BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian God Can be Definitively Proven to Exist (Video Debate)

I most definitely do NOT want my opponent to simply forfeit this debate; I was enjoying it far too much for that. Therefore, we will be deeming this round a tie until he returns from his laudable service work. We'll use the same videos in the next debate, but I ask the viewers of this particular debate to not vote. Thank you for your time everyone. Also, I greatly appreciate my opponent's effort and intellect during this debate. Hopefully the next one will go more smoothly. Remember, no voting.
The Christian God Can be Definitively Proven to Exist (Video Debate)

I leave in three hours. So, I leave my opponent with two options: 1. He can have this debate. (i. e. I forfeit) or 2. We can call this debate a tie and restart another one identical to this one to continue when I get back. Either way. .. I'm off to wash dishes, clean toilets, and keep 2.5-foot-tall munchkins in line. Thank you and good night.
The Christian God Can be Definitively Proven to Exist (Video Debate)

http://www.youtube.com... The video is just under 7 minutes long, but part of that was due to my acknowledgement of my opponent and a closing. My future videos will be more concise. Sources: The Holy Bible, KJV - 2 Thessalonians 1:6 "Seeing it is a righteous [also, "just"] thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you" - Exodus 34:6 "And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth..." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the Problem of Evil: http://plato.stanford.edu... Fordham University definition of miracles by David Hume: http://www.fordham.edu...
The Christian God Can be Definitively Proven to Exist (Video Debate)

After a rather long hiatus, I'd like to become an active member of Debate.org once again. For my first debate, the question will be: "can the Christian God be proven to exist?" Basically, the first round will be merely for acceptance. The second and fourth rounds will consist of arguments with NO rebuttals whatsoever. The third and fifth rounds will consist only of rebuttals or rebuttals of rebuttals, with NO new arguments. Each argument/rebuttal MUST be in the form of a video which will be uploaded to YouTube and linked to this site through the debate box. Either side may include comments or the like along with the video, but such comments absolutely cannot contain arguments. They may only contain sources, which will be one of the factors of determination for the voters as to who won this debate. I am looking for serious contenders only. People who lack a true conviction to debate this are not welcome. I shall be taking the "against" position- that is, that I believe it can NOT be proven that the Christian God exists. In order to win this debate, PRO must provide conclusive proof (such that CON is not capable of refuting it) that the Christian God exists and said proof must fit to the approval of the voters. Therefore the burden of proof lies with PRO. For CON to win this debate, every argument provided by PRO must be countered successfully and to the approval of the voters, while CON's arguments must also be irrefutable by PRO to the approval of the voters. Simply put, if CON can provide a proper counter to every argument and counter-argument provided by PRO, CON will be the victor. If the opposite occurs, PRO will be the victor. The videos must be no longer than 6 minutes each (some wiggle room will be allowed e.g. 6 minutes, 15 seconds). There will be no arguing of simple semantics. The Christian God will be defined as the God of the Holy Bible of Christianity. I look forward to a challenging and engaging debate. If there are any aspects which need to be tweaked, feel free to bring them to my attention.
Insult War : Lets Insult eachother

Jokes on YOU She ya momma 2 That's why ya pops ran AWAY Turns out he was GAY Forgot what to WEAR I SWEAR he said he went out for CEREAL Butts in jail, droppin leather IMPERIAL SOAP, ya life's a SOAP, DRAMA YA LOOK LIKE A LAMA I hit hard like BRAHMA BULL, ya smell like FARMER LENNY, DAT U? THOUGHT YOU WERE DEAD? just go back to BED She still in the SHED? PAEDO Why you rockin SPEEDO? Are you on SPEED-THO? OH NO YOU GONNA DIE, PLEASE DO NOT CRY I SING GOOD LULLABY Rock a bi baby, cos you a TRANNY OLD GRANNY FANNY, ALA BUM, YOU A BUM HOMELESS TRAMP I GIVE U $2 STAMP U CHEAP EVERYDAY U WEEP il be driving JEEP NOW U A CREEP Creepy like a STALKER NO. 1 TRASHTALKER KEEP UP, YOU FAT PORKER Fat like our momma Big mommas HOUSE YOU WILL NEVER HAVE SPOUSE You live ALONE ME AL CAPONE MAFIA, I AM THE G MAKE YOU GO PEE PEE YOU SISSY, JOKER ME REAL GOOD AT THE POKER I GO ON, AND ON YES I HAVE ALREADY WON
Democracy is hampering india's progres? yes/no

