BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gender Violence and Discrimination of Women

Gender Discrimination is something this world has been living with through out history. Women are immitated as a weeker sex, or not good enough for a mans world. This society is ran off of a male dominency. The start of the skirts and dresses was by the males and now today females wear them. Never a male though, he'd be way to feminine right? NO! this is a sterotypical view of the citizens of the united states and the rights women have to be treated as equals. We lost our rights way before we even had them, and it started to show the most in the reconstruction time aera. The BLACK MEN, were always choosen over a female. I'm not trying to offend anyone but back when we were haveing problems of racism African American men were the lower level of dirt. Thank goodness things have changed now, well at least for the colords. I Hate the fact that women are looked down on and not looked up too as an idol of something bigger then her children. It really ratels my bushes when a man says "You can't do it" and i ask why his response is "your a woman." This discrimination needs to stop; But i haven't seen one male get off his back side to even push womens rights.
The christian god cannot be proven

Young Earth"1(science) If, according to the bible, the universe is 6,000 years old, how do you account for us seeing stars more than 6,000 light years away. How do explain the radiometric dating of rocks on just earth to be at least 4.5 billion years old? (please don't say that carbon dating isn't accurate, of course you don't use carbon dating on rocks that old because for one THERE'RE ROCKS)."My opponent's argument that the universe and earth have to be billions of years old is sound. However, this has no bearing on the resolution. There is nowhere in The Bible where it says the universe is 6000 years years old. Therefore, one is completely rational in accepting the scientific age of the universe and Earth along side with a belief in the Christian God. God and Morality "God is supposed to be the source of morality, and is just and always good, I am correct in saying such? If this is true how do you view the genocide committed in the bible for god?" God may have morally sufficient reasons for these things that our limited minds are to small to grasp. Take for instance a Dog. A Dog who gets a shot does not understand what the shot is for and may think the master is just hurting him for no good reason. However, the shot was a benevolent thing because the shot will prevent bad things from happening in the future. Just because the Dog is too limited to understand why the master inflicted pain, does not mean that the master did something wrong. Similarly, these things you may think are immoral, may just be due to your lack of omniscience or complete understanding of God's plan. Perfection and The Bible "God is perfect, as is the bible and every word it contains, correct?"Not necessarily. The Bible is said to be inspired by God, but that does not man that man relayed the message perfectly. All this section from Pro does is demonstrate human error, not an error in God.The Bible Being False Does Not Mean That God Cannot Be ProvenThe Bible could be so flawed to the point it is laughable; this does nothing to show the Christian God does not exist. Jesus could have still been the messiah, and been resurrected even if The Bible is flawed. The Holy Spirit (part of the trinity) could still effect people regardless of scripture. Pro Must Show Prove The Christian God Does Not Exist If the Christian God exists, then he could prove himself; meaning that the Christian God could indeed be proven. The only way the resolution can be true, is if God does not exist. Conclusion Pro has not met the burden of proof necessary.
The christian god cannot be proven

I'd like to begin by stating that I have just recently become an atheist (this week), and wish to test this newfound belief against someone who knows what they're talking about. I have a few points that I find very condemning and wish to see what you have to say. 1(science) If, according to the bible, the universe is 6,000 years old, how do you account for us seeing stars more than 6,000 light years away. How do explain the radiometric dating of rocks on just earth to be at least 4.5 billion years old? (please don't say that carbon dating isn't accurate, of course you don't use carbon dating on rocks that old because for one THERE'RE ROCKS). 2(morality) God is supposed to be the source of morality, and is just and always good, I am correct in saying such? If this is true how do you view the genocide committed in the bible for god? Or by god, as in Genesis chapter 6 and 7, where god saw that the entire world was evil, and killed men, women, and children? LEVITICUS 26:27-29 God threatened hostility, punishing people for their sins "seven times over," making them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters. EXODUS 21:20-21 According to God"s law, it was wrong to beat a slave to the point of death. But if the slave survived and got back up within a few days, the beating wasn't punishable, because the slave was the property of the master. (God endorsed slavery and the beating of slaves.) LUKE 19:26 In the parable of the ten minas, the master (God) said of those who chose not to follow him, "...bring them here and kill them in front of me." I could go on and on with these atrocities, but ill stop there and get on to my third and final point of this argument. 3(common sense) God is perfect, as is the bible and every word it contains, correct? So if one part of the bible is false, then god is not perfect and therefore nonexistent. Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam. Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam. Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time. Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later. Was Jesus Born in a House or a Manger? Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. In a house. Luke 2:7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. In a manger. There was no room in the inn. Again, I could go on and on, looking forward to your response.
The christian god cannot be proven

