BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does god exist? V2

But like I said before, humans are curios creatures and we ask many questions. Some of which cannot be answered by science alone so people decide that the answer is from God. "Why is there sin?" "How did this whole universe create?" "What happens after we die?" I do not think science could answer such questions and there has been proof of a little boy who went to heaven. This is a true story and there is proof. For more info: http://heavenisforreal.net... Everybody is obsessed with leaving a mark on how they affected other lives. But the marks humans leave are so often scars. All we humans leave are scars and more scars. You build a minimal or start a coup and think they will remember you but really, all you leave are more scars. Your minimal becomes a lesion and the coup becomes a dictatorship.
Does god exist? V2

In my eyes (this really is entirely opinion.) human life is measured in how it affected other lives. If your an organ donor, good. If your a serial killer, bad. If you die, yes you do lose all you've worked for, but if you've done good to others you've had a succesful life in my oppinion. God's got nothing to do with it. The argument that god creates order is just a fallacy, how the h*ll do you know he creates order? I know what the 10 commandments are, you know. I was a f*cking methodist christian for 15 years til I gained some sense. Many people do not live by the 10 commandments and even despise them, yet retain a great moral compass.
Does god exist? V2

If there is no afterlife, we would cease to live when we die which means all of this will be for nothing. I feel like that would be betrayal to our lives and time spent here, all our memories and feelings, POOF! All gone. I stand by my pre-judgement that I believe there is a God because it gives us hope and if there was no God, there would be no peace. The world would be a chaotic place where every man stands alone. Many people who believe in God, follow the 10 Commandments (there is a link below) https://en.wikipedia.org... Without these commandments, there would be no "rules" in this world. And where there is freedom, you may find sin. That is why the world still lives under rules, some are laws and others we do out of love and compassion.
Does god exist? V2

This will be a continuation of our last debate, found here: http://www.debate.org...I invited athena from that debate to continue this. Since this is just a continuation I won't do any of the formal starting post things, i'll just refute your last argument. Since many religious people can not comprehend non-existence I mentioned the time before you were born as a anology for you after death. We have no reason to believe there is an after life, so we should assume there isn't one. Exactly, god is a belief, nothing more. He just exists in our minds. We have very hazy info that Jesus did exist, and no proof that he performed miracles. Of course that website will talk about religious sightings, it's a fracking methodist church website! Try telling me with a straight face that info isn't biased.
Punishment for Adultery

Pro: "Do you think a girl guilty of adultery should be stoned? No you don't because even back in Biblical times it wasn't done." Oh come on now. I'm sure they found something to get them stoned back then... If a girl commits adultery then gets stoned, that is her business.If she chooses to smoke marijuana before commiting adultery, who am I to judge? (Bronto scampers off into the weeds)
Punishment for Adultery

ISIS is a cross between a religious cult and a criminal syndicate. Not to mention a terrorist organization. Saying they stone adulterers is like saying the Mafia executes informers and the Klan hangs rapists. But it doesn't make them into states. And those states you named rarely execute anyone for adultery Thank you for a good debate. Do you think a girl guilty of adultery should be stoned? No you don't because even back in Biblical times it wasn't done
Punishment for Adultery

ISIS stones adulterers. http://youtu.be... There are 1.7 billion Muslims, 2.4 billion Christians, and 20 million Jews who disagree that adultery is okay. * -Stoning for adultery is called Rajm in Islamic literature, and is a practice found in the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Northern Nigeria, Aceh in Indonesia, Brunei, and parts of Pakistan https://en.m.wikipedia.org... -In 2007, the Iranian judiciary confirmed that a man who had been convicted of adultery 10 years earlier, was stoned to death in Qazvin province. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * According to "Psychology Today", adultery involves breaking a promise, in fact, one of the most serious promises we make. Spouses have made a promise to have an exclusive relationship with one another, which includes abstaining from having sex with other people. When this promise is broken, it is painful for many reasons. Adultery indicates indifference on the part of the offending spouse. He or she doesn't care about the other spouse or their feelings. It may also be seen by the offended spouse as a sign that the adulterous spouse has feelings for another, which can be very painful. Another reason for thinking that adultery is immoral is that it involves an immoral form of deception. The offending spouse may tell direct lies to cover their tracks. But he or she is also deceptive insofar as the promises made when the marriage began included being faithful. The offended spouse has reason to believe that the promise is being kept. Hence, not telling him or her is equivalent to lying. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Punishment for Adultery

