have a debate. So far you have commented without addressing the mathematical evidence presented in the book. Please addressing the following, if you wish to disprove the evidence provided and continue this debate: The Dimensional Plot Chart build progression The Existence and Conscious Level Calculator The 24th State of the Dimensional Plot Chart (Which creates New Jerusalem) The deciphered 666 Code The Name Count Calculator The conversion of the names of the twelve apostles and twelve tribes of Israel. The Dimensional Plot charts of the Heavens, death, and Hades The Treasury of Light
There is mathematical Proof of the Existence of God

Firstly, I would like to point out to anybody reading this, that he plagiarized that entire argument (1). Secondly, my stance on this issue will be that a book cannot be evidence for anything. I doubt that the Bible is actually a code, however, even if it was, anybody can write a work of complete fiction that contains a hidden code in it that you can decipher using another document. It's pretty simple, and does not prove anything.Since you plaigiarized your entire argument so far, I will wait for you to respond in your own words to what I have just stated, and then we will take it from there.(1) http://houston.craigslist.org...
Teen Violence in Scotland.

I will take up this pointless debate that I do not clearly understand at all!!.... wait,..... What da F#!$ did I do???..SH%#! I guess I have not choice now....... L ...... O ......... L. "Yes something happen that may hurt use or scare people but its all part of growing up to see how for your limits are and how far you can go before you have to stop." What are you talking about??? "Okay people know I'll just start by saying that in fact I YES ME am a teenager and I live in Scotland. and I have been noticing more and more that people seem to think that teenage violence is happening alot and under age drinking is happening more and more. But people use are all forgetting that when you are young you wont to try new thinks and that YOU also would prob be put in this sort of part of society if you where my age." Are you dyslexic? OMG I spelled it right on the first try *pats self on back*........ no but seriously?? are you? If you are not dyslexic then I would vote for you to actually learn some good grammar in school. I do not know what you are talking about in the paragraph nor the others.... I could guess and pretend to understand but that would make me feel and possibly look idiotic..... almost like Peter Griffin from Family Guy. "I know I'm putting a VERY fine point on it but I'm just interested on what other people think and what they would do if they were in control of all of us" Seriously?? What fine "point" are you "pointing" out, I did not even know you were "putting a VERY fine point on it"..... and what is it? I seriously do not understand this..... so instead of trying to get my head around this confusing dyslexic writing..... I will end my argument with this........... ...................meow....... I would also like to add to this.. you may have noticed the video on the far upper right side yes... that is to help restore some seriousness into this non-serious debate that has been turned into by me and well of course my opponent. http://www.youtube.com...
Teen Violence in Scotland.

Okay people know I'll just start by saying that in fact I YES ME am a teenager and I live in Scotland. and I have been noticing more and more that people seem to think that teenage violence is happening alot and under age drinking is happening more and more. But people use are all forgetting that when you are young you wont to try new thinks and that YOU also would prob be put in this sort of part of society if you where my age. Yes something happen that may hurt use or scare people but its all part of growing up to see how for your limits are and how far you can go before you have to stop. I know I'm putting a VERY fine point on it but I'm just interested on what other people think and what they would do if they were in control of all of us. (I AM EITHER AGAINST OR FOR THIS I'M JUST INTERESTED)
In Our Modern World Fundamentalist Christianity is More Dangerous Than Fundamentalist Islam

You seem to discus anger towards the USA and Iraqi policies. The problem was when after ww1 Britain and France ambassadors drew random lines on a map and implemented Zionism and stupidity. First they should separated nation states by religion not nationality. Kurdistan should exist with two states in Iraq one for Sunni and one for Shiite. They then can have there own only religion party government and hopefully not go to war with any opposing neighbors. Since they took it by nationalities some got split ex. Syria, Iraq. The unrest is from government but the issue is religion and true Islam. They must establish a caliphate according to the Qur'an and Sharia Texts are laws and values for the caliphate. Jesus preaches peace and to never wage war be part of it or support it. True Christians never stand for war and should be pacifist like Jesus from personal to national standards. George Bush and his followers are mainly Evangelical Christians. These are the folks of the Westboro Baptist Church and many other super conservative Christians. They put America before God an lose sight. But trust me Fundamentalist Christians are the closet people to acting the way of Jesus, fundamentalist Muslims follow the life style of Muhammad a poly gamer, serial rapist and killer. He leas crusades and established a Caliphate and ISIS is doing the same thing, Muhammad is saying good for them from the pits of Hell. Who is more dangerous folks? A bunch of people like Jesus or ISIS?
In Our Modern World Fundamentalist Christianity is More Dangerous Than Fundamentalist Islam

