BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

I don't believe I've heard of an atheist regime created that has been harmonious. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both were founded on the principle of atheism, man is their own god. Hitler was God in that realm. Stalin was god in that realm as well...'Stalin's cult of personality' Hitler's youth group grew up worshiping him. I think as a rulebook the bible does a great job. Yes, many things are up to interpretation but the 10 commandments are not one of them...and most of the new testament is pretty firm... ill agree that the old testament rules are up to interpretation as they were made for religious rules, not moral ones..but if you can list a few examples of rules, morals, or ethics in the new testament that seem up to interpretation I believe I can clear those up. I think the bible helps us understand that even as Christians we sin, Jesus in the new testament especially exposes a fair few priests for being on their high horse when they should humble themselves. Also if you could find the quote that states God is imperfect, I believe you will be credited with killing God. God does communicate to us, I pray to him daily. If your looking for a real brain teaser, why does DNA resemble a code or a language? Only an intelligent being could have created that.
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

I believe I know why you have not won a single debate of the 36 you've had so far. You are disagreeable, so much so, that even those who agree with your ideology can see you are a tad crazy. Yes, what you just said is not your own opinion, but an ideology that you have picked up. You can predict what someone will be saying when that person is using an ideology to speak rather than themselves. I predicted your goal of this debate is to disprove God exists and then you spend 3/4ths of what looks like an essay to disprove God exists. The argument is whether or not God would use the bible to communicate to us. Stick to it. Now, I agree that God communicates his ideas in the bible, but that was to the people in the bible, not to us. The bible is meant to be a moral rulebook, not God's texts to us. The bible is not meant to be read end to end but like a dictionary to be used in a moral gray area. Christianity can be considered an Ideology as well to an atheist as I stated in the last sentence it can be used to answer questions instead of using your own mind. This produces evil people who use the bible to advocate why they are right which is in violation of the third commandment. (I'm getting off track) So to conclude the bible is a rulebook not a great means of communication from God to us. I maintain Prayer and the environment is the greatest form of communication from God. Reason being: How did God communicate to humans before the bible? Prayer and the environment.
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

I believe what you are trying to do is prove any god doesn't exist, if you are you already started this argument with a bias which means even if I do win, your mind wont be changed. However, for the sake of a fun debate, lets try. The Christian God does not use the bible to communicate ideas to. The bible is a collection of prophets and the stories told by those prophets. The Jews, who wrote the old testament, would only add prophets whose predictions were 100% real to the bible, if one thing was false, he was a false prophet and wasn't added to the old testament.(And killed). The new testament along with the old testament is a record of what happened, not texts from God. The new testament is a collection of first hand...or second hand accounts (written under the supervision of those who had first hand accounts) about the life of Jesus of Nazareth, not any communication by God. Now that we have established the bible is not a means for God to communicate to us...God communicates to anyone, even an atheist through the world around us. If you look at DNA you can see it is a code or language that could have only been intelligently designed. I believe there is a bible quote of God saying to a prophet, you will know I exist by what you see in nature...something like that. Another way is through prayer. Prayer is similar to a meditation, the only difference is it is used to communicate to God and I usually do it to thank him for this world, but in times of need I will fast and pray, by the time my fasting is over, my prayer is answered. I hope this answers your question. In short, God does not use the bible to communicate to us, but rather uses it to record events in time. He communicates to us through the environment around us and prayer.
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god. Rules:For this debate it will be up to you as Con to prove that god according to the bible would use text, namely the bible, as a form of communication. You must also give the "why" this god would choose text as a form of communication. For extra credit, prove that this god would use text as a form of communication above all else.dsjpk5will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Hillary is a liar

