BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The idea of the monotheistic god is illogical

Please note that the common conception of god is that he is omnipotent. see: http://en.wikipedia.org... "Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, jealousy, and eternal and necessary existence" Now there is a reason why theologians make these claims. The reason is that they wish to claim that NOTHING can exist outside of god. If something as important as logic or morality exist outside of god which serve as boundaries for him, as I have claimed and that you have failed to refute, then god becomes superfluous. The question that theists always ask atheists is "where do you get your morals from" right ? In your description of god both you and I get our morals outside of god, therefore this infamous question becomes as relevant to you as it is to me. Nonetheless, I shall address your concept of god to prove that it is illogical as well. You say "god can commit no evil act or he would cease to be god." You have just proven that there is no god by stating this. Let us examine this statement. The word "can" refers to one's potential to accomplish something right ? Therefore you are basically arguing that god has no potential to accomplish evil. The problem here is that human beings, which are god's creation, can accomplish evil right ? This proves that god does have the potential to accomplish evil ! By creating beings (in his own image BTW) that can accomplish evil ! So god, it seems, could accomplish evil after all, by using a proxy ! A being that is truly unable of accomplishing evil could not create anything that can accomplish evil, this is called a Logical closure. see: http://en.wikipedia.org... Good luck.
The idea of the monotheistic god is illogical

First of all I would like to point out that the resolution said "The idea of the monotheistic god is illogical," not that the idea of an omnipotent god is illogical. In the belief system that I was raised in, LDS church or Mormons, we believe that god is subject to certain rules. Furthermore I didn't "retreat from the concept of a monotheistic god," I retreated from your concept of a monotheistic god. I see god as a being who exists on a higher plane than any human and who therefore can does do things that we cannot understand. This god is not all powerful, but once again exists with limits. A god utterly without limits is a concept that sounds illogical, even terrifying, fortunately such a being does not exist. I stand by my earlier statement that for God to make something both a square and a circle would contradict his nature. What I mean by this is that god would never attempt to break a law that required one thing not to be another, and if he did he would cease to be god. Laws of logic and laws like the one I have just described are parallel. God would have to break one of his own laws in order to break a law of logic. God literally cannot be illogical.
The idea of the monotheistic god is illogical

Thanks for your response. I don't see how my perception of god is flawed. You have affirmed my perception of god by agreeing with me that god is bound, you said yourself: "God is only all powerful within certain parameters" -- that was my claim as well. So it seems there is no argument on that part at all and no misconceptions at all. You also add that "It is impossible for god to attempt to make something both a square and a circle because it would contradict his very nature" -- this is just playing with words actually, as the fact remains that god's will is bound by something that he can't control -- call it god's nature or the universe's nature or just nature. The conclusion is therefore that the concept of god is superfluous in explaining the existence of logic, as I have claimed. Secondly, you say "god can commit no evil act or he would cease to be god" therefore the concept of good and evil must be defined outside of god, just like the concept of logic. Any boundary to god's will must be defined outside of him otherwise it would not be a real boundary. By saying that god would cease to be god if he did evil, it must mean that the concept of evil is not defined merely by god's actions or god's will, but rather by some other absolute you call good and evil which god adheres to. Therefore the concept of god is also superfluous in deciding what is good or evil, or more generally in defining what is morality or where did it come from. I want to re-emphasise this -- when you say that if god were to commit an evil act he would cease to be god, you are actually saying that there is something else, other than god's actions, which defined what is good or bad. This is an inescapable conclusion whether you like it or not ! Given what we agree on, the conclusion that follows is that your concept of god is superfluous in deciding or explaining logic and morality since these are both concepts that exist outside of god. Moreover, you should note that you did retreat from the monotheistic concept of god which speaks of an omnipotent, omniscience and omnibenevolent entity. I can't really blame you -- because this is indeed an illogical concept.
The idea of the monotheistic god is illogical

The idea of a monotheistic god is not illogical, nor is it flawed. What is flawed is my opponents perception of god. As far as my understanding goes god is the shepherd as we are the sheep. He is simply guiding us home and trying to keep us safe. God is only all powerful within certain parameters. An example of God's boundaries is the one between good and evil, god can commit no evil act or he would cease to be god. Any misuse of these powers would result in the same thing. While god is all powerful within certain bounds there is one thing he cannot overcome, that is his own will. Fortunately the will of god is single. It is impossible for god to attempt to make something both a square and a circle because it would contradict his very nature. The idea of god is not illogical, it is misunderstood.
The idea of the monotheistic god is illogical

