BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no proof for the Christian God.

I'm finding it very hard to have a valued discussion with a person who is only interested in blind faith and insulting others. I will reiterate. If a person wanted to better themselves they would listen to everyones opinion, yours and mine. That is a fair thing to say. How is it narcissist (excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance.) to suggest that someone values everyones opinions including my own. To continue, you have managed to derail this entire debate by switching it how do I know Truth from Fiction rationally. I will add however, there is no way for me to tell truth from fiction and neither for you. You know, the fact that you seem to think you can know truth from fiction and atheists can't is very narcissistic. I'll throw my two cents in about the argument in the comments section. The BOP is on you my friend. In legal battles the BOP is on the procesecution to prove the defendants guilt. I titled this debate "There is no proof for the Christian God". I am positioned pro which means I'm not saying "There is prove against god" I am saying "There is no proof for god" and because I said no proof theirs nothing to prove in that statement. So it is your job to prove me wrong. I made a statement I'm not guilty and it is your job to prove me guilty, get it?I really really don't like discussing this part of evolution because it takes people like you so long to realize that observation isn't the only form of evidence. In fact, it's very weak. Once one person has visualized something they can only express it through recreations and they may be lying. And still no understanding of radiometric dating. No isotopes are lost so the original amount of isotopes is father plus daughter. How to find how long a collection of isotopes have been decaying: daughters(rate of decay(fathers+daughters)/(fathers+daughters). I find it hard to believe that a "credentialed scientist" doesn't know how the basics of radiometric dating unless of course they work at the Creation Museum.
There is no proof for the Christian God.

Somehow, I really don't know how, you managed to misunderstand everything I said. I'm not saying people should listen to me to better themselves, I said they should listen to others. Which is me, you, and everyone else that isn't the person I'm referring to. I'm saying that they should value your opinion as much as they should mine but they don't have to agree with both. As far as senses. We know they are right because we can compare them with others who share their experiences and find correlations in what was sensed. Fine here's a better website: http://ocw.mit.edu...As far as bacteria-to-cat transitions. That doesn't just happen. The bacteria were found to have minor changes, the transition from single to multicelled organisms is one that takes millions even billions of years. Picking two specific species who you know well are completely different and stating one species doesn't birth another isn't proof against evolution. If you think it is, take a high school biology course.A runner is far different than the natural decay of radioactive materials. The question you should have asked in comparison is "If there is a 100m long track and a runner runs at a constant speed and finishes the track in 20 secs, and the runner is already 20m down the track, how long has he been running?" (4secs) Correlating science to prove: You take the amount of radioactive material in a rock, measure it, measure how much has decayed, find the half-life of the material and find out how long, using cross-multiplication, it has being decaying.My own doubt? If you and other Christians got your noses out of your bibles in school you would have learned the history and Christianity, the bible was a post-Jesus creation and Christianity has ever since been corrupted, twisted, and changed.Before you accept a debate try using facts instead of your opinions. And, if your gonna try to disprove science with "science", read up the "science" your using.
There is no proof for the Christian God.

Notice how delusion and narcissistic this fool is. He claims to speak for the majority of millions of people. That is cute, but given that he may know 100 people well, the claims is so silly, it demonstrates delusion. Then he has the gaul to say that if you want to better yourself and others, you should care what he has to say. If this is not narcissism, I do not know what is. Putting aside this dude's mental illness, he has given us no reason why should care what he says. In fact, his mental illness is reason why we should not. He then claims to know truth from fiction, but then admits that his claim to knowledge is premised on his senses being right when he has no idea if they are right. In other words, while trying to make himself look wise, he has admitted that he is does not know if he knows anything, which is to say he is utterly ignorant. Indeed, ironically, he claims to know truth via the scientific method? Is it true that one can know truth via the scientific method? No, for such a truth claim is not subject to testing by the scientific method. In other words, his epistemology is self-refuting. He then offers three "proofs" that God does not exist. But they are not proof at all. Indeed, God could exist and the earth be very old. Thus, this fool has failed to prove his case evne looking at it in the most popular light. But let us look at these claims in detail. Evolution disproves creation. Assuming evolution is true, that would be a true claim. But he has not demonstrated that goo-to-the-zoo evolution is true. He cites some silly website, which he cannot tell us is true, that ays bacteria changes. But into what? Did someone observe bacteria changing into a cat? Nope. So, he has no proved this silly claim. He then implies that if God created perfect creatures, they would not need to change over time. But why not? He does not tell us. It is always funny to me to see fools deny God exists and then explain to me how He would act in perfect detail. Did I not say delusioal. He then says that the "true" age of the earth proves God does not exit, but he does not tell us how. He states that the earth is 4.543B years old, but he does not prove this. He refers to radiometric dating, but seems utterly unaware of how it works and why such a conclusion is based on assumptions, not science, and that if I change the assumptions I can come up with a radically different figure. In fact, I challenge this fool to state what insitutition of higher learning provided him his credentials in chemistry and/or geology? His post shows he has no such education, but we will give him the benefit of the doubt. He can then tell us how, if he knows a runner's present speed and his present location only, he can tell me how long the runner has been running. This is a simple math problem that most evolutions cannot comprehend and yet they all expect me to take their claims as to what science reveals seriously. This fool then states that his doubt "combats" God. How deluded and narcissistic is this fool? Can we please have a rule that only intelligent atheists post here?
There is no proof for the Christian God.

