BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals

Well the law in Russia is ambigious on this issue. It could be that public displays of affection broadcasting over TV could mean that those individuals could be fined under this law if it is said to be propaganda. This does not mean they cannot enter Russia all they have to do is not display affection in public. There are many cultures where kissing in public is prohibited amongst straight couples too. I maintain that although this may be an infingement of rights it does not constitute a significant violation.You have not mentioned how the knowledge of homosexuality is prohibited.
The 'Native American' people of the United States

Text books and the historians who wrote them will tell you that the first people to settle in America were the Paleo-Indians. They will tell you that the Paleo-Indians settled in America around some 15 000 years ago. This is what has been thought and taught for quite some time, until the recent 2012 discovery of evidence stating otherwise. Several dozen European-style stone tools, dating between 26,000 and 19 000 years ago, have been found at six different locations along the East Coast. Three of the sites are on the Delmarva Peninsular in Maryland and were discovered by archaeologist Darrin Lowery of the University of Delaware. One is in Pennsylvania and another in Virginia. The sixth was discovered by a fishermen on the seabed 60 miles from the Virginian coast on what would have been dry land. This is not the first time something like that has happened. European artifacts like these have been found before, but those artifacts were dated around 15 000 years ago (the same time that the Paleo-Indians migrated to America). These newly found artifacts are dated between 26 000 and 19 000 years ago and are contemporary and identical to western European material. Another artifact, a European-style stone knife found in Virginia of 1971, has been chemically analyzed to reveal that it is made of French-originating flint. Archaeologists are now starting to investigate new sites in places such as Tennessee, Maryland, and even Texas At the peak of the Ice Age, around three million square miles of the North Atlantic was covered in thick ice for all or part of the year. Historians such as Professor Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Institution of Washington DC, and Professor Bruce Bradley of the University of Exeter, propose that this is when people from Western Europe migrated to North America at the height of the Ice Age by traveling (over the ice surface and/or by boat) along the edge of the frozen northern part of the Atlantic. Another argument for Stanford and Bradley is that there is no evidence of any human activity in north-east Siberia and Alaska prior to around 15 000 years ago. If the Maryland and other east coast people of 26 000 to 19 000 years ago had come from Asia, not Europe, early material from before 19 000 years ago should have turned up in those two northern areas, but none have been found.
God's incompetence - 3rd try!

1. You did say they were myths: 1. Adam&Eve, Noah's arch and other bible stories are on one level of reality, just stories. Either way, your point remains invalid until you can demonstrate a higher reading that makes good appear competent. 2. You are now inventing your own Canon and your own Bible! Again, with no proof or reference to back it up. Your point remains unsupported and is thus invalid.3. No, my idea that God is incompetent is drawn directly from the Bible and trying to read my mind as to why I am doing this does nothing to address my point.I don't believe that you have made a single point that has been supported by something other than handwaving and referencing non existent knowledge. Therefore, you have disqualified yourself from being able to make a substantive argument. We only have 3 rounds and you have continued to fail to address my direct points adequately. Good luck with your last post, my OP remains standing. Thank you for your thoughts and rationalizations.
God's incompetence - 3rd try!

1. I never said the bible is a myth. I stated that the bible contains stories that convey a higher meaning. (you must look beyond the syntax of the bible.) 2.You contradict yourself because you get your information from the bible and other holy text closely associated with the bible but who says those are definitive sources. These accounts were written by people that lived thousands of years ago and cannot be fully proved that God or some omnipotent being called them to into establishment. 3. This is the topic at hand, I'm trying to convey that your idea of the bible and god are incompetent, is based off misconceptions taught to you by people who fail to challenge what they believe themselves and so by you asking whether the bible is incompetent is a sort of subconscious way of finding answers. I used the Buddha and Jesus because in the text describing their lives, both of them share a common theme, challenging convention, challenging what people believe and take for granted.
God's incompetence - 3rd try!

1. If the Bible is a myth then why do people take Jesus' virgin birth, his miracles and his resurrection so literally!2. This is blatantly wrong; Judaism was a religion of a single tribe/race committed to by God himself. Christianity is a based upon Jesus' who is also God. And Mohammed was a prophet with direct connection to God!3. This is not the topic at hand though - we are discussing whether the God of the Bible is incompetent, not whether he exists or not.Please address the OP!
God's incompetence - 3rd try!