Young Earth "Neither prediction can be refuted, Ussher interprets the word yom to mean a literal day, while Green interprets it to mean a measure of time. "Here, my opponent concedes that his argument in favor of The Bible supporting a Young Earth is unjustified; as we do not know who's argument (between Ussher and Green) we should adhere to and deem most plausibly true. Basically, this argument from Pro can be self-evidently dismissed based on these grounds mentioned. God and Morality"If a murder is currently killing somebody, the victim has lost their free will. God, as an omnipresent being would be there, he could either stop the murder, violating his free will, or allow the victim to die, thus violating the victims free will. In either situation the free will of one person is affected, yet god allows such a thing to happen and therefore does not exist or is corrupt. "Pro completely dodges my argument that God may have morally sufficient reasons for why he does the things Pro believes are immoral. In the context of the debate; this argument from me stands. Perfection and The Bible "A supposedly perfect god can't send a clear message? "My argument is that there could be a problem with the reception, not the sending. My HD TV can send a "perfect" image, but if there are slightly blind people watching it, any reports from these people may very well be flawed. The burden of proof was on Pro to show that it was not a reception problem, but a sending problem. This feat was not accomplished. The Bible Being False Does Not Mean That God Cannot Be ProvenPro admits that the Christian God could still exist even if The Bible is extremely flawed. Thus, all this biblical discussion really has no true bearing on the resolution at hand. Pro Must Show Prove The Christian God Does Not Exist "Now, since the title of the argument is that god cannot be proven, and I obviously cannot disprove god, you win. Understand though, that I meant that you could not prove god exists. I ask that despite this you continue the argument with my remaining claims. "Pro concedes the entire debate here. ConclusionConductOut of respect for the request; I responded to the rest of his arguments even though a concession was made. However, Pro made an honorable concession. Thus, I think nobody should really get points for conduct as we were both rather generous to each other. ArgumentsI would urge arguments to Con for obvious reasons. Spelling/ GrammarPro made several spelling errors. I gracefully request spelling/ grammar points. SourcesPro had a much better variety of sources than I did pertaining to The Bible. I would urge voters give sources to Pro if they feel forced to choose.
The christian god cannot be proven

Neither prediction can be refuted, Ussher interprets the word yom to mean a literal day, while Green interprets it to mean a measure of time. "Just because God allows something, does not mean he endorses it; as he gave human beings free-will. If he orders something you believe is wrong, there might be morally sufficient reason for it."If a murder is currently killing somebody, the victim has lost their free will. God, as an omnipresent being would be there, he could either stop the murder, violating his free will, or allow the victim to die, thus violating the victims free will. In either situation the free will of one person is affected, yet god allows such a thing to happen and therefore does not exist or is corrupt. I did provide reasons for god not having morally sufficient reasons for his actions, because there is not a morally sufficient reason for the murder, rape, slavery, and genocide he endorsed. What you are telling me that it is okay for a god to kill people as he pleases?EXODUS 21:20-21 According to God’s law, it was wrong to beat a slave to the point of death. But if the slave survived and got back up within a few days, the beating wasn't punishable, because the slave was the property of the master. (God endorsed slavery and the beating of slaves.)EXODUS 32:27 After seeing the golden calf, God commanded the Levites, "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor." 3,000 were slaughtered, and God was pleased.(God was pleased)On that note, if you believe in god you believe that he created heaven and hell and earth. He knows all. If this is true he created a universe, put people in it whom he destined to burn in hell for eternity. He created the garden of eden, and put a tree in the middle of it with a snake he created to convince people to sin! He designed the world for sin, he wanted it to happen, why else make it possible for us to eat, what's the point of eating anyways in the garden of eden? "Just because humans made an error in accepting a perfect message, does not mean the message was not perfect."A supposedly perfect god can't send a clear message? Now, since the title of the argument is that god cannot be proven, and I obvioudly cannot disprove god, you win. Understand though, that I ment that you could not prove god exists. I ask that despite this you continue the argument with my remaining claims.
The christian god cannot be proven