On a topic like this I speak for most on my side as you do for yours. To add, people who care about advancing the human species should care what I have to say. In fact, anyone who wants to better themselves and others would care about what everyone has to say. These people see the benefit to exposing themselves to other ideas that challenge theirs. I know truth from fiction because the scientific method and those who practice it are tried and true. You may ask how I know they are true. My senses. How do I know they are right? I don't, neither do you, and neither does anyone else. It is one flaw of humans. My orange might be different than yours. As long as our oranges don't change my orange is my true orange and your orange is your true orange. We are talking about the same thing but we just see different colors. However, when it comes to existence and proof you can see those as any color you want but you deny them. There my be a fruit on the table and we both say it is orange, our oranges might be different but the fruit is still there. Denying the fruit is there isn't the same as seeing a different color under the same name.Proofs against god:Evolution: Evolution destroys creationism. Proof for evolution you ask? 1: Evolution observed in a lab in bacteria. (http://io9.gizmodo.com...). If god created perfect creatures why do they change over time. Is he changing them to be better? Then he didn't make perfect creatures.The true age of the Earth: The earth is prove to be 4.543 billion years old. This isn't very accurate as the Earth's surface is constantly being recycled. This article continues to explain how radiometric dating is accurate enough to determine the age of the Earth. This article goes more in depth (http://www.universetoday.com...).Creation of the Bible: Yes, the bible and its history causes many to doubt to truth of Christianity. Proof against god was probably a bit strong for this one but it still combats god. If Jesus ever existed (that's a whole other debate), then he was born around 0. Scriptures specific for certain communities were created shortly after they were converted but the bible used today wasn't widely used and believed until centuries after his death. To continue, this new religious authority changes Jesus's message. The future church was filled with corruption. The bible doesn't represent Jesus.
There is no proof for the Christian God.

I have no doubt that you find truth to be valueless. And I can assure you that given the content of your posts, listening to you would retard intellectual growth, especially now that you gave admitted to knowing nothing. And yes, when an ignorant fool thinks people should listen to them to improve their lives, they are showing they are both deluded and narcissistic. This is confirmed by admitting you that you know nothing but then in the next phrase pretend to know that I share your ignorance. Putting aside this contradiction in so few words, I assure you that your being blind does not in any way, shape or form mean all men are blind. And your two cents confirms your ignorance. Again, he who makes the claim has the burden of proof. You claimed that there is no proof for the Christian God. This, the burden of proof is on you. And you have yet to offer any proof of this claim despite this being our four go-round. And by being "pro" you are saying that you can prove this claim. So far, nothing. Perhaps you buy the old ignorant atheist canard that one cannot prove a negative. And yet I can prove bachelor's are not married, the U.S. Senate does not have 101 members, that kings are not female and that there is no T-Rex in my SUV as I write this. Thus, one can prove a negative and must prove it when they assert the claim. You have utterly failed. Indeed, you have merely demonstrated mental illness, gross ignorance and bad logic. With your nonsense about observation, you have confirmed you know nothing of science, for the scientific method is nothing but observation, testability and repeatability. You have admitted that evolution has not been observed, making it not scientific. Rather, it is atheist mysticism believed only by children at war with reality. And I did not say isotopes are lost, I said that the the mother product decays into the daughter product at a given present rate and you have no idea how long this process has been going on because you do not know the ratio of mother to daughter isotopes at time zero. Given your ignorance of science, and everything else by your own admission, it does not surprise me that you do not understand this whole issue. And btw, when an isotope decays, the mother isotope goes away, becoming the daughter isotope. Thus, at one half life of U238, there is half of the amount of U238 and that much more of U236. Basic chemistry. Please get educated beyond some biased YouTube channel before you discuss this topic in the future. As your dropped your argument against the Bible, I will assume this is simple another topic of which you are utterly ignorant. Now, ignorant man, anything else?
Obama's Stimulous plan is going to be a complete failure