1. Adam&Eve, Noah's arch and other bible stories are on one level of reality, just stories. If you take them literally than the whole bible can seem like one huge contradiction. These stories aren't meant to be taken literally but Meta physically, this means they have a spiritual teaching behind them and therefore are meant to teach the soul a lesson. We must also remind our self that the bible was written by humans not by god. So if you think about it, the bible is a primitive way to understand god, in the process of writing the bible humans tried to project (primitive) human emotion, thinking and reasoning on forces they could not understand. Which to me doesn't discredit the bible as a good source for spiritual guidance. 2. The three main religions are not of direct creation of god. Religions were created by man and as I said before man can not fully understand omnipotent forces such as god or the universe, hell half the time we can't understand ourselves and each other! So through this misunderstanding; contradiction, confusion and all other systemic problems that religion has, was born. This is why I don't trust the word of a religious leader, no matter how revered he/she might be. 3. Miracles are too subjective to be taken definitely or seriously. I think that the universe was created with fundamental truths and that our perception of right or wrong has nothing to do with these truths. A big part of science is the study of our universe or the study of where we come from much like religion. Humans must realize that religion is a work in progress just like science and that we all must continue to challenge the doctrine and dogmas of religion; like the Buddha did, like Jesus did, like Muhammad did and take everything with a grain of salt.
God's incompetence - 3rd try!

Note: This is a third attempt at this debate - the first two are not yielding strong enough debates. This is only open to religious folk and please directly address whether the actions of God show his incompetence._______________________________________________________________________________________________Believers like to claim that God is perfect and all powerful but his actions belie that claim:1. He is constantly getting humanity wrong. Adam & Eve, The Flood, Babel all show that he clearly has little understanding of what free will means and is constantly having to have do overs.2. The three religions that he created clearly shows that he is poor at communicating his aims properly. From the 10 commandments onwards, he appears to not have his own rules about how he should be worshipped down pat. Even worse, his lack of clarity and his ambiguity has opened the doors to tens of thousands of denominations.3. He also can't even keep his physical creations consistent, having to work around its limitations with special miracles and one-off events that cannot be explained and indeed are contradictory to known science. Surely better planning and more flexible specifications for the universe would have avoided these cheats.In summary, God is incompetent in creating a universe that he doesn't have to bang into place and cheat, mis-managing his creation of humans from free-will to how we're supposed to appropriately worship him.Thoughts?
Atheism Rejects Philosophy

Lol I didn't know I signed up to debate Google and wiki... XD I would also like to point out I never claimed organic matter came from inorganic matter. I simply pointed out how quantum partials come from nothing which has been proven and debunks ur claim of everything needing a source. I would also like to point out how you ignored my points in my earlier stament about how theist ignore logic and reason with there faith, which you keep insisting backs up there claims. I find it funny you/wiki reference Einstine for quantum mechanics since he was puzzled by them and couldn't wrap his head around quantum entanglement (another thing which you referenced) he claimed God dosnt play dice and how quantum mechanics couldn't be random. Which has been proven quantum mechanics are actuly random and theres on going studies/prep for studies going on right now with the worlds supercollider to find out exactly how random. Ergo if all matter will sooner or later brake down or not if its proven it will it throws ur intelgent design argument you were trying to make (with ur life dosnt come from inorganic matter comments) out the window. But I can do that without those test/studies being done yet. You refrenced the Christan God and in ur words claimed a god is a being who is -perfect omnipotent omniscient orgininator and rulerer of the universe, the principle of faith and warship. I'm going to asume ur a Christan baised of this new evidionce. By ur definition alone ur God is not real. Nothing is perfect everything can be improved especially since perfect is a subjective term. Also the thought of a god whose everywhere and can read everyone's minds/thoughts and dose nothing to help when there struggling/suffering the majorty of the time is sickening. The Christan God can give Moses the power to do pledges to save his ppl but watches countles innocent ppl die every day/hr/min The God of the bible is also absent of logic/reason as is most other man made gods for example Gen-1-16 he had days b4 he made light, he took a rib from adom instead of just making eve out of nothing , Jesus cursed a fig tree for not haveing any figs instead of just making a fig..the boat of Noah couldn't float or hold all the anmials/bugs he also made Mary birth the so called savior well her cursed blood flowed thru him when he was in her womb he also ate food from the cursed earth... I would also like to point out some moral flaws he is pro incest,pro killing,pro slavery ,pro eternal suffering ,pro sexism the list go's on and on sure sounds perfect to me.. (Sarcasm) figured I had to say it or theist might think I'm agreeing.. The fact is that's not perfect it's hogwash ideals and ramblings of probly drunken and high farmers and fishers of an uneducated time in human history It is highly more logical that a quantum explosion of conduced matter randomly happened pushing the eternal vacuumed back creating the entire know universe and everything in it and is still happening outside our know unverse making multiverse . Than that Some so called perfect God made everything who only decided to show him self to uneducated farmers I wait for ur rebutttl :)
Atheism Rejects Philosophy