Young EarthPro mentions James Ussher's calculations for a Young Earth as evidence that The Bible does indeed endorse a Young Earth. However, Princeton professor William Henry Green refuted these calculations:"We conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world"[1] Pro has the burden of proof. Thus, until he gives good reasons as to why James Ussher is correct and Henry Green is wrong; we have no basis to conclude that The Bible claims the Earth is 6,000 years old. God and MoralityJust because God allows something, does not mean he endorses it; as he gave human beings free-will. If he orders something you believe is wrong, there might be morally sufficient reason for it. Pro gave no argument against God having morally sufficient reasons pertaining to certain actions. Thus, Pro has not met his burden here.Perfection and The Bible Just because humans made an error in accepting a perfect message, does not mean the message was not perfect. Pro still has not shown that any contradictions in The Bible could not be due to man's error instead of God. Thus, Pro has no case in this regard.The Bible Being False Does Not Mean That God Cannot Be ProvenPro absolutely concedes my point here.Pro Must Show Prove The Christian God Does Not Exist "Since when do I have to prove to you that god doesn't exist? The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim." - ProI agree with above. However, Pro is making the claim that the Christian God cannot be proven. Thus, Pro has the burden of proof to show God does not exist. This is because, if God exists, then he could prove himself because he is omnipotent. If he can prove himself, that means he can be proven. Thus, the only way my opponent can win the debate, is if my opponent proves God does not exist. This is because, only if God does not exist could the resolution be true! If God exists, then he can easily prove himself. Thus, negating the resolution in the process. ConclusionPro has not shown that the Christian God cannot be proven. Thus, Pro has not met his burden of proof.Sources [1] Primeval Chronology by Dr. William Henry Green (1825-1900)
The christian god cannot be proven

"There is nowhere in The Bible where it says the universe is 6000 years years old." True, but this is the logical conclusion based on the bibles timeline. Here's a link to a christian website telling why they determined the age of the earth to be about 6,000 years. http://www.angelfire.com... "God may have morally sufficient reasons for these things that our limited minds are to small to grasp." I sincerely hope that you say this for argumentative reasons only and do not think this. What you are saying that there is some context in which murder, rape, incest, and genocide are okay. "Not necessarily. The Bible is said to be inspired by God, but that does not man that man relayed the message perfectly. " So an all powerful god who can do anything and wants to present himself to his children, so he inspires an imperfect book based on falsehoods with no verifiable authors to better communicate? "The Bible could be so flawed to the point it is laughable; this does nothing to show the Christian God does not exist. " You are correct, even if there is no bible there could be a christian god, but then how do you plan to prove him? "Pro has not met the burden of proof necessary." Since when do I have to prove to you that god doesn't exist? The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim. I refer you to the comments in which I talked about my invisible dragon. I have a flying invisible dragon in my room. I have no proof, except a burnt paper, which of course is only explainable by my dragon. Why don't you believe in my dragon? You don't believe because I didn't prove it, proof of god is on you.
God does not exist

It seems my opponent laid out rules in his opening round and I agree to all of them. With one of them not arguing in this round I will keep it short. I hope that my opponent will accept to use the Biblical God as one of the Gods he suggest does not exist. I think this God fulfills all the demands he established in his opening round. This is my only request in this debate. *We should note that the debate is not about just the likelihood of Gods non-existence, but rather that a such being does not exist. As the affirmative, my opponent accepts the burden of proof in proving the non-existence of God. I will simply try to argue against my opponents evidence. Thanks again, I turn the debate over to my opponent.
God does not exist

As for the definition of god it is going to be an all powerful creator as in the bible and quran and probably many more religous books. i am going place some rules 1. no saying pro/con has failed to counter my argument that is for the voters to decide. 2. Logic must be used and cannot be ignored. 3. Saying god exists because we do and similar arguments are not valid. 4. if you forfeit one round it is an auto loss so dont accept unless have the time to post
God does not exist

Rules: In my opponents opening round he gives us the rule that if one round is forfeited then you automatically lose. My opponent could not hold up to his own rules therefore he should lose. Argument: My opponent gave us a flawed argument to begin with. He offered us a bogus definition to go by. He also based his entire argument solely from his own logic. This is not a hindrance normally because every argument starts from our logic but it should come with evidence o some kind of support. My opponent offered us no support. I offered two logical arguments in my last round that have been used for centuries. Voting: I offer my opponent the chance of responding in his last round to save himself and this debate. If my opponent offers a grand last round then I think that should count towards votes. ---- Until my opponent responds and gives us an explanation then all points should be awarded to myself. Thank you.
If A Tree Falls In The Forest