The text of Obama's plan is available on the internet, and slandering Obama's economic knowledge won't change the brilliance of the plan. "People won't invest in the banks because all they here is, "will the gov't nationalize the banks or wont they"? " I have shown how the Obama administration has explicitly expressed a desire to avoid nationalization, and how temporary nationalization might be a good thing, even if Obama does it. REBUTTALS: "This statement is based solely and entirely on whether or not his plan works. There is no guarantee that this will happen. The past history suggests that is more likely to increase. You cant increase spending by 1.3 trillion in one year and then add subsequent spending increases over the next three years as Obama is going to do and then in the very same breath say you are cutting the deficit in half. This is a contradiction in terms. I don't know how he can stand there with a strait face and say it. What's even funnier is you believe it." In my earlier argument, I cited the link that explained in general Obama's plan to reduce debts. Please rebut that link directly. Moreover, I have argued that a higher-debt-to-GDP ratio can be controllable in the future with progressive tax rates and reductions in govt spending. Next, a fiscal debt is not as bad as you think. We've had a huge debt for many years now, and Obama's plan only means a small percentage increase in our ALREADY EXISTING debt. Pro has failed to show why Obama's debt increase means bad things for the economy. Remember, whatever disadvantages Pro lists, WILL HAPPEN whether or not Obama passes the plan. Lastly, extend my argument about why the alternative of doing nothing is much worse and untenable. "Short falls in Social Security and Medicaid. This is money that has been promised years into the future that is completely unfunded and not part of the FY budgets: 18 trillion" Any source for this number? Regarding inflation: we're in the middle of a recession. A inflation is good.
Obama's Stimulous plan is going to be a complete failure

Rebuttals: DEFICIT First, I will modify Pro's deficit estimates in the face of new information. Obama's government is making plans to reduce the deficit by 2/3 (to $533 billion) before the end of Obama's term as president. "This reduction will come in large part through Iraq troop withdrawals and higher taxes on the wealthy." [1] Moreover, even if Obama's plan fails and the government achieves a high deficit-to-GDP ratio, the government can then remedy it by reducing government spending and implementing a progressive tax system. [2] and [3] Finally, whatever deficit we have to face, the current spending is necessary, because the alternative of sitting idly is far worse (which I will show later). MIXED ECONOMY Sure, India still has many problems, but look at the progress it has made! Remarkable. An average of 7.5% growth since the 2000s and surges in foreign capital investment. Since India's mixed system is doing a great job in improving the country, my opponent's assertions that a mixed econ will lead to an American downfall are unsubstantiated. GUN CONTROL The link you cited says nothing about how the "ammo records" will make "it too expensive" to own a gun. In fact, the ammo records are actually beneficial to society, as they allow police to easily track down who purchased the ammo for a given crime. THE RESULT OF INACTION I will quote Obama: "The situation we face could not be more serious. We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression. Economists from across the spectrum have warned that if we don't act immediately, MILLIONS MORE JOBS will be LOST, and NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATES will approach DOUBLE DIGITS. More people will lose their homes and their health care. And our nation will sink into a crisis that, at some point, we may be unable to reverse." [4] Another article with the same opinion can be found at: "No one is going to get exactly what they want, but getting nothing is a far, far worse outcome. It would be an act of extreme national stupidity not to enact a big stimulus bill at this point." [5] SOURCES: [1] "Obama plan would cut deficit by two-thirds in first term": http://www.iht.com... [2] http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu... [3] http://www.prospect.org... [4] http://www.realclearpolitics.com... [5]http://www.boston.com...
Obama's Stimulous plan is going to be a complete failure