I'd like to say hi to my opponent :) and point out I'm an agnostic atheist .. So I personly don't refute the posblity for there being a god like being somewhere in the multi-verse, let's get this debate going I apologize for my rough grammar and spelling ahead of time haha. You say that God exist ? What a claim my friend plz prove it ? so we can move on to another debate. If you have no proof then I would say ur claim God exist defies logic and reason, which you claimed it was supported by. Since logic and reason are supported by evidence. You claim all things have a source? Yet Science has proven quantum mechanics or to be more pacific quantum particles come from nothing. Also by claiming deism all you have done is taken the argument back a step where did ur God come from? There's only realy 2 choices/stances you can take. #1.Either everything came from nothing. or #2.Certain things were always here . Neither atheist nor theist can prove nor disprove either one of these. I would say that atheist do a better job/have better theorys. Theory's like The Quantum Void/Vaccum are massively more compelling for me personally than Deism theory's Iv heard or read theory's that claim everything was made in 6 days, or a gaint snake spit up the world after a fierce battle with a lion, seem very primitive to me and defy logic and reason. Can I disprove them? certainly not. But a wise man once said what can be admitted without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence. I would claim atheist are the more logical and reasonable , than theist . Since logic and reason rely on evdence and atheist dispute/refute anything without evdence wile theist belive things on faith.. I would like to ask my opponent to define his definition of God ? Since there are so many different ones. And happly wait for my opponents rebuttal :)
Atheism Rejects Philosophy

Dear voters/viewers as you can clearly see from my opponents round 1 argument to his final he has claimed several things -claim 1 God exist. - claim 2 atheism rejects philosophy. He has however failed to provided any substantial evdence for these claims. His evdence was everything has to have an orgin and God must be that orgin. In my round 4 argument I clearly refuted these stances with logic and questions that my opponet failed to answer and completely ignored in his final argument . I will reinforce my round 4 argument and dispute the claims pro made in his final yet agin. Definition of atheism- Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of gods or God. <- the true definition of atheist I pointed out in round 4 that both atheist and theist both have to eventaly come to the same conclusion, Somthing has to have always existed. The difference is atheist don't claim anyone particular thing, And won't till science proves it. Unlike theist who claim it is God... based on what? Faith ? This is not logical. I also pointed out in round 4 how philosophy was the brain thru definition and how atheist clearly don't reject the brain.. Pro claimed it was bogus for atheist to claim baby's as atheist by default. A claim I had not made or mentioned till now.. But since he brought it up yes everyone is athesit by default .. Since atheism is lack of belief by definition. We neither claim belief nor support belief of Gods by default from lack of evidence, I'd more than happly belive in a god if he would show him/her self not saying I wouldn't fight it if it turned out to be a ruthless dictator, (that's besides the point tho) What pro is trying to do is force anti-theism's definition on athesit and this is just unfair and untrue wile some anti-theist claim them selfs and militant athesit, that is in no way the same as atheism. Most theist are athesit aswell to to prove my point if you ask a person who is a Christian,Muslim, Judaism,Buddhism,Spaghettiism what God thay belive in, then ask if thay belive in the others thay will more often then not say No! From lack of evidence for them.. Fundamental Athesit just take the process one step further and get rid of one more god till there's proof for them. To claim atheism rejects philosophy is the same as claiming most theism rejects philosophy which is just absurd right? I would like to thank the readers of this debate one more time and hope you don't judge me too harshly for my awful grammar spelling and punctuation.,?! And ask them to vote for who thay thought made the most sense and logical argument in the debate -drops the mic- Adios :P
Atheism Rejects Philosophy