One of the basic laws of logic is that a thing can not be what it is not. Now my question is very simple, although hardly new. Can god create a thing which is both a square and a circle ? As the general belief regarding the concept of the monotheistic god suggests that he is omnipotent the answer must be that he can do so. Therefore a thing can potentially be what it is not. This is a clear logical contradiction. So either god does not exist or logic does not. It is illogical to logically conclude that logic does not exist -- therefore the problem here is with the given god hypothesis. The only way to escape this is by concluding that god is in fact not omnipotent but rather bound, at least, by the laws of logic. Therefore it follows that the rules of logic apply without the need for a god at all. So if rules can apply without the existance of a god then why use god to explain the existence of other rules in the first place ? Maybe they too can exist without a god ?
Teachers should only use computers as an aid.

From what I understand, you are saying that your teachers are using technology as a way to get away from teaching. That teachers should teach out of textbooks and a blackboards with chalk. Today is the Technology Age. Over the years new technologies and techniques of doing things get better, so why isn’t education evolving? Nowadays, there is so much information available online allowing for education to available to all.Learning StyleThere are three main learning styles. Visual, auditory and kinesthetic learners. Visual learners learn best by reading and writing, like being able to read directions. Loving visual aids such as graphs. Auditory learners like talking to themselves, best with hearing directions. Kinesthetic do best by touching and figuring out themselves, and do best by figuring things out themselves.http://www.nwlink.com...**Sorry that this is not long, was at grandparents and did not have access to a computer! Good Luck!
Teachers should only use computers as an aid.

I am a student too, by the way. We are barely in year zero of our program. But the teachers are not taking the incentives correctly. They should either go all the way or go home. But my teachers merely use the computers as an excuse to not teach. What I am saying is, they should teach us in class, but we should do the work online. I did not say the teachers should not use the technology. I say they should continue to teach us traditionally, using computers when necessary. We students are not learning anything. I must add you are incredibly lucky to get chromebooks.... we got very bad quality laptops, but that is another matter.
Teachers should only use computers as an aid.

First off I would like to say that I am a student in a school lead by technology. I would like to wish my opponent luck! Allows for a paperless environmentMy school is a paperless school. We achieve this by relying solely on Chrome books, Smart Boards and Laptops. All work gets submitted online to the website.Easy to find informationWith Students being able look up homework/projects along with messaging teachers online allowing any questions or concerns to be answered at the click of a few buttons. Even parents can join in to view all child's homework with the added perk of being when child turn in homework.It is reliableWith everything being online, there is NO way for homework or projects/grades to be lost. Everything is time stamped preventing someone from trying to turn it in late.
Madea is responsible for killing her children

1.Madea was basing the murder of her children as a good deed to sacrifice them to god and not to the devil living on earth as she stated. So in this case madea did not commit a sinful murder but a righteous sacrifice of freedom from hell for her children. 2.Sacrificing is an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure. Many religions believe in sacrificing, which is no longer seen as murder but a deed for god. Madea believed she was doing the right thing so she is not guilty of murder but of sacrificing. 3.Madea husband did not have to be physically there to assist her in killing her children, because he was mentally there in her mind. This goes to show that madea is suffering from insanity because the mental abuse from her husband caused her to do what she believed was right in head.
Madea is responsible for killing her children

2.How do we know exactly that madea judgement was based off a good deed? Madea only states that the world is filled with torture and corruption. For all we know madea could be the one putting her children through this torture, by killing them and robbing them of life. 3.Madea decided to take action and murder the kids herself leaving her with the full responsibility of their deaths, which should not go unnoticed or unpunished. Medea"s husband was not physically present in assisting her in the act of the murders. Therefore I stand by my argument that her husband did not force her to murder her children. Madea killed them herself without her husband"s guidance or help making him not guilty and her a murderer 4.Madea took it upon herself to come up with the vengeful plan of murder and is simply using her religious background and hardships of life to make since of it as a form of and excuse 5.Murder in any form is wrong whether it is painful or not. Innocent children did not deserve to die by the hands of their own mother. 6.Madea could have choose a better option in dealing with saving her kills, but she choose to commit a crime and murder them which is wrong.
Madea is responsible for killing her children