Pro commits the fallacy of slippery slope when he says Obama's plan inevitably leads to socialism/communism. He falsely asserts that Obama's plan means "endless regulation", ever-increasing taxes, endless welfare-state expansion, and nationalization of all banks. He asserts, without proof, that at a later stage, the administration "nationalize all businesses", impose "total gov control", and render it difficult to own guns. I demand evidence for his far-fetched claims. Pro seems to view everything in black and white. Either we're wholly capitalistic or fully socialistic, he says. But there exist mixed-economies too (India being a thriving example), where capitalism and socialism co-exist. America is a mixed-economy even now. This makes Pro's arguments about the inefficacy of total communism/socialism irrelevant. America is not, and gives no indication that it will be, a socialist country. Energy is one area where Obama's plan will succeed splendidly. The plan triples current government spending to totalling 38 billion dollars in government spending and 20$ billion in tax incentives over the next 10 years. These loans, loan guarantees and tax credits for businesses will allow them to establish plants, conduct research and commercialize new existing technologies. The spurt in clean energy development over the next 10 years will be a crucial step on starting to wean ourselves from foreign environmentally harmful fossil fuels. The resolution is negated.
Obama's Stimulous plan is going to be a complete failure

"Simple math and economics 101" is all that needs to be said in my opening statement to make my case. Printing worthless money will only create inflation and make the problem worse. I have history on my side. History has proven time and time again that all of his ideas will fail and fail miserably in a capitalist economy. It would be a perfect plan if one was going to create a socialist/communist society. Nationalize all banks as is being suggested and most likely will be done. Expand the welfare state to get as many people as possible reliant on govt, which is being done. And tax those who are not reliant on govt until they are, by increasing gov't spending so much that it can never equal the revenue intake by those who pay taxes, which is being done. Crush private business with endless regulation and even more taxes on them also, which is being done. After the country goes into a depression which it will, Nationalize all businesses and everyone works for the gov't and gov't will decide who gets what and how much and what will or will not be produced. And last but not least total govt control of health care system, which will more likely than not be achieved under this administration as they have already passed similar legislation with regard to the child population. Only one last step to go to get everyone on the govt dole with regard to health care. And then take the guns away by proxy, Make it to expensive to own one. There is already legislation for this plan in the works. To all who voted for change, boy oh boy are you going to get it. Say good by to capitalism forever. Capitalism can not function if the gov't is run by socialist/communists and promotes socialist/communist ideas for the economy. This is a fact, socialism/communism and capitalism can not exist together. Capitalism is based on taking risk with ones own money to earn more money and employ more people to earn even more money. Socialism makes everyone equal no matter how hard you work or how little you work. Unless of course you are the one deciding for everyone else what is best for them at the upper echelons of govt where it's do as I say not as I do. I will attack and destroy any comers on this issue, you had better know economics well, but then again if you did you would know this plan is going to be a miserable failure.
Private school is better/safer than public school

I believe that children from public schools are being pushed harder to their limits. Unlike kids from private schools, who rely too much on others when it comes to education. There are also evidences that those who come from public schools score higher in tests, like SATs. Your child will be exposed to more ideas and cultural backgrounds since more than half of the population attend Public Schools. Some researches state that Private schools have better curriculums. But then again, today the government monitors public schools closely so that they can provide an even more better way of teaching children. For those who are also experiencing financial problems, this may be the best way of giving your child a better future, which is by sending them to a public school. PRIVATE SCHOOL students get a very limited glimpse of society because they are surrounded by kids who also have rich parents and similar political views. In public school, all different social and economic groups come together and learn to coexist with each other. Students learn to work with and love people who come from very different backgrounds than themselves. When a public school student is released out into the real world, he has the social skills to interact with any group or class of people. Private school students have only been around upper class students similar to themselves and have no connection with lower class. They grow up looking down on less wealthy people because they were never able to interact with them and realize how similar all social groups are to each other. Public Schools are Better Public schools are better because all of them are unisex. Which means they have both genders. Some private schools are just 1 gender. Which means no real leads to a relationship and then marriage when you are older. Public schools also cost much less than what private schools do. Public schools also have less expensive attire. Plus private schools have are more formal, whereas public schools you aren't all uncomfortable in formal outfits. Lastly research is shown that teachers in public schools have a better education, which means a better education for kids. Report Post