BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One Day, they'll, Know how Stuff Exists withOut being Created!

http://www.youtube.com... Ok... May I Cite that God has, just about Reason with THIS for Creation... http://www.pierre-auguste-renoir.org... would be Further, Evidence. The Existence of Creation / Universe is Explainable with the assumption that God, "Self-Created", withIn the Bounds of His Creation - Universe... I Have, Long Explained This, already.. http://www.youtube.com... THIS. Seems to bring us nearer to Purpose for God's Creation, Also!.. The List goes ON and ON and ON.. I Still seem to think a Vote for Me would be a Vote for Accepting that ALL Things, ARE "Created"?!.. Anyone?!..
One Day, they'll, Know how Stuff Exists withOut being Created!

the loGIC behind this iS AcTually rather siMPle. one GenerAlly accosiates INtelligent dESign theory witH some sort of creator OR "god" IF YOU will. although IT"s rather funny to Assume that anything he cREates must have a CAUse, yet he himself cANNot have a causE. thusly, those WHO argue for some sort of INTElligent design VIa creator-figure, sucH as a gOd, they would HAVE To argure that their gOd has a CAuse to iT's creation. However this loGIC is faulty since it CLEarly states in nearlY eveRy relIGIoUS text that the specific Deity has no cREATion and has aLWAys existed THorughout space and time. this woULD only cREate an infINIte Loop of regreSSion that i doubt my OpponENt is IntentIOnally trying To GEt intO. ThUs< that Is baSiCaLLy whAT he iS ARGuiNg fOr> if My opponenT CaN pRovE ThAt god himsELf has a reason FOr cREATion, then hE will BE the vIctor of this dEBate. otherwise< i will be Declared the viCtor And he SHall RUe thE Day That he mesSeD WiTH MY aMaZiNglY perfect GrAmmAr (DOn'T Judge mE bRo! !! !! ! !1!111111)My case is Clear. Over to my Opponent. ..
One Day, they'll, Know how Stuff Exists withOut being Created!

Mathematically, something Exists withOut being Created?!.. Doubt It!.. I've Lived 41 Years and Not "Met" anything that was with NO Creation-"Logic"?!.. Someone, cited "Non-Existence", which then only exists because of EXistence?!.. I, really, Doubt they'll find a way for Stuff to Exist withOut Creation?!.. Which leaves us with the Indetermined Universe.. Too Much exists withIn the Universe withOut question for me to accept a non-created Universe.. More and More Evidence points Clearly to a "Point-OF-Existence" for Creation (Universe)?!.. So how am I hoping you'll Vote for Me?!.. You supply me with something that does, in Fact, exist without ANY Explanation of Creation and I'll "Rethink"?!.. My Case is Clear. Over to my Opponent...
Why we should't wear mufti to schools

Mufti: plain clothes worn by a person who wears a uniform for their job, such as a soldier or police officer.See: https://www.google.com...Therefore my opponent's arguments are incoherent and make no sense. Gold coin donations are irrelevant to school uniforms.Uniforms bring a sense of unity and discipline. It works well in the military and bullies cannot bully you on what you wear because they are wearing the same exact thing.
Theism (Christianity) vs Athiesm

I asked: “Could you be wrong about everything you think you know? If not - what's one thing you know and how do you know it." You answered: “I could be wrong about nothing I know, some things I know or everything I think I know, maybe this whole life is just a dream. Who knows?” If I told you, “I am 6 feet tall - but I could be wrong.” Do I know my height? No, because I could be wrong. If I told you, “The speed limit outside is 60kph/mph but I could be wrong.” I don't know it, because I could be wrong. I could be right, sure, but that doesn't mean I am. I wouldn’t KNOW it. With that in mind - you’ve just said you could be wrong about everything you think you know – “I could be wrong about… or everything I think I know.” It then follows that you know nothing, just like my height and the speed limit. However the very next thing you say is “It cannot be proven or falsified (just like the God hypothesis).” Do you know that? So you do know something now. Make up your mind. And if you can know nothing, how do you know this: “The same of course, applies to you, maybe everything you know could be wrong. "If you can’t know anything, how do you know what I can know?! “1+1 = 2, that is a truth, whether the world was formed supernaturally (by God) or naturally(not by God).” Huh? You conceded that you can’t know anything, but now you're saying you know that 1+1 equals 2... You really need to clarify what you know or not… - I asked: “…how do you get truth without God?” You answered: “Look at the evidence presented to you, look at the raw facts and see it for what they are in the most objective manner as humanely possible. Interpret the facts and form a conclusion. Also, try to falsify the truth as much as possible and if you still cannot falsify it plus there is plenty of evidence to support it, then it is a truth. That's deductive reasoning, something unique to humans. It forms the basis of the scientific method, which has worked excellently for us so far." “Although I appreciate Pro for bringing up Philosophical questions, the readers still need to bring up proof that the Christian god exists and the Bible is accurate…” You said you can’t know anything, and now you're talking about proof. Proof presupposes truth. But you said you can't know what's true. That’s a very big problem. - As for me - I know that God exists because of His divine revelation. And you can't tell me there's a problem with that if you know nothing.
Theism (Christianity) vs Athiesm