Please adress the main argument and not the preamble.Christian Voting Block In The US And The Damage It CausesWhen you give a man with beliefs from the 4th century weapons from the 21st century what happens? Eleven years ago in a so called crusade coalition forces invaded Iraq. This has lead to over a decade of violence, hostility and instability as well as a substantial drop in the standard of living of the Iraqi people when compared to their neighbours. Furthermore the collapse of Iraqi society after the invasion of 03 has lead to the rise of many terrorist organisations who have exploited the instability in Iraq (the ultimate form of this being the Islamic State). Because these organisations are in almost all cases fundamentalist Islamic Islam is shown to be the problem. This is not the case. Political instability brings violence in almost all cases (with the possible exception of Belgium) this is the same regardless of wether or not this happens in a majority Christian nation or an Islamic one. We have to look at the root causes of the conflict and that is the election of a right wing war hawk (George Bush) who was majority supported by fundamentalist Christians (even in his later days). The real problem is that extreme Christians make up a significant enough portion of the vote in the US that they can influence the elections significantly. Unfortunately they tend to vote for the most warlike candidates they can find.
Legalization of Gay Marriage

The deciding factor in this debate will be what the purpose of marriage is. In his R2, Con argued that the center of marriage is “procreation and child-rearing. ” I have argued that “Marriage is merely the institution through which two people are recognized as immediate family members by the government and the law. ” In this round I will compare and contrast our two interpretations of the purpose of marriage and explain why the one I presented is superior. First, let’s observe which reason is more closely aligned with the actual function of marriage in our society. Procreation and child-rearing are actions that can occur within marriage, but marriage are not necessary for these actions to occur at all. Additionally, not all marriages include these aspects. Conversely, composing a familial unit in the eyes of the government is exactly what marriage does. Two unrelated people do not have this benefit outside of marriage, and all marriages have this aspect. It is obvious that Con’s purpose does not fit very well at all within the current structure of marriage, while mine fits perfectly. In fact, Con’s only justification for claiming the purpose of marriage is procreation and child rearing is that the law does not recognize friendships or other casual relationships. The reasons for this, however, are simple. Married couples tend to cohabit and share finances, so it makes sense why they should be recognized as a unit. Additionally, as I stated in R2, spouses have important rights and privileges that are not accorded to friends, so to accord these benefits, the government needs to know who spouses are. Legally recognized marriage allows the government to do this. It should be noted that Con dropped my constitutionality argument, and as I have continued to prove that marriage is not merely about procreation, this argument stands. Regarding my happiness argument: Con has addressed this argument as if it were independent of my previously stated purpose of marriage. It is not. The reason he cannot marry his car for happiness is because a person and an intimate object cannot engage in the institution of marriage. My argument is that gay marriages can fulfill the purpose of marriage, therefore gay people should not be denied this happiness. In conclusion, I have clearly shown that there are numerous positives to legalizing gay marriage. Con has not provided any reasons why it should not be legalized.
Legalization of Gay Marriage

Why is the institution of marriage legally recognized by the government? Why does the government choose to provide exclusive legal status and benefits to those who are married, while not doing the same for those involved in, say, friendships? Marriage is an institution that is unique in that it is primarily centered around two things: procreation and child-rearing. That is why the government benefits those in marriages; it recognizes that childbearing and child-rearing are difficult tasks and compensates people for it. In return, the society that the government oversees receives new members created and raised to be future citizens. And this is, of course, in the government's interest, since the advancement of the system depends on the generation of new citizens. The marriage of homosexuals would not serve this interest, and therefore, it should not be instated as a legal institution. On to the issue of "equality." Based on the opponent's representation of "equality," all members within a group should be allowed to marry, regardless of their individual nature. Going by that theory, the government should legally enable me to marry my car, and I should receive benefits for it, for the sake of "happiness," as my opponent simplistically poses it. This is absurd, of course, and this is because the nature of an individual certainly affects what rights he is eligable for. (Example: If someone developed a chronic bone condition that disallowed him to work, there is a good chance that the government would provide him with disability benefits. Do I also deserve these benefits, even though I am perfectly healthy and capable of working?) "Equality," in our society, means that everyone receives the rights that they are eligable for, based on compatibility of individuals' traits. Moreover, I have shown in my previous argument that homosexual partnership, by its inherent nature, does not meet the "procreation/child-rearing type" format that would make it eligable for marriage. The issue is not a matter of "inequality," as the opponent's argument suggests.In conclusion, homosexual couples are not legally eligible for marriage, based on their incompatibility with the inherent nature of marriage. The idea of homosexual marriage conflicts with the significance of marriage and the reason that it is legally significant in the first place. This is not a matter of "inequality," since this implies that gay couples had the right to marry and it has not been met; the existence of such a right, however, has yet to be proven. Now I will turn it over to my opponent.
Legalization of Gay Marriage

