BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We dont Know why we are here or how we got here

hello, as we enter the age of never going back or being able to for that matter. we start to see a new day that separates reality from desire. desire is everything we think we can achieve and reality is everything we can achieve. if these are not your definitions of these words. i do not care. when speaking freely someone usually says something that guiltys themselves in some way. but as we now break the folkways of society and pursue the goal of breaking the mores i for one realize that our brains dont need to be figured out and explored. why the need to know everything. i head the day where every being sits on the natural ground and breathes natural air and closes there eyes. just to think maybe we are here for something unbenounced to us. maybe somethings cant be explained. maybe science isnt real. because it isnt. this isnt pro religion this is pro think. pro realize. pro love. pro-fane. yes very profane. and as now we enter a time where learning is profane and to understand is to speculate and speculation is based on folk tales. we need to realize there are no laws. there is nothing. everything we know is nothing. what lies beyond the visible universe is nothing. because we dont know anything. our young naive closed minded species knows nothing but theory and grabs onto these jokes as if we understand what cant be understood. i dont preach. "you" the bloodshed christian who takes his faith to death. you are wrong. not in your beliefs but in your heart. you have not thought what if. what if will drive us into the future and keep our young naive closed minded species alive. "you" the bloodshed evolutionist who would share a coffin with darwin. darwin the magician for that fact. illusion was his theory. you are wrong. not in your believes but in your thoughts. because you have said what if but you have stopped and when we stop we die and when we die we realize. i applaud you but you cannot share. sharing the what if will drive us into the future and keep our young naive closed minded species alive. always yours, Siddhartha Christopher
Debate.org is crawling with atheists hostile to christianity

STATS Just to help my opponent out, here are the stats on those who voted on his previous lost debates: Bible/Jesus is God debate: 2 Christians, 2 Not Saying, 50% of voters were theists, all of them voted against you Atonement of Sins: 2 Christians, 3 Not Saying, 40% of voters were theists, all of them voted against you Evolution: 1 Christian, 2 Atheists, 6 Not Saying/Other, you plagiarized so how can you expect to win? Furthermore, the Christian voted for you even though you plagiarized, yet you are claiming that atheists are biased? The 16% Thing I have just realized that my opponent decided to add 16% to the atheists because of the missing 16%, but this really doesn’t make sense. If these 16% identified themselves as atheists, then we would have 16% more atheists. In fact, these 16% could potentially be not saying (which =/= Atheist, it means “I don’t want to tell you”), so it is really roughly around 31% atheists. (note: we have no reason to assume these stats are wrong or manipulated as con implied. ) Clear logical fallacy, lack of evidence is not evidence. Even if we don’t have proof that these stats are manipulated, that doesn’t mean that the stats are true. It is extremely easy to manipulate these stats, as I have shown with the American Nazi Party stats. Thus, the first part of the contention is false. God’s absolute rule/Bible stuff My opponent has decided that a disbelief in god somehow equals a hostility and hatred towards Christianity, which is clearly illogical. My opponent has ZERO proof that these atheists are HOSTILE to Christianity, he has only attempted to prove that the atheists don’t believe in God, which is apparently wrong. He who is not with him is against him. Against him does not equal hostile/hates him, furthermore, this debate isn’t about who is hostile to God, but who is hostile to the religion (Christianity). I will lose this debate because the voters are atheists assumption. This is also ridiculous, if you lose, it will probably be because of your complete lack of logical thought and your assumptions that atheists hate and are hostile to Christianity. Furthermore, Christians who voted on your debates voted against you, so it is illogical to assume that it is because of atheists that you lost the debate.
Debate.org is crawling with atheists hostile to christianity