I'll repeat then, shall I. An agreement to debate proves that God exists. A debate presupposes truth. Truth presupposes God. You cannot get truth from an evolved meat machine. Open a shaken up can of Coke and a can of Sprite. The winner of this debate is the drink that produces the most fizz. What"s the difference between that and our debate, if there is no god? Your thoughts are simply brain fizz. How do you get truth from that? So I would first ask - how do you get truth without God? Until you answer that question, you're borrowing from my worldview, which states that God exists. You cannot even have truth without God - so he exists. So answer these: 1) What is truth in your worldview? 2) Could you be wrong about everything you think you know? If not - what's one thing you know and how do you know it. You took the Bible verse very sensitively. I quoted a verse, I didn't accuse you of being a fool.
Theism (Christianity) vs Athiesm

My position is that God created the world more or less as we know it and everything in it, approximately 6000 years ago. It is my observation that everything we see in nature shows this, and also - very doubt in Creation proves that God exists. An agreement to debate proves that God exists. A debate presupposes truth. Truth presupposes God. You cannot get truth from an evolved meat machine. Open a shaken up can of Coke and a can of Sprite. The winner of this debate is the drink that produces the most fizz. What"s the difference between that and our debate, if there is no god? Your thoughts are simply brain fizz. How do you get truth from that? So I would first ask - how do you get truth without God? Until you answer that question, you're borrowing from my worldview, which states that God exists. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14:1-7 (KJV) I'm sure you will answer my question, unlike my last debatee...
Faster than light communication with a hammer and nail

This is my first debate. I am sure there will be a learning curve to the proper format of official and public debate. Firstly regarding your point of my use of "I say". I was simply expressing my debate topic. I say that such and such a thing is or is not true and someone debates that with me. Having an opinion without complete proof is the essence of debate. If one side was already scientifically proven where is the need for this format. 2 This is a thought experiment at this point. 3 Your request for a Bob is to say that I have to find someone else who can settle this for us. If this is a new idea then the burden is on us to work this out. I agee with you that it would be nice to begin this debate, so far the actual concept has hardly been considered, allow me to get into more detail. The essence of this topic is to examine the difference between a photon that has to TRAVEL a distance, compared to a chain of molecules that are all simultaneously pushed forward. opps out of
Faster than light communication with a hammer and nail

1. ) My opponent stated a non-factal opinion to prove his argument when he said "[I] say it is instant, or faster then light. " First of all, your saying. Not proving it. So how are you backing up your argument by using this? I say that its not faster than light. Now what? 2. ) It is scientifically proven that light can move faster then any moving object, (IE tip of the nail,) source below at [1] so how does this prove anything if it what you said is false? Please provide a more valid argument, and provide a BOP, (burden of proof,) then we can truly start this argument Sources: [1]: . http://list25.com... (read number 2, the fastest speed and your speed is not listed,)
Faster than light communication with a hammer and nail

Imagine the worlds highest tensile strength substance formed into a nail. Hold the nail over a chopping block and strike it with a hammer. How much time did it take for the tip to move (any distance, just move at all) after the hammer hit the head of the nail. I say it is instant, or faster than light. If you were to hammer in Morse code then you could transmit information at superluminal velocities. This would violate a basic law of Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Abortion should be made illegal in most circumstances.

Is it the liberty of the individual to end another human's life? If someone takes out a gun and randomly shoots someone else, Do you think they can just say "it's the liberty of the individual" and go on? I have made clear reasons for why they are a living being, Thus they are guaranteed a right to life under the constitution. The mother cannot impede on this right to life unless they themselves are being harmed by the baby.
Abortion should be made illegal in most circumstances.