Resolved: The reasons to make same-sex marriage legal in the United States outweigh the reasons not to do so.(Note: This does not neccessarily refer to a specific jurisdiction within the United States, but rather any jurisdiction within the United States.)I have made this debate unacceptable for now, as I would like to ensure a good opponent. I have tried this debate a couple of times before and have had forfeits both times. The BOP is shared between Pro and Con.Rules:1. First round for acceptance, unless Con wishes to begin his or her arguments. If Con begins arguing in R1, he or she shall not post any arguments in R5.2. Semantic arguments should not be counted.3. Drops will count as concessions.4. No new arguments in the last round.Good luck to whomever accepts!
It is possible for an omnipotent God to allow free will to exist within its creation.

"If God is controlling everything, he is controlling you. it is not possible for god to not control you because he is controlling everything and you are a part of everything." Although I admit that this reasoning has its foundations set on logic, I have to say that my adversary failed to acknowledge some possibilities. First of all, we cannot rule out his ability to give up his omnipotence for the existence of free will. Nevertheless, this does not mean to say that he is still not as powerful as he was when he was omnipotent. The only difference of the matter is his withdrawal of his nature to continually be in control of everything. Does he posses the power to relinquish himself from the defined omnipotence? Logical reasoning states that he has. Can he choose to do so? I can see no reason why not. With this, we can say that free will was allowed to exist by an omnipotent God, and at the moment that free will is created into existence God removed his omnipotence but still remains all powerful. By simply stating this possibility, it is immediately proven possible for an omnipotent God to allow free will to exist within its creation. That is unless my adversary disproves my proposed possibility.
I am a smart

Money and college My opponent claims that he makes a lot of money and therefore he is smart. However my opponent has not brought any evidence to support this claim other than what he has filled out on his profile information. He has not brought any external evidence to prove that he makes this muc money or that he goes to the college which he claims he goes to. Seeing as this is the last round and my opponent has yet to bring any evidenc of his claims I urge a Con vote.
I am a smart

//"My IQ is around 130, which is smart. As a refrence point, 140 is considered to be a "genius". "// My opponent has not proven that his IQ is 130 so we may discard this. Also, if my opponent read my R1 argument he would see that his resolution dos not say "I am smart" but that "I am a smart". The structure of this sentence implies that 'smart' is a noun. My opponent hs yet to prove that there exists any such thing as "a smart" or that he is one of them.
I am a smart

To win this debate my opponent will have to show why he fits the definition of "a smart". The way my opponent has written out the resolution a 'smart' is a noun. This means that my opponent cannot win this debate by proving that he is 'smart' where smart is an adjective used to describe one's intelligence. He must prove that such a thing as "a smart" exists and he is one of them. I contend that there is no such thing as a 'smart' and therefore my opponent cannot be one and thus automatically loses this debate.
History. Greek and Roman gods or today's god

Ok. Its our last round. This is a special type of debate where i asked you a question and you did answer. I like your answer. You said that you don't prefer nothing and that you was raised in Christian family so I respect that. You are special atheist and I like it. But if you ask me, I'm morecinteresting in a Greek's religion. That's beacuse its more realistic(again) and I like Zeus, Posejdon, Ares,.....beacuse of their legacy Ok that is all. I really enoyed in mine very first debate. I hope ypu liked to :)You are very smart and you have some good points. I respect you.
History. Greek and Roman gods or today's god

OK, my response. Well, its a debate and not a question. So to answer your question. What religion do I prefer. Honestly the answer is none. But if I had to desire, I wont. Because I was raised in a Christian family, many morals and beliefs were given to me that are Christian. Its a paradox, but let me explain it to you. My friend thinks that Muslims have stupid morals. Meanwhile Muslims think that we"ve stupid morals. Why? Its because, its important in what you believe and in were you was raised. Your growing up may show a picture of psychological look-like in the future. The Greek religion makes quite some sense, while the Christian one may look better to me. But, the Greek/Roman mythology/religion has a better history they"ve supported philosophy), while the Christians were very very evil to science. So it isn't a surprise that the Illuminati were angry. The answer is: really, none. But what do I prefer? None. Next Round,
History. Greek and Roman gods or today's god

Hey I'm just saying that IF god is real. I know that you are atheist, but i heard that you're interested in religon. So this is a reason why I stared this debate. Ok. Now I'm asking: Which religon you prefer? And why? (this can be very interesting question for atheist). Tell me some reasons why did you prefer Greeks religion/Christianity? I think that you didn't understoond my question. So I wrote question again. Hope you will answer me :)