Sound: "Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear"http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...The key point is that the sound is purely the vibrations, it can be heard by the ear of a human or animal. In actual fact Pro never clarified if humans and animals were present or not to hear it, the only question Pro asks was if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound.Now I can even argue that a sound of 0dB is a sound but that would cause a whole debate about what the number 0 actually is etc. which I am indeed willing to have but won't make the center of my case, If a tree falls and hits the ground, it will produce a vibration however small. You can't just eradicate sound by an event and Pro had BoP to prove that you can do this.
If A Tree Falls In The Forest

Seemingly my opponent (Pro) has chosen the easier, scientifically sound, reasonable solution to this philosophical debate, leaving me to indicate that such an assumption is not only wrong, but that the conclusion he is attempting to reach is also therefor wrong. First: One can stipulate that a sound, is not simply a vibration. But specifically a vibration which has been received and converted by a receptor into such a state referred to as a sound. In this effect, one can argue, but not sufficiently debate that: No, the tree does not make a sound if something does not hear it. A tree which falls in the forest is subject to many conditions. Something must make that tree fall. If the cause of such an event was so rambunctiously awful, the overwhelming vibrations of such a cause are potentially powerful enough to eradicate the sound vibrations made by a tree falling. Thus Indicating Pro is subject to falsehood given the circumstances, even if we were to consider any vibration a sound. As I am short handed in this debate. I will save my following statements for the Next Round.
guy marriage

In my opinion guy people our people that think differently than other people. They just happened to fall in love with a person that is there same sex. And all that my opponent said was how some people decided. That that was marriage. My opponent is saying that society is going to crash if we allow guy people to have rights. All men our created equal. that's like saying society is going to crash if we allow black people to have rights. Here's how. These people our have feelings for there same sex or a family member and they cant help it. What you feel is what you feel and no one can change that. But when they think that that's the person that they want to spend the rest of there lives with. And when they want to get married we take away lots of there rights. because they happen love someone of there same sex. So in other words we are punishing people for feeling differently. And that does not sound like something the usa would do. But if they our acting under religion it does seem logical. So here's the answers to my opponents questions. marriage is two people that want to spend the rest of there life's with each other. it doesn't matter what the state wants. and your third question all of the above
With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear

I accept my opponent's parameters and he has accepted the following of mine: 1. We are talking about a normal, wild, adult grizzly bear, wanting to kill me, with no additional characteristics besides what we would normally assume in a grizzly bear. Ie. Grizzly bear has any unmentioned disadvantages. 2. The Kleptin in the story (aside from having the stated advantages listed in parameters 2,3,4) also has the attributes and traits of Kleptin in real life (me) and logical derivations from those parameters are subject to debate. Ie. "Because he can bench press 180, Kleptin thus has a buff frame" is not accepted because in reality, I can neither bench 180 nor do I have a buff frame, but for the purposes of this debate, we shall assume the parameters you set forth. 3. The definition of vanquish shall be "to subdue completely", the definition of subdue shall be "to conquer and bring into subjection". 4. The 30 minutes of preparation occur without any external aid, is held within the fighting area, and can only involve parameters 2,3,4 and no other resources. I will now allow my opponent to make his first argument :)
With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish a grizzly bear

Full resolution: With 30 minutes of preparation, the user known as Kleptin could feasibly vanquish agrizzly bear in combat inside yellow stone national park. PARAMETERS: 1) The fight takes place in Yellowstone national park 2) Kleptin is assumed to be well capable of climbing trees 3) Kleptin gets access to a high quality hunting knife 4) It is assumed that Kleptin is not in any way physically handicapped and is at least physically capable of sprinting a mile in 5 minutes and benching 180 pounds. That'll be all. I shall begin arguing in round 2 and my opponent is more than free to follow suit and do the same (or begin arguing in round 1). CON is more than free to provide definitions of the terms used, but I am not obligated to accept them should I feel they do not meet the intentions of this debate. By taking up this debate, CON agrees to my parameters and my conditions.
God has predestined before the foundation of the world who would be saved (Calvinistic Soteriology).

To say that our salvation is at stake is to say that we are in control of our eternal destination. Does this not directly oppose the idea of predestination? What if someone who is not of the elect "receives Him and believes in His name"? According to the scripture you provided, this is what is required to be "given the right to become children of God". Meaning we have to perform an action to be granted salvation.