Oh, damn you.......I believe that democracy does not hamper the growth of India, mainly because it is the only feasible option available for our nation. You see, ours is a country approximately two billion strong, and as a result it is impossible to adopt any other form of governance. Secondly, my opponent's argument of conducting elections after every month is impractical, as it will result in chaos and pandemoneum. Just visualize a situation where you find yourself being forced to drag yourself up to a polling booth after every month, and after that, being forced to wait in long queues. This will certainly have catastrophic consequences on the nation's stability, its economy, as well as the welfare of the people. Thirdly, even if I were to by that daft, stupid, idiotic and fuc*ed up argument by my opponent, it still would be an instance of democracy. Keeping in mind the above facts and my opponent's follies I proclaim myself to be the winner. Vote for me!!!!( Take into consideration his disasterous english!!!!!)
Democracy is hampering india's progres? yes/no

Yes democracy is hampering the progress of india, as first of all democracy means the participation of population (citizens) for electing a suitable representative. We have vast majority of population is still uneducated, below poverty line, etc who are not capable of deciding whom to elect. democracy has hampered India's growth because its all a matter of electing a suitable candidate but all over here works on majority that should not be the case you can elect a person of your choice that's alright but you know what I personally feel that each party should be given a chance say if one has got 300 votes then that party will govern for 30 days n so on. Then accordingly there will be competition n who is gonna get benefited are the citizens of India. So lets once try this out gradually we will come to know that who is the best n next time of-course the best one will obviously get more votes!
DDO Olympics: Science

I accept. I thank 2-D for instigating what almost certainly is going to be an interesting debate; particularly as he has a formidable record. I will be arguing that it is unlikely that intelligent life is common in the Universe. Astronomer Richard Pogge, of Ohio State University, provides a criterion for what is 'intelligent.' According to Pogge, a living being is intelligent if it: Has self awareness It uses tools to manipulate its environment It uses language to communicate with other intelligent beings. [1] Pogge's criterion shall be satisfactory enough for the purposes of this debate. I look forward to an interesting debate![1] http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu...
Free college education

Student loans are a problem is society. They leave people in debt and it is almost impossible to afford college without loans and not be struggling to pay it off. Student loan rates have only been increasing and putting more people into debt. Take this fact for example from ProCon.org: "Student loan debt often forces college graduates to live with their parents and delay marriage, financial independence, and other adult milestones. According to a 2012 Federal Reserve Study, 30-year-olds who have never taken out a student loan are now more likely to own homes than those who have taken out loans. Auto loans are also trending down at faster rates for those with student debt history than for those without. [35] In 2013, student loan borrowers delayed retirement saving (41%), car purchases (40%), home purchases (29%), and marriage (15%). [38] Less than 50% of women and 30% of men had passed the "transition to adulthood" milestones by age 30 (finishing school, moving out of their parents' homes, being financially independent, marrying, and having children); in 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men had completed these milestones by age 30. [39" Student loans hold people back. And free college is possible. It is very likely in the near future we can have free college. "The Atlantic.com published an article in Jan 2014 that claimed the federal government would only have to spend "a mere $62.6 billion dollars" to make tuition at public colleges free for undergraduates in 2012." Sources used: http://college-education.procon.org... http://www.collegerank.net...
request for creationits

>>It is quite clear in survey data that about 40% of Americans are creationist, 20% are non-theistic evolutionists, and about 30% are theistic evolutionists [1]. So there are Also, about 42% of protestants, 58% of mainline protestants, and 58% of catholics believe in the theory of evolution [2].<> Statistics like that are meaningless. We do not determine truth by what a majority thinks. Many scientists deny man evolved from apes. That false idea is rejected by genetics. >>The vast majority of scientists are evolutionist. According to surveys of scientific opinion 98% of scientists are evolutionist and 2% are creationist according to one Pew Research poll in 2014. [3]<>If you think that genetics refutes evolution then present the evidence.<>However they remain bacteria. That is not an example of evolution. For all you know they have always had that ability. They didn't use it until nylon was invented. >>All I was trying to point out that we have seen complex things evolve and this refutes the creationist idea of irreducible complexity or that complexity proves creationism.<> No you don't. The fossil record has no intermediate fossils. >>There are many for land animal, mammal, bird, whale, horse, and human evolution for example. There are australopithecines, homo habilis, homo erectus, and homo neanderthal as examples of human evolution. We have archeaopteryx as an example of bird evolution. Tiktaalik is an example of a transitional between fish and amphibians. There are many more examples. Here are a couple places to learn more about them [4][5].<> Even if the evolution guess of what the first life form was is right, that single cell with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones, could never produce an offspring with bones. That is genetically impossible. >>You have presented no evidence that bones are impossible to evolve.<>That is abiogenesis not Darwin's Theory of Evolution.<< It was originally but it became an embarrassment for evolution because they could not explain how life began. Years ago they taught that life started in some primordial ooze. That is what I was taught in high school. It was started by a Russian scientists, but I can't remember his name. If you are interested google "primordial ooze." I don't understand what has happened, This post contains your thoughts and my responses but It seems that I have not responded. Maybe this will clear the problem up. If not I may have to abandon this discussion and catch you later.
request for creationits