My basic argument is abortion is the ending of the life of a human being, And for that reason should be rendered illegal in most cases and classified as homicide, And the law should be changed to fit with this. In the same way there are clear definitions for when someone is dead, There should be clear definitions for when someone is living, And these would conform to the same reasoning. You are declared dead when your heart stops beating and your brain stops working. You should therefore be considered alive at the point your heart is formed and your brain is formed. A baby's heart if formed at 5 weeks. Their brain is formed at 6. Thus this is the latest reasonable point where their life starts, And with a right to life, They cannot be killed except under specific circumstances. It's not reasonable to assume that personhood is gained at the point of birth, As there is little separating the baby inside the womb from outside of it. They have their own genes, Organs, And body, The only difference is they are not connected to an umbilical cord anymore, Which means they are less dependent on their mother, But is not any reasonable indicator that they are anymore of a living thing. Abortion should have exceptions for when the mother's own life is put at risk, For example an ectopic pregnancy, Where killing the baby can be reasonably classified as justifiable homicide.
The Christian God is incompatible with evolution

Thanks once again to my opponent for his response. My opponent said, "The problem I have is that your beginning is long. To long." That's fine that you have a problem with my interpretation, but until you give evidence that your interpretation is correct, my evidence still stands strong. "Next my opponent stated, "Yom: The problem I have with that interpretation is that there IS hebrew grammatical rules. They were expounded upon in my sources." Since I have talked to numerous professors that teach Hebrew and none of them have ever said there is a grammatical rule, I decided to look more into your sources. However, I could not even find in there solid reason to believe so. I would like to end with what I have already said before. The fact that God created is more far more crucial than how long God's creating lasted. The breath-taking splendor of God's creation isn't diminished if the process took billions of years rather than six 24-hour days. The heavens still declare God's glory. I'm firmly committed to Scripture's authority, and if commonly-accepted scientific theories genuinely conflict with Scripture, we should bow to Scripture's authority. The dispute about Scripture and science is often hermeneutical, however. One must distinguish between Scripture"s authority and our interpretations of it. The two "books" of Gods self-revelation "His Word and His world" aren't ultimately contradictory. I have given good reason to believe that age of the earth and universe are most likely closer to the estimated time given by the old earth view rather than the young earth. I'd have been happy to find solid support for a young universe (I'm still open to persuasion), but I regularly found it to be shaky at best. The more I studied the Scriptures and the relevant, wide-ranging scientific data, the more reasonably I could conclude that (a) the universe is billions of years old and (b) Scripture accords nicely with this evidence.
The Christian God is incompatible with evolution

I would like to conclude. Unfortunately, I did not focus much on this debate and I will be only able to respond to some of your replies here. The old earth claims can be compared with that of Scriptures, and we find it does not stack up. The problem I have is that your beginning is long. To long. The evolutionary timescale says that humans have only been around for a fraction of the time. There were killed prophets from the foundation of the world. Evolution does not permit humans to be around then. So who is without excuse? Yom: The problem I have with that interpretation is that there IS hebrew grammatical rules. They were expounded upon in my sources. The lack of an evening/morning on the seventh day does not mean we can disregard the presence of an evening/morning on the six days of creation. You now make a straw man of my arguments by appealing to figurative passages to try to prove your point. I did state CONTEXTUAL. I also did state clearly that genesis is not poetry, but prose. If you would like to hear more information on that. I would be glad to supply it. In a PM maybe? If there was a literal Adam, then all humans came from him. Genetic studies, however, show that mitochondrial eve was from a group of several individuals several thousand years before Adam. With that I will leave it to you.
The Christian God is incompatible with evolution

"I would love to contend with you about the evidences for evolution and the Big Bang. They are, however, not part of this discussion. This is because the truth or falsity of evolution has no bearing on the resolution. " This statement would be true, however, as I stated in the previous round "The two "books" of Gods self-revelation "His Word and His World" aren't ultimately contradictory. " The truth or falsity of the appearance of the age of the earth/universe is central to this debate. Next my opponent had a quote that said, "there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1"11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that [. .. ] creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience. " That is very interesting because in the last round I listed 7 scholars who would disagree. "Now we can look at the context of Genesis. In all of the six days, they are marked with "evening and morning. .. " Can one infer from this that it is poetry? I doubt so. " Actually that provides evidence for my opinion. As I mentioned earlier the repetition of "evening and morning" and the echo/re-echo of "God said/there was" are nothing like historical documentation. "Now we will deal with the assertion that YECs believe that God deceptively made the Earth look old. One simple fact. It does NOT look old. It is assumed to be old. Now, even if it were old, that does not make it compatible with the Christian God. " I have given good reason to believe that the earth does look and is old. You have given no reason to believe that the earth being old and the Christian God are incompatible other than just stating the bare assertion. In conclusion I have shown that Gods Word and the world he created are not contradictory. I have given good reason to believe that age of the earth and universe are most likely closer to the estimated time given by the old earth view rather than the young earth. I'd have been happy to find solid support for a young universe (I'm still open to persuasion), but I regularly found it to be shaky at best. The more I studied the Scriptures and the relevant, wide-ranging scientific data, the more reasonably I could conclude that (a) the universe is billions of years old and (b) Scripture accords nicely with this evidence.
The Christian God is incompatible with evolution