1.Even though a person judgment is altered does not mean they have the rightful reason to kill their child. For example just because a person judges another person that does not make the judgment right, or even just enough to kill another human. 2.Madea cannot claim insanity because she was aware of her actions when killing her children as well as its results. 3.I agree with the above definition of frustration being a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence by a wrong or wrath of and individual or object. 4.Although Frustration and anger caused and emotion of motivation to seek revenge towards her husband, it does not make it right to act upon murder. 5.Madea is her own person that is of legal adult age which gives reason to believe that medea husband cannot force her do anything she does not want to do, including murder. 6.Murder in most cases are painful, with this being said Medea was not helping her children, but only harming them of life and a painful death.
Fakes

== CON == "My computer messed up i ment to put picture of that girl up and i guess that it didn't. and since i guess that you havn't looked at the pictures then just try these links and see if it works and if they don't work then just go to her profile and look them up. It is the album that is called "me! !! !! " then go to the first picture and look at her eye they are brown. then after you look at the first piture look at the last picture in that ablum and look at her eyes they are Dark green. Here are the links to those pictures. (I hope that they work) . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... " == REBUTTAL == While it is indeed visible that in the first picture her eyes are brown, the eye colour is not easily visible in the second picture and, from my perspective looks, brown. Because of the poor quality of the image, no conclusion on the eye colour can be made. == CON == "That makes no since at all. " == REBUTTAL == That sentence actually makes much less sense. Although it's irrelevant at this stage, I was merely asking how you can disprove she in fact works for Scenegirls. == CONCLUSION == My opponent has not proven conclusively that the girl in the aforementioned photographs is not the user Asiandebater.
Fakes

~~~~~~PRO~~~~~~ 1) The links my opponent has given are the exact same, and have no difference whatsoever. ~~~~~~REBUTTAL~~~~~~ 1. My computer messed up i ment to put picture of that girl up and i guess that it didn't. and since i guess that you havn't looked at the pictures then just try these links and see if it works and if they don't work then just go to her profile and look them up. It is the album that is called "me!!!!!" then go to the first picture and look at her eye they are brown. then after you look at the first piture look at the last picture in that ablum and look at her eyes they are Dark green. Here are the links to those pictures. (I hope that they work) http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~PRO~~~~~~ 2) What evidence can my opponent produce that my opponent is not, in fact, working for scene girls? ~~~~~~REBUTTAL~~~~~~ 2.That makes no since at all.
Fakes

===CON=== "If you look at the pictures on her album and look at her second album they look nothing alike! If you want more proof then you should go look at this picture and look at the eye color there brown http://www.debate.org...... and then look at this picture and they are a dark Green in the second one http://www.debate.org....... Also look at there eyebrows they are shaped different in each picture. It's clear that those are four different PRETTY but different girl off the internet. If you want more proof you should go on Google and look up Scene Girls. http://images.google.com...... " ===REBUTTAL=== 1) The links my opponent has given are the exact same, and have no difference whatsoever. 2) What evidence can my opponent produce that my opponent is not, in fact, working for scene girls?
Fakes

If you look at the pictures on her album and look at her second album they look nothing alike! If you want more proof then you should go look at this picture and look at the eye color there brown http://www.debate.org... and then look at this picture and they are a dark Green in the second one http://www.debate.org.... Also look at there eyebrows they are shaped different in each picture. It's clear that those are four different PRETTY but different girl off the internet. If you want more proof you should go on Google and look up Scene Girls. http://images.google.com...
Fakes

Due to my opponents stance, I'm going to presume I have to affirm that user is not a fake, and is not using someone else's photo as her own. Nonetheless, the debater she is referring to is "Asiandebater" and the photo she is referring to is located here on her profile: http://www.debate.org... This user has several more photo's of herself located here: http://www.debate.org... and here: http://www.debate.org... It is obvious that these photos, from her profile, bear a striking resemblance to the original: http://www.debate.org... and http://www.debate.org... Furthermore, my opponent has not shown the source of her photo, and could indeed be from this users blog or indeed be a photo of her put on a website. Back to my opponent.
is the us going to have another civil war

I never said all Christians oppose gay marriage, I just said evangelical Christians do. Meaning extreme Christians. You know, WBC, people that read the Bible every night before they sleep, stuff like that. The Russians have been pissed off at the US ever since 1950. The fact that they're still pissed off isn't good, but it still means that nothing much has changed for over 50 years. Besides, Russia is still busy with Ukraine.
is the us going to have another civil war

that's interesting because I am a christen and I support gay marriage. heck one of my best friends is a lesbian. but just because new things are happening does not mean that there won't be a civil war look at the things our so called 42nd president has done he's pissed off the Russian prime minister and aided terrorists with weapons I'm sorry but civil war is all but inevitable. how ever I do respect your views and what you say because that is your right as an American citizen.