my apology to you for jumping to conclusions concerning your non participation in this debate. There is a corollary to this debate and that involves the punishment of persons who commit adultery. The rather convincing evidence you present in your argument would seem to support criminal punishment for those guilty of adultery. On the other hand considering the widespread tolerance for adultery in much of the West and the outright contempt for those in other cultures who punish adulterers--- and BTW it is a myth that only women are stoned and in fact it is a myth that stoning for adultery is frequently carried out as an official punishment. For example in Nigeria dating back to the 1600s there has been a total of 2 officially sanctioned recorded stoning sentences carried out for adultery and they were both of male offenders. But getting off that diversion into cultural anthropology and history -- one could find the sense and do so reasonably accurately adultery isn't really that bad. Nigeria has had the death penalty for adultery going back centuries and it has been carried out twice as mentioned. And this was over centuries where around the world where it was common to get the noose for stealing a loaf of bread--so quite clearly adultery must not be so bad.
Punishment for Adultery

A spouse who is caught up in adultery is living only for the moment, caught up in a fantasy of excitement and desire, and ignoring the very real consequences. 1)Once you cheat, you become untrustable. 2)Infidelity destroys children and causes them pain that lasts for years or even a lifetime. 3)Infidelity brings the high possibility of STD's being transmitted to the unknowing partner. The adulterer could infect them with AIDS and feel they own no responsibility? I don't think do. The basic premise is faulty: that you can separate sex from emotional attachment. Having sex with someone triggers attraction and bonding, which can lead to partners falling in love with their new sex partners. This interferes with the solidarity of the marriage. https://thedianerehmshow.org... Adulterous activity destructively affected Charlie Sheen's life. He is now HIV positive. www.today.com/health/charlie-sheen-reveals-hes-hiv-positive-today-show-exclusive-t56391 The destruction to Sheen's exes- http://youtu.be... Sheen's downward spiral- http://youtu.be... Sheen's ex girlfriend, Bree Olson, once loved him. Now she refers to him as a monster. "He could have killed me. He cared nothing about my life!" she stated in an interview. http://www.usmagazine.com...
Punishment for Adultery

thank you for accepting. We have an example here from recent history. In a traditional East African society a 13 year old girl is married--ethnocentric westerners think it is terrible she is married but in that society it is normal. Her husband goes off to fight a war. The girl is bored with her husband gone but then runs into a traveling merchant who tells her the men in a neighboring village had become bored with their wives and if she were willing to go there and open her legs for them she'd make a ton of money. So the girl went and the men lined up--- but one of them the pastor didn't think she was very good and demanded his money back. So he had the girl arrested and charged with adultery and prostitution. In court the girl plead guilty to all counts telling the judge she had done nothing wrong and she was proud of it as it was a normal part of life to make men happy. The judge then sentenced her to death and she was taken to the village square to be executed. Screaming for mercy the girl pleaded with the executioners not to kill her and blamed the men for her crimes of adultery and whoring but insisted she had done nothing wrong as it was a normal part of everyday life
The Bible is not a credible source of evidence

"When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons"-Mark 16:9 Once a human being is dead, he is dead. There is no coming back if there is a total chemical death. The only time when people can come back from dead is 4 minutes prior to the heart stopping. If doctors can figure out a way to revive the heart in 4 minutes, the person can very much be alive. If jesus was dead for 3 days, there is no way he can come back to life. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."-Genesis 1:27. (Adam and Eve) We know that these characters are not real and mythical because we do not have any evidence for them. 2 people are not enough to bring a population of 7 billion. There is not enough genetic diversity. Adam and Eve disproves evolution, and since evolution is a fact, we know Adam and Eve are mythical. "Then the lord formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."-Genesis 2:7 Again, god cannot be quantified so we know this statement is false. There is lack of evidence. There is no biological way that plain dirt, can turn into a fully functioning man in one breath. "Dirt" does not contain the proper elements to create a human cell, let alone a fully functioning body. "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive"-Genesis 6:19-6:20 It is said that Noah brought 2 of each species that living thing of flesh. That is completely mythical because a 450 food long wooden boat cannot possibly carry 2 blue whales and 2 of every other "living thing of flesh". Its is a physical impossibility. Furthermore, the titanic was 882 feet and made out of parts of metal and it sank. A wooden boat carrying 2 blue whales alone would sink, let alone 2 of each species "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.”-Genesis 2:2 Again, since there is no evidence of god and he cannot be quantified, he does not exist, We know the Earth, moon, and sun cannot be created in 7 days. It is impossible. And since day and light was created BEFORE sun and moon, it is impossible. Plus it took him a longer time to create the Earth than the Sun. I will give my sources and do rebuttals for next round,
Dogs are waaaaaaayyyyyyy better pets than cats!

