BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The god of the bible does not exist

Closing Arguments 1. My opponent immediately stipulates a set of rules which seek to shift the burden of proof of his assertortic proposition:"The god of the bible does not exist. " My opponent neglects his obligation as the instigator in proving this proposition true. My obligation as the contender whether satisfied or not does not absolve him of his obligation. He clearly has not met his burden of proof. . 2. The stipulated rules are as follows: (1) Prove that there is only one creator/god, (2)Test, Demonstrate, An assert this God, (3) No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence, (4) Chapters and verses only please from either KJV, NIV, NLT, (5) For extra credit, Prove that any god has ever existed, And (6) Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate. 3. Now if we dissect these rules we learn a few things: (1) My opponent had not considered carefully the logical consistency of his rules; (2) Rule #5 nullifies rule #1 because it allows for the assertion and proof of multiple Gods; (3) Rule #2 and Rule #3 dictate that any "test, Demonstration, And assertion" of God not conform to the scientific method. So as long as one does not use the scientific, The condition of his rules would be met, And (4) Rule #6 is nonsensical since neither of us can prohibit user Dsjpk5 from the voting procedures. 4. My opponent failed to stipulate, However, The means by which one establishes existence. He merely assumes a material nature to existence. If he wanted to limit the establishment of existence to material descriptions, He should have stipulated the definition of existence. Since he failed to do so, This allowed me to stipulate a definition for existence. Furthermore, A material description of existence would have been inconsistent with Rule #3, Which outlawed the scientific method. 5. I stipulated a definition for existence which consisted of an immaterial description. In doing so, I also stipulated the components of this definition with other stipulated definitions. Arguing by induction, Or deduction, I proved God's existence with the assistance of compositional semantics. Rule #1 is nullified; My proof satisfies Rule #2 and Rule #3; Rule #4 is unnecessary since the Bible in its entirety acknowledges the existence of God. If however I must cite a specific Bible verse, I cite Hebrews Chapter 11, Verse 6. Rule #5 is satisfied; and Rule #6 is nonsensical. 6. My opponent contended that I had argued in dereliction to his stipulated rules, yet failed to delineate which rules I had broken with any substantial information. He merely stated that I had broken them. He, However, Could not state how. 7. My opponent resorted to attempted insults and qualifications of my character. He has displayed poor decorum in this formal debate. Take these points into consideration for those of you who are interested in weighing in. And thank you to the interested readers.
The god of the bible does not exist

Still can't prove that your god exists? That's what I thought. No answer. Btw, I have an extreme distaste for those who do not have an education or intelligence on the subject(s) that they profess to having knowledge upon and they really don't, And yet they pretend that they do such as you. And because they don't they invent excuses for that specific subject and or flat out lie such as you. When this happens, Which happens quite often, They will soon have no genuine friends or loved ones if it keeps up (hey you probably don't because of all your gibberish that you don't understand from your yick yak) and their teachers will ALWAYS mark that paper with an F as you obviously and blatantly have gone through sooooo many times. And it is my right to degrade, Dehumanize and belittle them or walk away in which I sometimes do with my brand of sarcastic, Dumb, Idiotic, Original, Gone from this universe, Blah blah black sheep have you any fool insults. This is something that is taught in college. Again, If you don't like it, Leave. I---don't---care. I'm not here to please a laughing gas laugh box that hasn't graduated from preschool like you. I truly was hoping for an intelligent educated debate. But as usual, Especially with brainwashed neanderthal nonsensical neon norbit chewrags like yourself that obviously didn't happen. Now go outside and puddle in your dog's litterbox. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say. And we both know that your penny ante yardstick you call a yoga jet ski is the furthest thing from any kind of truth to be gained from anything.
The god of the bible does not exist

You've exhausted every sophistic tactic you can conceive. You'd rather insult than engage thoughtfully in this debate. If the definitions I stipulated are true--and they are true--then God exists by definition. You can't refute that. You failed to consider the meaning of the words you used, Let alone clarify their meaning and stipulate them. And now that you are at a loss, You indulge puerile behavior as means to veil your incapacity to deconstruct and dismantle my argument. On to closing arguments.
The god of the bible does not exist