I would also like to ask a question: Are you arguing for the right side? Your side is "Con," which means that you are trying to say that Hillary Clinton is NOT a liar. But you talk about how badly Hillary lies in your second speech, which makes me question my own argument. I guess this round goes to me, and you should post the correct side in the next round. However, I will argue against you anyway. If you use any of my arguments in your next speech, the round automatically goes to me. Rebuttal: First of all, I would like to address one of your quotes: "My opponent clearly does not understand that the country is going through a lot of hell," which makes little sense because I have not said anything about what the country is going through. You accuse me of not understanding something, although you have little or no evidence. In essence, you are slandering just because I am your opponent and chose a different side than you. Could you please state your evidence in your next speech? I would also like to ask my opponent for the name of the terrorist attack in which 4 Americans died, and why Hillary Clinton is at fault for this incident. Also, why does this make her a liar? In case I am not mistaken, I believe that the terrorist incident that you are talking about is referring to Benghazi. According to the Senate Intelligence of the United States, Benghazi could not have been prevented. "There were no US military resources in position to intervene in short order in Benghazi to help defend the Temporary Mission Facility and its Annex. " Hillary Clinton did not have the ability to prevent this incident, nor did anybody else. Once again, you slander without evidence. Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
Hillary is a liar

My oppenent clearly does not understand that the country is going through a lot of hell, and we don't need to Hillary Clinton to make it worse than it already is. This women put the lives of Americans in danger while she was Secretary of State. 4 Americans died in one of the worst terrorist attacks this century has ever encountered. This could have easily been prevented, but it wasn't. Hillary Clinton received an email from Chris Stevens specifically asking for security and his email was tossed in trash. Totally ignored.
Hillary is a liar

Thank you for your kind invitation and challenge to this debate. May the best one win. While I am of a different opinion in real life, I will debate for this anyway. If you make any argument about my opinion in real life, the round will go to me. I will make my opening speech and rebuttal in the second round. In the last round, I will not introduce any more information or arguments, but I will simply just conclude and make a rebuttal to the best of my abilities. I look forward to this debate. Good luck.
Conscious awareness exists after death.

As I have alluded to everything we know about consciousness comes from the brain, if there is no more brian there can be no more consciousness. The only argument my opponent gave was "My hypothesis is that electrons are the particles of consciousness" this is a theory invented on the spot to try to sound intelligent. It is nothing more than a very wild guess, a stab in the dark at nothing. No other scientist has ever made such a claim and if they have had done so there would be no evidence to back it up. My arguments however were backed by scientific facts that my opponent could not refute. It was also my opponents job to prove the motion and in no way shape or form has that being done. Thank you
Conscious awareness exists after death.

Thank you. I must admit, that when I posted this debated I failed to phrase it correctly and only realized my mistake afterward. I should have posted "Conscious awareness after death is possible." I realized that I cannot fully conclude that it exists in tangible form at this point because to my knowledge it hasn't been proven, only theorized. Accounts of out of body experiences and seeing past loved ones sparked some of the motivation for such research, but everyone who has made this claim has lived-- so making the argument they experienced consciousness outside the body is not possible because death is final, near death is not. To rebut the second portion of your argument I would say you are correct in the factual basis of it. When the brain is damaged, the neuro-transmission of information is interrupted along pathways that were normally used before. Electric impulses in the brain follow the path of least resistance, and once the pathways are interrupted the information exchange is interrupted. My question is what happens to the function of the energy once the entire pathway is interrupted? Electricity can be stored as long as it has a vessel providing minimal resistance. Once the resistance overwhelms the force of containment, it discharges. So where does the energy in our body go after death? It must dissipate back into the universe. But, whether or not the form of energy that creates consciousness in a living person can somehow be maintained beyond death is not a question that has been answered and proven. Therefore, I must concede.
Conscious awareness exists after death.

First of all I must start by saying on relation the the question is there Conscious awareness after death? We must all admit we don't know that's because we can't know so the people who have to leave the debate right away are those who claim they do. We can only make logical arguments that lead to an honest assumption on the issue. I would argue it is impossible for conscious awareness to exist and I think this one simple fact is compelling evidence for that. Everything we know about awareness comes from the brain and this is evident with: if you damage one part of the brain (prefrontal cortex ) somthing about the mind and subjectivity is lost (you may be able to remember the names of dogs but not tools, or recognise names but not faces) and you damage another part and yet more is lost (1), but when you damage the whole brain at death we can rise off the brain with all our faculties intact recognizing people/places and speaking english, this cannot believed by a thinking person. And this argument is an absolute hammer blow to the notion a conscious awareness existing after death. source: 1. http://www.human-memory.net...
Conscious awareness exists after death.