Yes. You can respond by then. I make the opening, after that is arguments. I thank Stubs for accepting this debate. Without further ado, I will begin. Evolution is theologically incompatible with the teachings of the Christ, who is the Christian God. Evolution clearly states that humans have only been around for a short period of time compared to entirety of time that life has been on Earth. Jesus states in Mark 10:6, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Here He was referring to Adam and Eve, who He claims was around from the beginning, not from near the end. In Luke 11:50-51, He states, "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." So there were prophets from the foundation of the world. Were there any monkey prophets? I think not. In Romans 1:20, Paul writes, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" How could humans perceive the "invisible things" of Christ if they were not at the creation of the world? Therefore, I have to conclude, based on this, that evolution and the Christian God is incompatible. Now you may begin rebutting. All information taken from [1]. All Bible quotations from KJV.
The

I negate. Resolved: The is an important word. Definitions: The-denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge. "The" is not an important word. "The" does not help you out of situations. It will not protect you. 1. "You, is, because, thanks, we" show more power than just "the." It shows unity rather than being alone. 2. You cannot achieve "the" without a verb. How does it receive the title "the?" By doing something, using a verb. Than
Woodshop should be considered an art in High School

Before I get to my conclusion, I just want to correct my opponent on what he said previously. The concept of wood shop class is different from the concept of art class. In wood shop class, you are there to make something useful and beneficial. In art class, you are primarily there to create something beautiful and for appearance only. You can make something useful in art, but you are in art class purposely to create something for appearance usually. In wood shop, once you make the product, you can be artsy with it, by coloring it, etc. However, you are primarily there to create something useful than for beauty and emotional power. You can make your product in wood shop beautiful, but that is not the point of the class. The point is to make something that is beneficial. In a regular arts and crafts class, you are making something only for appearance. Examples would be macaroni art and watercolor paintings. In wood shop, you use more than just your hands, you use machines, such as a belt/disc sander and a miter saw. These tools are not included in art class. Arts and craft classes are not taken as seriously when compared to wood shop classes because in wood shop, you use complex machines and also use computer-aid design to draw your model. To answer your question, I did make a hammer in wood shop and a box. Not to mention, you don't use just wood, but also materials like plastic and metal. A wall shelf does make life easier. Instead of putting books randomly on the floor, you can organize them on a shelf. Your cutting board was beautiful simply because you made it that way. It wasn't necessary, but you wanted to. Your sources are unreliable because pottery isn't made in wood shop. Clay is not part of wood shop class at all. You use plastic for more products than just a pen. My conclusion is that the products you make in wood shop can become art if you wanted it to be. Not to mention, what you may think is art may not be the same with the next person. Art is not part of the original concept of wood shop as mentioned above. In wood shop, you use both hardware and software. When making products in wood shop, you use mathematical techniques to figure the measurements of the product, not in art. You generally use a computer-aid design program before you even build. What you make out of wood shop class is primarily to be used in everyday life, not art. Making it art is simply a choice, not a requirement of the class. Not to mention, another term for woos shop class is Tech Ed because again, you use both hardware and software. I enjoyed this debate. I wished my opponent can spell my username right, (K-Lew, not K-Kew). My sources can be found here: http://fabworks.eng.uci.edu...
Woodshop should be considered an art in High School

First of all, art class is different than woodshop class. In art class, you create products that are only for their beauty. In woodshop, you can make something that is not only beautiful, but can be useful in your life. For example, I can make a wooden hammer and use it because it beneficial when I have to remove, or put in a nail. In art class, you make something, but you primarily don't use the product. Products made in woodshop are suppose to be beneficial and used in daily life. Stuff in arts and crafts are only for appearance, nothing more. In woodshop, you do design and build materials. I just gave you an example with the wooden hammer. In woodshop, you use a computer-aid design program to design your product. Once finished, you build the product, so there are two parts to woodshop. Woodshop should be considered an engineering/technology class because you are designing and building a product for use, which is what you do in engineering. Technology not only means "advancement in computer technology", but it means advancement in society in general. The products created in woodshop advance society because they are beneficial and can make life easier. The products made in art are only for show and emotion. The concept of woodshop is not based upon this. It is based upon creating materials for everyday life. Your sources are unreliable because they are only talking about art, not woodshop. Woodshop does not require making clay pots. In woodshop, you use hard materials such as wood, plastic, or metal. Woodshop is practical use. The government doesn't take woodshop seriously and takes it as arts and crafts instead, which is a mistake, with my reasoning above. Making products such as pens, and wall shelves are way more of engineering/technology than crafts because again, they are extremely beneficial in society. Once, again your sources are unreliable.