>> Not many evolutionists believe that. It is quite clear in survey data that about 40% of Americans are creationist, 20% are non-theistic evolutionists, and about 30% are theistic evolutionists [1]. So there are Also, about 42% of protestants, 58% of mainline protestants, and 58% of catholics believe in the theory of evolution [2]. >> Many scientists deny man evolved from apes. That false idea is rejected by genetics. The vast majority of scientists are evolutionist. According to surveys of scientific opinion 98% of scientists are evolutionist and 2% are creationist according to one Pew Research poll in 2014. [3] If you think that genetics refutes evolution then present the evidence. >>However they remain bacteria. That is not an example of evolution. For all you know they have always had that ability. They didn't use it until nylon was invented. All I was trying to point out that we have seen complex things evolve and this refutes the creationist idea of irreducible complexity or that complexity proves creationism. >> No you don't. The fossil record has no intermediate fossils. There are many for land animal, mammal, bird, whale, horse, and human evolution for example. There are australopithecines, homo habilis, homo erectus, and homo neanderthal as examples of human evolution. We have archeaopteryx as an example of bird evolution. Tiktaalik is an example of a transitional between fish and amphibians. There are many more examples. Here are a couple places to learn more about them [4][5]. >> Even if the evolution guess of what the first life form was is right, that single cell with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones, could never produce an offspring with bones. That is genetically impossible. You have presented no evidence that bones are impossible to evolve. >> It is scientifically impossible for dead elements to produce life. That is abiogenesis not Darwin's Theory of Evolution. [1] http://www.gallup.com... [2] http://www.pewforum.org... [3] http://www.pewresearch.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.transitionalfossils.com...
request for creationits

>>You can believe anything you want about how the universe was created and in fact a lot of evolutionists who are not creationists believe that God made the universe and the first life.<< Not many evolutionists believe that. However, the fact that humans evolved from lower life-forms is undeniable.<< Many scientists deny man evolved from apes. That false idea is rejected by genetics. >> We have examples of complex abilities evolving like bacteria evolving the ability to digest nylon, and bacteria resistance.<< However they remain bacteria. That is not an example of evolution. For all you know they have always had that ability. They didn't use it until nylon was invented. >>We have a fossil record showing the evolution of humans from ape in the lower layers to more and more human-like.<< No you don't. The fossil record has no intermediate fossils. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be intermediate and to date you have none. Even if the evolution guess of what the first life form was is right, that single cell with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones, could never produce an offspring with bones. That is genetically impossible. It is scientifically impossible for dead elements to produce life.
The obese should not be entitled to disability benefits.

Indeed, I fully accept the facts my opponent cited and would concede that my opening arguments could be viewed as a (well-intentioned) elaboration of those facts. However, I should like to make it abundantly clear that the only reason I coloured the truth with some flowery language was to illustrate the dangers of allowing the obese to take advantage of our generous nature as a society. You see, in most developed countries the judicial branch of the government interprets the acts of the legislative branch in legal cases and thus sets precedents. The case I referred to in the opening round where an obese person was classified as disabled for the purposes of his accommodation in his place of work sets a dangerous precedent insomuch as if a person is classified as disabled as an employee then why should he not be entitled to a blue badge car parking permit or any other of the munificent benefits bestowed upon the handicapped? It is the thin end of the wedge. If someone is classified as disabled at work then, having been given an inch it is only a matter of time before the obese take a mile and try and cash in on all the benefits currently accorded to the genuinely disabled. Thank you.
The obese should not be entitled to disability benefits.