Thank you. Yes, round 2 will be for argument and round 3 for rebuttals and conclusion. I fully expect to be destroyed in this debate. However, I am working on a hypothesis and am hoping to create alternative thought in which to help guide the exploration of my assertion. Consciousness is believed to be the result of any thought or idea. This is caused by chemical signals exchanged between neurons in the brain. This provides all thought and conscious function of the brain.The signals are carried by electrons to other neurons, causing the brain to create thought and conscious awareness. Upon death, the chemical exchange stops. However, the electrons in the brain cannot be destroyed because energy can only be transferred, not destroyed. So, the electrons in the body must remain, though scattered through the body. Gravity has an influence on electrons and will begin to cause them to attract. However, electrons have a repulsion rate greater than gravity. As electrons are both positively and negatively charged and depending on the rate of attraction, the quantity of positively charged electrons versus negatively charged electrons has an influence on how matter is defined and behaves. Subatomic particles containing electrons can be found as both a wave and a particle. Additionally, some of these particles can occupy two places in space at the same time. Most of the research has been done on photons, the electromagnetic carrier of light. When a pair of ions, one negatively charged and one positively charged are separated, and the negatively charged ion is changed to a positive charge, the paired ion changes without influence. The separation of electrons from the body, after death, have the same cause and effect relationship and change based upon influences of matter, which in the living body is based upon the chemical exchange between neurons. My hypothesis is that electrons are the particles of consciousness, they change from positive to negative in the living body giving signals of thought, similar to the pathways which help a computer function. What remains after death are the electrons, but without the chemical manipulation. Once gravity begins to take over the electrons attract and repulse, creating plasma. Plasma is influence by the electromagnetic fields present in the natural universe and once again the signals between electrons have the capability to change and transfer thought in this form.
Schools Should Start Later in the Day - Local Schools

I will like to state the i will be using the time 9:00 AM as the time school starts since this is when my school starts. Now i will start by defining terms. .. . sleep   [sleep] Show IPA verb, slept, sleepï¿½ing, noun verb (used without object) 1. to take the rest afforded by a suspension of voluntary bodily functions and the natural suspension, complete or partial, of consciousness; cease being awake. edï¿½uï¿½caï¿½tion   [ej-oo-key-shuhn] Show IPA noun 1. the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. burï¿½den/ˈbərdn/ Noun: A load, esp. a heavy one Now that I have defined these terms, i will refute my opponents argument. My opponent says that the education system (education as defined above), is burdened (also defined above) by lack of sleep. Now the healthy amount of sleep for a Teen and school-aged children is 9 hours at least. . http://www.medicinenet.com... that being said, if the earliest time school starts (9:00 AM as stated above), a school aged-child/teen could go to sleep at 10:00PM to 11:00PM (which is legal curfue) and wake up at 7:00AM Or 8:00AM giving 1 hour to get ready for school so as stated above, School students have enough time to sleep for a healthy amount, and still be ready for school. Now i agree with you on the fatc that school is burdened by sleep, but not because of the school hours, but because of the lack of responsibility of the people. This USATODAY artical . http://www.usatoday.com... states that lest then half! (4 out of 10) people get a healthy amount of sleep, and i have shown above that school students have more then enough time to sleep, so obviously the only remaning factor is that they are staying up late Thank you, and i would ask the public to forgive me if i have any spelling or gramical errors, i have Dyslexia Agian, Thank you! Sources ---------- . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://www.sleepfoundation.org... . http://www.usatoday.com...
FTl travel is possible.