My opponent clearly did not rebut my argument on Quantum Physics. I have shown that he is wrong in his assertion that the natural cosmos had its origin from absolute nothingness.Science is at my side. Ergo, my argument still stands. God exists. Theism is supported by reason. Logically, everything that exists in the physical universe has an ORIGIN (source).Atheism clearly rejects Philosophy. Agnosticism and Deism is in line with logic but to affirm that God does not exists is merely and only SUBJECTIVE.Just as it is bogus for theists to claim infants are theists, so too is it bogus to claim infants & zygotes are atheists. "Atheism is a conscious position" ; the only implicit atheists are agnostics who do not realize they have rejected belief, not merely suspended it."Disbelief" is not the same as "unbelief". Disbelief indicates some kind of difficulty believing something.To reject belief one must know of it. Infants, fetuses and zygotes are not aware of belief in gods, and therefore not theistic or atheistic.Atheism = logic: NONE ( unbelief without basis whatsoever).Agnosticism = logic: Rejection of certainty that God doesn't exist or does exists.It behooves to have evidence first and foremost in order to establish belief. Deism = logic: God does not intervene in His creation. Law of cause and effect. Humans are rational beings. Capability to reason is a human aptitude. The brain is the center of consciousness and of behavior.Psychology - Psyche ( soul); ology ( study, discourse, word of). Humans as rational beings are souls.Logic stems from this reality. Philosophy - Philo (love) ;sophia (wisdom).Humans as rational beings are ascertaining ideas , searching for an answer from a question.My argument is clearly philosophical AND it has a basis on science per se. scientia = cognitio certa per causas.God has no origin. Energy is neither created nor destroyed.As a theist, I call that 'God.' In science, they called it a scientific 'Law.'To all of my dear readers/ viewers of this debate challenge, look at my arguments on...Law of Thermodynamics&Quantum Physics...throughout this debate challenge so as to see and read for yourselves that my original argument has a solid basis:God exists. Theism is supported by reason. Logically, everything that exists in the physical universe has an ORIGIN (source).All things that exist in this natural world has a source (origin).The origin of the universe is called 'deity,'SCIENCE AND REASON DICTATE THAT ATHEISM REJECTS PHILOSOPHYVOTE PRO!
Atheism Rejects Philosophy

I'm take a different approach this round , my opponent clearly belifes atheism rejects philosophy , wile deism is in line with logic .. Pro refuse to see how quantm particals come from nothing.. Fine I'm sick of reading the walls of wiki and goggle to see him fail to debunk this. My questions where do Gods come from? How do you know a god exist ? What proof or evidence do you have for such a claim? (You don't need evidence to not belive somthing that's illogical) You claim all things in the natural/physical realm require a source ? Most major theist religions, gods have claims of some sort, of being part of the natural realm so what's there source? Atheist don't need a source to say idk since, Science hasen't been able to prove where we come from and can flock to w/e theory we like the most till it is proven for me that happens to be the quantum void/vacuume. I'm not here to defend void theory I'm here to show how theist views clearly don't follow philosophy the way you claim thay do. Philosophy-the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge,reality and existence. Just becuse science can't prove something dosnt mean god did it this,is a god of a gaps argument and follows flawed logic. Pros definition of a god is God- A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. ruler- a person exercising government or dominion dominion - control sovereignty (supreme power or authority) exercise- the use or application of a faculty ,right or process Logic clearly dictates if such a being was exercising such power/authority we would have evidence or notice it.. The fundmental mental nature of knowledge ,reality and existence has been proven to be the brain. I can pull ur heart out and put you on dialysis and you will still be here talking eating doing w/e same for other body parts I pull ur brain out you are dead even if your body's on life support ur nothing more than a meat bag, There is no chance you will talk sit up eat or recover ect Ergo Philosophy is the BRAIN! Atheist don't reject the brain thay nurture it and feed it all the logical knowledge they can , in hopes of evolving slightly more some atheist even study the brain to understand what dose what and why.. So in conclusion my opponets debate/argument on atheist rejecting philosophy is flat out wrong as for his claims of a god He must be the best hide 'n seek champ ever :) Also if you take my opponets argument everything comes from something every logical person will eventaly reach the conclusion somthing had to always be. Claiming a god was always there dosnt make theist anymore logical or fall in line anymore with Philosophy than an atheist claiming a void was always there or condensed matter was always there ect. I feel I have fully debunked pros staments and look forward to his rebuttal :)
our government should be completely replaced

I accept, I'll be arguing that our government (being a Democratic Republic, a decent explanation being here http://en.wikipedia.org...) ought not be replaced. The burden of proof rests on pro, since he's essentially arguing for a change in the status quo, therefore needs to justify why we ought to change. Short of a good reason to change, we have no reason to change.Right now it's kind of hard to make an argument because my opponent doesn't really give us any kind of alternative to look at, i.e. what he would replace our current government with, nor does he give a critique of our current government and it's harms, so there's not a whole lot for me to talk about yet. The only thing he does kind of talk about is Obama being hypocritial, but there's a lot of problems with this argument:First, He just says that we've been wiretaping people and since Obama said he didn't know about it, it makes him either an idiot or a liar. But it ignores the possibly that, y'know, he actually might have not been aware of it.Second, even if Obama was in on the wiretaping, that doesn't even mean we could really impeach him, let alone is it a reason to replace our government wholesale. Like, he just doesn't really make that cohesive of an argument here, so there's not a lot for me to refute. I'll go ahead and pass it back over to him and hope there's something more substansive to respond to next round.