Rules: Prove that the god of the bible exists 1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god. 2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god. 3. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence. 4. Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT. 5. For extra credit, Prove that any god has ever existed. If you do not wish to follow MY rules, Not YOUR rules, Leave. I---don't---care. I'm not here to please you. Darn! Oh and btw, Guess what snookums? I didn't even bother reading past your first sentence of your most recent RD. Darn again! We're not going to play your meager childish games anymore. If you cannot prove your god exists, In which case we both know that you can't, Then you have to claw back up your scrotum soda whimsical whatevers that even you don't understand that would never pass any barcodes in your cabbage batbrain to reach that big black baby bumbling babbling horseshoe crab between your legs that collects mold called a diaper. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post another argument unless you have something intelligent to say. Thanx. It would be most appreciated. Have a nice huggable chummy day.
The god of the bible does not exist

"Sure I can because you haven't even begun with numero uno and gone down with each link of the chain. . . 1. You haven't done. " Rule #5 conflicts with and nullifies rule #1. You should have never stipulated it, Even for "extra credit. " You were far too concerned with specious rhetoric than with logic. 2. I just did. It's a simple construction really. I just understand compositional semantics. I estimate that you do not. 3. You outlawed the very standard you wanted implicitly understood. 4. Bible verses were unnecessary. 5. I just did. "Which proof goo goo ga ga? " The one with which you have a grievance. "The debate was perfectly laid out. . . " Yes, It was laid out with exception to the most significant element: the standard by which existence is established. "Nope. OK you want the definitions for "religion" and "spiritual"? NP since you did not provide them and you thus strayed from the subject. " I do not require the definitions of religion and spiritual. I've already stipulated them (RD1. ) And I haven't strayed. The subject matter over which we argue solicits the proof of God(s), While keeping in line with the rules you stipulated. I've done this despite your attempts at retroactive revision. "If you do it again, It will mean your forfeiture of this debate. " That's not up to you. You do not have the authority to dictate the rules of forfeiture. We both agreed when engaging this debate to this site's rule of forfeiture, Which is determined using time constraints. "Once again either stick to the rules as stipulated oin RTD1 or move onto another debate. " Once again, You have not been able to delineate which rules I've broken. You're merely stating that I broke them with no substantial information to that effect. "What arguments? " Argument. Singular. I made a single argument. One was all which was necessary. Your decorum is poor; and your grasp of logic has yet to be seen. This is not the forums or the comments section. This is a DEBATE. Your impressions of my character do not matter in the slightest because my character is not the subject. Take that into consideration before your next response.
The god of the bible does not exist

Oh OK, They are not your kindergarten rules. Then let's call them preschool rules. How's that for a mock up? "You cannot specify which rules of yours I've broken, Or haven't followed. " Sure I can because you haven't even begun with numero uno and gone down with each link in the chain. Oh but wait by gum I didst thou forgeteth thee numero sixo who in which you can pleasure yourself on with reindeer droppings for alleth eyeth careth thee. 1. You haven't done. 2. Nobody has ever done in the entire history of the human race. But I guess your twinkletoes bang bang grande must think you are extra special and above everyone else. 3. That goes without saying. 4. Yah haven't presented any verses from your bible to support your case. Not too bright. 5. Nobody has ever been able to prove ---any--- god has ever existed from any religion in the entire existence of the human race. But garsh oh great useless manure pile of goat cheese, Once again you moist thinker yah must be bettwhore than everybody else who has ever lived to come up with any cheeze whiz answers. "I stipulated the ones necessary to formulate my proof. " Which proof goo goo ga ga? "Now, Your error. . . " whoa there noodle boy, The debate was perfectly laid out in cotton jeans whoopie cushion voodoo doll love song so even a dimwitted dullard snot meat sow like you could figure it out. What's the prob? Not able to figure out what 2 = 2 =? "was in your lack of a stipulated definition, And now you're attempting to retroactively invalidate the cause for stipulation by offering up multiple definitions. " Nope. OK you want the definitions for "religion" and "spiritual"? NP since you did not provide them and you thus strayed from the subject. Oh and btw, If you do it again, It will mean your forfeiture of this debate. So the rules are simple. . . Once again either stick to the rules as stipulated oin RTD1 or move onto another debate. If you do not understand the rules as stip[ulated in RD1, Then my suggestion is for you to go back tp preschool and take your English classes all over and put some garlic onion beer deodorant beer belly on to help you think from your popping zit range of your groin pulls because sad to say, It not working here. But no need to worry choir boy lost in his mommies hamper waiting for that lovely smell of used sweat to curl down through your afterthoughts, You cannot use psychology against lil ole me because I'm so much better at it than you are. "Whether you scrutinize my argument's. . . " What arguments? Gosh, I'm late for watching Baywatch. I gotta let this one fly.
The god of the bible does not exist