The argument claiming "only cats will mark their territory on..your bed or a pile of laundry" is ludicrous because dogs release themselves anywhere in the house as soon as their owner is not available to walk them when they're ready to be walked or out and about; they also do it as a form of communicating dissatisfaction. Dogs also have a negative impact on the quality of living because many dog owners fail to clean up behind their pets, which leaves pedestrians dodging pooh all over the neighborhood,hoping for a rainy day :-/ "most dogs exhibit the same behaviors that seemingly only pertain to cats"..this claim is completely false since anyone on any given day can bare witness to the fact that dogs can barely be within the same circumference of one another; they automatically get on the defense and attack mode even a block away from each other. Even the cute little dogs lash out on humans and everyone they come encounter with. Cats mainly damage furniture and jump on tables as a result of poor discipline or in response to some form on mistreatment, such as food deprivation or aggression; however, cats are a lot easier to train than dogs. Cat owners only have to discipline their pets to refrain from mild behavioral issues, while a dog's behavioral issues can be overwhelming, costly (i.e. structural damages within the home, personal belongings etc.), and even life threatening. Despite their independence, cats are affectionate pets and play the role of little detectives around the house; they hold down the fork at ground level and fineness their way into the family. Whether balled up in your lap as you catch on a good read, or doing their own thing in the living as you make dinner, cats are waaaaaaaayyyyy better pets than dogs because they're petite, self efficient and easier to discipline. :-p
Dogs are waaaaaaayyyyyyy better pets than cats!

"Dogs are clingy and territorial by nature...they also have a vicious trait..." You say this as if cats are not territorial, or vicious. Cats will often mark their territory, in the same manner a dog will, only a cat will mark its territory on let's say your bed, or a pile of laundry. I have encountered many vicious cats where you cannot get near them, or they will bite or claw at you. You claim dogs "more often that not can barely be in the same room with another dog, unless it's one they may already be familiar with..." not always true. While it is true that some dogs bark at anything that moves (likely small dogs, as they tend to have Napoleon complex), most dogs exhibit the same behaviors that seemingly only pertain to cats. After dogs sniff each other out, and get a feel for the other dog, they run off and play until they tire themselves out. It may be true that cats give their owners ample space to cook, but they also climb on the dinner table when their owner is trying to enjoy their meal (gross). I would rather have a lingering dog at the dinner table than a cat walking on top of it as I'm eating.... Certain dogs are prone to anxiety, and experience it whether they're left alone, or are in a room full of people. As a matter of fact, they experience even more anxiety when they're around more "beings" (humans or other animals). Although cats may not exhibit obvious signs of anxiety, they can still tear up your furniture and curtains when their owner is away at work. Cats clean themselves; what about the nasty hairballs they cough up afterwards? (eew!)
Dogs are waaaaaaayyyyyyy better pets than cats!

In disagreement, dogs are everywhere even when they do not need anything because they are just clingy and territorial by nature; They also have a vicious trait and more often than not can barely be in the same room with another dog, unless it's one they may be already familiar with. When cats come encounter with each other, they sniff, greet and become acquainted. The argument about wild cats doesn't apply to this debate, since we're speaking in terms of house pets, in which one will not have a lion or any other wild cat as a pet in ordinary scenarios. Many cats will allow their owner at least enough space to cook, unless their feeding bowls are located in the kitchen. A dog hovering over you while cooking isn't desirable and cleaning is still required since they leave drool & food residue behind after using the floor as a plate. Allowing dogs to eat house food often leads to greater issues, such as lingering around the dinner table, taking food off plates, and establishing an overall preference for house food over dog food. Dogs are more prone to experience anxiety when their owners are away. This often leads to them disturbing surrounding neighbors with loud barking, crying, scratching etc. Cats owners do not have to worry about this and can even leave their kitties in the dark. Cats are cute & petite, plus they clean themselves! :-P
Dogs are waaaaaaayyyyyyy better pets than cats!