If you saw a physically handicapped person begging for food on the streets you'd help them out with a few quid (bucks) wouldn't you? You might also think it is disgraceful that disabled people are reduced to begging on the streets of a modern civilized country and decide to give money to a charity that helps handicapped people. You might even lobby the government to allocate disabled people more financial support from the public purse. And I would admire you if you did try and assist disabled people who, through no fault of their own, are often unable to earn enough money to meet their needs - any decent person would feel sorry for them - the handicapped are less fortunate than ourselves and we have a moral obligation to extend a helping hand to them. That's why we don't mind the fact that disabled people have free priority parking spaces located right outside venues in which to park their brand-new, taxpayer-funded Motorbility cars while we not only have to pay for our own cars and also to park them, but, additionally, have to walk further to get to where we are going. Neither do we mind giving up our seats on public transport to handicapped people, nor do we care that they get discounts at shows and at sporting events, and nor are we concerned that they are allowed to push in at the front of queues (jump the lines of people waiting) for rides at fun fairs (amusement parks). All well and good, until now that is, because now the obese have stuck their porky snouts in the handicapped people's trough by deciding that going to work to earn a living is too much effort for them and that they'd rather sit at home guzzling junk food at our expense by claiming benefits that used to be allocated only to genuinely disabled people. Sadly, we in Europe have got no choice but to subsidize the obese now that they have successfully lobbied for grossly overweight people to be classified as disabled. That's right, the European Court of Justice has ruled that people who are clinically greedy and chronically idle (big, fat, lazy gluttons to you and me) should henceforth not be required to pay for their own luxury homes, prestige cars, sumptuous banquets, decadent consumer items and lavish entertainment, and that European taxpayers should pick up their bills (pay their invoices) instead. [1] But wait, that's not all, from now on the obese will also be entitled to VIP car parking privileges at shopping centres (malls) and push in front of you at the fun fair. So, should the United States, where the percentage of the population which is overweight is sizable (no pun intended) follow the European example? No, America is the land of free and home of the brave, not the land the freeloader and home of the broke, as it would be if slobbering big fat piles of sweating blubber were allowed to sponge of the state as they now are in Europe. The obese are not disabled and they should not be entitled to disability benefits. Thank you. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
war

Lol, I'm almost inclined to agree with you. But I'd rather try to avoid a full scale nuclear holocaust fest. I think it'd be better to point at everyone, And say don't try anything. At least that way there's a good chance of ending extra suffering. You know, When we go to war with a place like Syria or Afghanistan, The thing we are fighting for is this - so that those stupid irresponsible psychos can keep having offspring in the middle of hell! That's about it. If those dumb asses don't like their situation, As all they have to do, Is stop having offspring, And whoever is attacking them will stop. And a lot faster than we could ever stop them too. Because if they stop having offspring, Their opponents problem will be solved. SO, That is essentially what all these wars we keep getting into are about - so that dumb asses who shouldn't be having kids, Can keep having kids in the middle of hell zone. I say if they're rotten enough to have kids in the middle of hell, Then screw em, Because there's no hope for those psychos anyways!
war

I've had it with this war bs. This country has been at war almost continuously since 1776. There's been only 21 years of peace. Google "how long has US been at war" I say take every single troop out of everywhere forever, And point nukes at everyone, And say to everyone : touch us and you're dead period. Getting us out of Syria is one of the few good things Trump is up to. And these loony generals and advisors are mad. LOL! They must want the USA to be at war constantly forever, And won't be happy any other way.
A pregnant mother 21 shot and killed - yeah right- yet again another reason why god cannot exist

Why can't God exist? "Don't use the free will argument" okay but, why not? Does it bother you that free will is a good reason? You said that religion was made up to explain what could not be explained. Maybe that's true...actually it really was made to explain the unexplainable and that's the thing. It ACTUALLY DOES explain the unexplainable. Some people that believe in God make some wrong decisions. They're called sins. Just because we're able to make all these sins...just because God let us create all these sins doesn't mean he wants us all to be devoured in evil. It doesn't mean he wants to let evil happen. It's all just a test. A test of what kind of souls we have and all these sins that we make teach us lessons. It's really if you want to learn from them or not. Why would God want evil to strike out? You think God would do that intentionally? God doesn't make mistakes, God has done what God has done for reasons you can't understand. Just don't forget God also created good. If he wanted evil to take over, why would there be good? Good can overthrow evil. Remember that.