They are not kindergarten rules. You cannot specify which rules of yours I've broken, Or haven't followed. Rule #5 nullifies rule #1. I've complied with Rules #2, #3, And #6. And #4 is conditional on the use of Bible verses, Which were unnecessary. I didn't ignore other definitions, I stipulated the ones necessary to formulate my proof. Now, Your error was in your lack of a stipulated definition, And now you're attempting to retroactively invalidate the cause for stipulation by offering up multiple definitions. Whether you scrutinize my argument's use of induction or deduction, My argument is sound. You just didn't expect proof by compositional semantics. It is unnecessary to "weasel" my way out, Because I've already won this debate. You were expecting a proof using the scientific method, Which may have been useful if the burden was to prove God's physicality or material existence. But in debate, You can't "expect"; you must stipulate. I stipulated the most significant element of this debate; you did not. I win; you lose. You focused way too much on the method rather than its content. Take this as a lesson learned.
The god of the bible does not exist

Let's play by your kindergarten rules. dictionary. Com exist: 1. To have actual being; be: The world exists, Whether you like it or not. 2. To have life or animation; live. 3. To continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists. 4. To have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world. 5. To achieve the basic needs of existence, As food and shelter: He's not living, He's merely existing. Now do you REALLY want to get into the definitions of "spiritual" and "religion" in which YOU completely ignored 3/4's of the definitions? I could have a lot of fun with that one. I just completed a debate on "Atheism is not a religion". So you either play by the rules as set up in RD1, Or find yourself another debate as you know you cannot win this one which is why you came up with the absurd terminologies in meager attempts to try and weasel yourself out of something from in which you truly know better.
"Crime and mental health are linked."

I truly believe that the relationship between mental health and crime, do not commonly connect in any way. Despite all the facts we've been provided, with this current generation, media has unfortunately often come to represent this relationship in a negative perspective. Leading to the common misconception that people who're committing certain offences all possess some form of mentally illness. This is, of course, far from the case. However, I cannot deny that some individuals with mental health problems do commit serious crime, but there is no serious doubt about that."Far more people who suffer with these conditions, actually don"t conduct any violence to the people of society. The misunderstandings that surround"this link are frequently exaggerated in news stories. Articles about violence often focus on the person's current mental health, and according to a report, only about 4% of interpersonal violence in the US can be associated to mental illness. Nevertheless, studies can conclude that an estimate of 40% of the news stories about mental illness, are compared about the two, despite the reality. With following the Human Department of Health and Human Services, people with severe mental illnesses are 10 times more likely to be victims of violent crimes than people who make up the general population.
"Crime and mental health are linked."