I'm kind of short on time so unfortunately I'm going to have to cut this round rather short. My response to each of my opponent's arguments follows roughly the same vein, however. 1. Though there is an extremely small chance of a scientific theory being wrong, there is an extremely strong chance of it being right. The fact that a theory MIGHT be wrong is not grounds to dispute it entirely. If my theory is that if I turn a doorknob, the door will open, then I do not go around opening doors with great trepidation out of fear that my theory may be wrong. Functionally speaking, if there is an overwhelming certainty in favor of something than we must assume it is true. In this case, there is overwhelming certainty that FTL travel is not possible. 2. Again, we cannot make any argument on the basis that the laws of physics may be wrong. There can be no scientific discourse of we do not accept preexisting theories as being true. You cannot say that any scientific argument, no matter how absurd, MIGHT be true because the existing laws MIGHT be wrong. Unless there is some reason to believe that the existing laws of physics are wrong than any assumptions otherwise are useless and irrelevant. 3. I will again suggest that the uncertainty in scientific theory does not make any counterproposal valid simply because there is a small chance that the original claim may be wrong. 4. The time dilation equation would have to be completely restructured in order to allow v to exceed c. There are no shortage of other equations which do not allow certain variables to exceed the speed of light. Our entire understanding of the universe is based around the fact that nothing can exceed c. To assert that all of modern physics is wrong is an extreme claim, and there is no extreme evidence to back it up. In fact, there is no evidence at all. Rebuttals: 1. By "the speed of light" I had assumed by opponent referred to the constant 'c' which is the speed of light in a vacuum. Though it may seem to be a contradiction, if the speed of a photon is less than c than it is not traveling at the speed of light. The speed of light refers to the peak speed of a photon moving in a vacuum, not the speed of any given photon at any particular time. In any case, artificially slowing down light to exceed it's speed seems to be pointless. The rocket would not be accelerating to exceed the speed of light since there would still be other photons elsewhere traveling faster than the rocket. 2. This theory relies heavily on theoretical concepts that have not been proven. There is no known instance of exotic matter existing. Whether this could actually be used to "bend space" around an object and accelerate it is highly speculatory. In any case, the energy required to do this would be unattainable. To send a small spaceship across the Milky Way would require 10^67 grams of energy, an amount many orders of magnitude greater than the mass of the universe.
FTl travel is possible.

I will rebuttle my opponents previous arguments and then propose my own. 1. My opponent is correct in saying that just because no object has been demonstrated or observed to travel faster than light, it doesn't mean that ftl travel is impossible. Pointing towards a conclusion of impossibility does not exclude possibility. Furthermore I would like to point out that the strong theory of special relativity favors the existence of tachyons which supossedly go faster than light. Regardless, I would like to point out that there is an extremely small chance of strong scientific theory being wrong which could mean ftl travel is possible. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. I would agree with my opponent that if the simple physics laws were 100% true, then accelerting an object past the speech of light would be impossible through conventional thrusting means . However, althoguh the percent chance is incredibly small, the chance remains that the physcis laws are wrong thus allowing for the possibility of ftl travel. 3. I will again suggest that the simple physics laws have an incredibly small chance to be wrong which leaves the possibility of ftl travel. 4. the time dialation equation has an incredibly small chance of being wrong which leaves the possibility of ftl travel. In conclusion, con forgets that these physics laws have a chance of being wrongs (although iredibly small) which could mean ftl travel is possible. I urge voters to remember that the topic of debate is that FTl travel is possible, not that it is likely. However, if we must accept that our physics laws are 100% true, then it must be remembered that special relativity favors tachyons. My arguments- 1. One way to go faster than light is to slow light down. THis is known as the cherenkov effect. Cherenkov radiation results when a charged particle, most commonly an electron, travels through a dielectric (electrically polarizable) medium with a speed greater than that at which light would otherwise propagate in the same medium. Thus, theoretically, if you had a rocket which travelled at 0.99C which ran parallel to a tube filled with water and light was pulsed through this tube with water, light in the tube filled with water would travel at 0.75C because water absorbs the photon and remits the same photon with a small amount of lag time. Thus, the rocket would travel faster than light towards a particular destination. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Alcubierre physics The Alcubierre model is a mathematical model which emulates a warp drive by bending space in the front and bakc of teh object. The alcubierre model mathematics shows that as the energy density is negative, one needs exotic matter to travel faster than the speed of light. However, the existence of exotic matter is not theoretically ruled out, the Casimir effect and the accelerating universe both lending support to the proposed existence of such matter. This is another possibility for the existence of ftl travel. . http://en.wikipedia.org... There are many other possibilites which I will bring up in the next round.