is the us going to have another civil war

Sure, thanks. Sorry, I'm not used to starting debates.I do not think that in any way will Obama have a tough time giving up his position as President. We have had forty three presidents and none of them have said, "Man, I am just not going to give up Presidency. It's just too much fun." I don't think it'll be as big a deal as you make it out to be. These are changing times, with gay marriage being legalized more and more, and evangelical Christians are against that push of equality, but nothing anyone's taking arms against.The notion of an upcoming civil war is silly, and I look forward to my opponent's remarks.
is the us going to have another civil war

I think that it's more than possible for the united states to have another civil war. Mind you I don't hate some one for the color of there skin. But I do think that if we do have such an event happen it's because Obama does not want to give up his seat in office nothing at said moment is happening but I think come near the start of Obama close in office something will go down. Now to those of you who think all Americans won't give up our so called lavish living. When our freedom is at sake you better believe that all of us will throw up arms and kick our enemies teeth down said persons throat. in conclusion there is no country more willing to fight for the soil that it's people stand on than the people that call the united states home.
Should More Schools Been Created in Yobe State Created By Kawule87 or Mai Masoya

All the victims were teenage boys and 11 others were seriously injured. Most of the school was burned to the ground. Islamist militants have attacked dozens of schools in north-east Nigeria. Last September, 40 students were killed at an agricultural college during another night-time raid. Advertisement Teachers at the school in Buni Yadi said the gunmen gathered the female students together before telling them to go away and get married and to abandon their education. The name Boko Haram means Western education is sin. The group says it aims is to replace Nigeria's political leadership and establish a new state under strict Islamic law. Nigeria's military said on Tuesday it was pursuing the attackers. "We assure all law-abiding citizens that we will continue to do what is necessary to protect lives and property," a statement said. President Goodluck Jonathan condemned the killings, calling them "heinous, brutal and mindless". Our correspondent says Nigeria's armed forces are facing increasing criticism for failing to protect civilians or to respond to raids by the militants. Yobe state Governor Ibrahim Gaidam said more troops were needed to contain the militants. "It is unfortunate that up to five hours when this massacre took place, there were no security agents around to stop or contain the situation," he said in a statement."I have also been informed that the military here in Yobe state lack adequate number of troops on the ground." This year close to 300 people have been killed in large-scale Boko Haram attacks. The BBC's Isa Sanusi, from the Hausa service, says Boko Haram tends to attack schools that teach Nigeria's national curriculum, which the militants consider to be Western. Earlier this month, militants claimed responsibility for killing a prominent northern Nigerian Islamic scholar, Sheikh Mohammed Awwal Albani, because he said the group's actions were un-Islamic. Thousands of people have been killed since 2009, when Boko Haram launched its campaign to install Islamic law. The latest offensive, ordered by President Jonathan in May, has been blamed for triggering reprisals by militants against civilians. Addressing a news conference on Monday, the president defended the army's record, saying it had achieved some successes against Boko Haram and that the militants had been contained to a small area of north-east Nigeria close to the border with Cameroon. He said the two countries were working together to stop the militants from staging attacks in Nigeria and then escaping over the border. Correspondents say Yobe has been relatively peaceful this year, unlike neighbouring Borno state, where at least 250 people have been killed in a series of large scale attacks by the militants. Copyright Mohammed Sani Yahaya Also Known As Mai Masoya or Kawule87
The Nazis could have won WWII if they didn't invade Russia

They could not have won, there are numerous reasons why; 1. They had too many enemies Nearing the end they would have lost even if they DIDNT invade Russia, Hitler already invaded Paris and Denmark, so everyone else knew the threat and would have eliminated it. 2. They didn't have the army All the Germans had were Austria, Japan, and Mussolini as allies so their soldiers were VERY limited. It was basically them against the world. 3. They are landlocked If they wanted to invade the US or any other country out of Europe they would have to cross half the world to get to them because they were land locked.
The Nazis could have won WWII if they didn't invade Russia

The Nazis had a lot of ways to win if they didn't invade Russia. 1. They could have focused the Middle East and Africa. [1] They had a total of 4 million troops, including allies. With this amount, they could have just focused on the Middle East and Africa, which they could take over easily. 2. They could've also taken over the United Kingdom. [2] The US and UK had only about 3 million troops compared to the Nazis 4 million. It would be hard, but it could work. 3. After taking over these, they could focus on Russia. With all the troops and land captured, they could then focus on Russia. With all of these captured, they would then take over, and win WWII. They might have even invaded India and the United States later. Cites: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)#Casualties [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)