The Australian Institute of Criminology claims that crime and mental health have long been intertwined. Mental disorders in prison populations are up to four times higher than those in the general population. Researchers from the guardian found that 3.7% of men and 0.5% of women committed a violent crime after being identified as clinically depressed. This compared with 1.2% of men and 0.2% of women in the general population. An example of a criminal that suffer from from this case is Martin Bryant, In 1996 he committed a crime that could not be undone where 35 people were killed and 23 were wounded the reason why he has come to a conclusion to do this is because he suffers from the mental illness known as schizophrenia. In saying many mental health issues, such as Schizophrenia in particular, can lead to violent crime. Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness that affects how a person feels, thinks and acts. People with schizophrenia tend to imagine scenarios that are not ideal and hallucinate about events that may be dangerous or violent. 31% of people who have a mental illness commit at least one crime. This can lead to schizophrenic people committing a violent crime, even if they are not aware that they are doing it.
Gay Marriage

First, you said "I believe" in your second sentence, this not only makes your argument about you it also shows that it may not be what everyone believes. Second, calling something marriage does make it marriage because it is a label. Then you go on to say "This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage," well first I'm pretty sure that complementarity isn't a word and second the gay people aren't attracted to those differences. As far as raising children go, they can adopt and raise children just fine. I don't see how gay marriage is evil and morally wrong but clearly we have different morals.
Gay Marriage

I see what you are saying. However, I believe in marriage between a man and a women. It is against nature for two men and two women to be bonded in a romantic relationship. Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
Gay Marriage

21% of heterosexual married couples get divorced, while studies have shown that 75% of homosexual married couples get divorced. It is a lot harder for a homosexuals to be bonded as intimately as a heterosexual couple, primarily because they cannot get intimate. Anal sex is not intimacy and it does not create a bond between two people as normal sex does. For that reason, homosexuals usually have anal sex with several people, the average amount of times a gay has sex is a lot higher than the average amount of times a striaght guy has sex. "A study of 13,000 New Zealand adults (age 16+) examined sexual orientation as a function of childhood history.30 The study found a 3-fold higher prevalence of childhood abuse for those who subsequently engaged in same sex sexual activity. However, childhood abuse was not a major factor in homosexuality, since only 15% of homosexuals had experienced abuse as children (compared with 5% among heterosexuals).30 So, it would appear from this population that only a small percentage of homosexuality (~10%) might be explained by early childhood abusive experiences. The fact that sexual orientation is not constant for many individuals, but can change over time suggests that at least part of sexual orientation is actually sexual preference." http://www.godandscience.org...
Gay Marriage

It's okay, I forgive you. Never the less, you say "homosexuality completely goes against Darwin's theories and all scientific theories about evolution and procreation," this is true, but if you think about it the people in a gay marriage obviously don't enter the marriage for procreation so why would they care? Then you go on to say one is not born gay but I know many gay people and they have been gay all their life, so I do not know where you got that information but it wasn't a primary source. Also the reason why 99% of homosexual relationships don't result in marriage is because they can't get married. To the part where you say 23% sexually abuse their children, I have only one thing to say; how many heterosexual parents sexually abuse their children? Here's a little fact for you, in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize marriage, had the lowest divorce rate in 2008, and from 2003 to 2008 the divorce rate lowered by 21%. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
Gay Marriage

I apologize, I may have worded that a little off. But sure enough, I know for a fact that homosexuality is unnatural and isn't what nature intended. If you really think about it, homosexuality completely goes against Darwin's theories and all scientific theories about evolution and procreation. Nature intended us to feel attracted to the opposite sex, one is not born gay, one becomes gay because they feel detached somehow or they are unsure about their identity, that has been proven several times. Homosexuality and gay marriage is against nature and biology, and that is the truth. Studies have shown that over half the cases of AIDS are caused by homosexuals, and that 99% of homosexual relationships are not dedicated relationships that result in marriage. It has also been proven that homosexuals are more capable of being violent and having emotional issues. It has also been proven that 23% of gay households that adopt children sexually abuse children. It has also been proven that 25% or less of homosexual relationships in this world are successful, but 80% of heterosexual relationships in this world are successful... http://whatnatureintended.weebly.com... http://www.voiceofthevoiceless.info...