"the idea of a dog just snapping and in an instance turning on their owners is not foreign..." while this is true, dogs don't "just snap". The cases one hears about in the media are rare. However when it does happen, one has to take into consideration the history of the dog itself. Was it mistreated? Starved?Beaten? Upon prying, most times the answer is yes. There is a saying that goes something like this, "feed a dog and he'll be loyal for life". I tend to agree. You say cats aren't capable of taking a person's life...what about wild cats like lions and tigers? They also have sharp nails. Although they won't cause life threatening injuries, they're still capable of scratching someone. "[dogs] have to be aware of everyone's move in the house...you can't just let a dog be..." Not entirely true. Although dogs seem to be EVERYWHERE, its often when someone is in the kitchen, hoping they'll come across dropped food. This actually comes in handy, when one accidentally drops food on the floor: little to no cleaning required. Who doesn't love THAT?! Dogs are also found "everywhere" when they need to be walked, or fed. Believe it or not, dogs communicate to their owners in their own special way. For instance, my dog follows me around when she needs a walk. If her water or food bowl is empty, she touches my hand with her paw and sits in front of me. Besides the aforementioned circumstances, dogs can be found curled up in their favorite spot, sleeping.
Dogs are waaaaaaayyyyyyy better pets than cats!

The fact that cats are not capable of taking a person's life is another solid reason why they are better pets than dogs; the idea of a dog just snapping and in an instance turning on their owners is not foreign, and many are aware of numerous news reports or personal accounts of this. Cats are less invasive than dogs. Dogs have a tendency to follow their owner through the house (which becomes annoying) and have to be aware of everyone's move in the house...there's no flexibility with dogs, you can't just let a dog be as you can with a cat. One have to adjust and modify their enitire lifestyle to accomodate a dog *thumbs down*
Dogs are waaaaaaayyyyyyy better pets than cats!

Anytime! :0) Although you are right when you say cats require less maintenance than dogs, are self sufficient and require little to no supervision, but consider this: cats aren't loyal to their owners in the same way dogs are. Allow me to elaborate: when a dog owner enters his/her home, the first to greet them is the dog, happily wagging his tail. Cat owners on the other hand, don't get the same greeting. In fact, they may just stumble across a dead rodent, or bird the cat may have left behind as a "gift". You say cats are exotic, so are dogs. They may not "look" the part, but each kind of dog had been bred to serve a specific purpose to its owner. As far as I know, cats don't have a "specialized role" to serve to their owners. ....Cats are just cats.... :0P
Senator Mccain does not qualify to be President.

You are very amusing.... yes I read your opening arguemtnt and responded in such a manner as was expected but you have decided to only bash your opponnet with personal attacks. If you wish to look at my record realize I have been very active on this site and rarely miss argument deadlines, and never engage in personal attacks. Now back to the issue at hand- 1) The 14th Amnendment states that one must a citizne born within the boudires of the United States to run for an exectuvie postions 2)McCain was indeeed, as I stated in my orginal arguemnt and you refused to rebut properly, born in United States territory. He was born on a milatary base, which both the Panamanian and United States government concede to be considered territory of the United States. He was not simply born on overseas territory to US parents- but he himself was born on the United States territry, in a federal jurisdiction similar to Washington DC. Therefore previous judicial descisions like the Kennedey case do not really matter and are moot. Seeing as Milatary bases are secured by the United States, taxed by the United States, meant to fufill American interests, and overall deidcated to the United States and run by the United States this is a logical consensus to reach. 3)He was not simply born on overseas territory to US parents- but he himself was born on the United States territry, in a federal jurisdiction similar to Washington DC. Therefore previous judicial descisions like the Kennedey case do not really matter and are moot.