1. Con "I will go with my opponents definitions and go with a rough 30%" (to be considered "crawling") Pro (shows in round two that debate.org is roughly 47% atheist according to the debate.org stat page. http://debate.org... (note: we have no reason to assume these stats are wrong or manipulated as con implied. ) Thus we have firmly established the first part of my contention that ; "Debate.org is crawling with atheists" Now let's move on to my second contention. 2. Those atheists are hostile to Christianity. - an atheist by definition does not believe in God. Gods absolute #1 rule for mankind is written in the book of Mathew as follows; Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." Matthew 22:36-40 http://www.biblegateway.com... also in Mathew 12:30 and Luke 11:23 the Lord Jesus declares; "He that is not with me is against me;" http://bible.cc... http://bible.cc... Revelation 21:8 says "But the fearful, and UNBELIEVING, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Thus God has made it perfectly clear that He who is not with him is against him. - atheists are literally "against him". - Debate.org is roughly 47% atheists as I have shown. Finally; "Debate.org is crawling with atheists hostile to christianity." I have proven this to be an objective, undeniable, demonstrable FACT. However, I will most likely lose this debate NOT based on the logic of the arguments but because the majority of people who will vote on it will be atheists. as a final note; If there are even two or three atheists on debate.org who are hostile to the Lord God, Creator of the universe and all that is in it. Then I consider debate.org "crawling with atheists" I highly recommend that you repent of your sins and turn to the Lord for forgiveness and mercy through Jesus Christ, amen.
Debate.org is crawling with atheists hostile to christianity

However, I find it unfair that my opponent has defined “crawling” as 20 – 40% when 20% of people have identified themselves as atheists. However, this is irrelevant really and I will go with my opponents definitions and go with a rough 30% which is a halfway point. MY OPPONENT’S MATH Firstly, the fact that the percentages only add up to 84% is only more evidence against my opponent’s case. The demographic page really cannot be trusted because of how easy it is to manipulate the demographics. The demographics page claims that roughly 500 people are part of the American Nazi Party, but does that really mean that 500 or so people are really members of the party? For example, I could easily put on my page that I am a Christian, however that does not mean I am actually Christian. Furthermore, even if we accept that the demographics are the perfect representation of all the members of DDO, the resolution was that DDO is crawling with atheists hostile to Christianity. My opponent has still to provide proof that all of those atheists are hostile to Christianity. The fact that they are atheist’s does not mean that they hate Christianity, it is illogical to assume that. Thus, my opponent has completely failed to even debate the resolution and has instead attempted to persuade us that atheist = hates Christianity and the demographics page is 100% accurate, which of course is illogical to assume.
Debate.org is crawling with atheists hostile to christianity

first of all I never said that "crawling" was defined as 51% I would consider "crawling to be about 20-40% let's see it say's here 20% atheist 2% buddhist (= atheist) 1% pagan I'll take half the agnostics for this count so 6% agnostic (atheists really) I'll also take the 2% jews who are probably non believers" That makes 31% Hey" these stats on this link you provided from debate.org only add up to 84% Wheres the other 16%??? I'll assume that's the rest of these darn atheists that debate.org is "crawling with" That makes 47% Atheist. I think that will do.
Debate.org is crawling with atheists hostile to christianity

I'm assuming that this debate was created in response to the fact that my opponent has lost all three of his previous debates, and all three of them were related to God in some form. Thus, my opponent's assumes that the reason he lost was because atheists voted on his debate, though he completely ignores the possibility that he might have lost the debate because his opponent made superior arguments. I define the following term:"Crawling" - Roughly around 50% or more of people actively (at least once a week) using DDO However, I await my opponent's first arguments. If he wants to contest the definitions, I welcome him to do so in the comments.
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

Since you argue I have no source of evidence, and a poor conclusion, I hereby make my final statement. as shown from http://www.cs.unc.edu... methods in general are inaccurate , the dating methods are very inaccurate and fluctuable. Not only that, this is a very trustworthy site, unlike wikipedia--it even has EDU at the end!! And even THIS site claims that rates might have changed a long time ago! You are just copying your previous argument, having no new points of view whatsoever, and therefore you are just on the losing side of the argument. All in all, I have apparently won! You have chosen the wrong side. Thank you all, thank you.
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

I Refer con to my first rule. Use logic.I've backed my arguments with evidence and con has yet to provide A SHRED of evidence to support his proposition."GODDIDIT" Is backed by no evidence at all.My points go un mentioned. P1. Radiometric age dating The oldest rocks which have been found date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago by several radiometric dating methods. Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia. These values alone do not excatly indicate an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age P2. The realiability of radiometric dating The atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable have a fixed decay over time by dischargeing particles at a fixed rate, transforming the material into a stable substance. For example, half the mass of carbon-14,(the hardest substance known to mankind)Is an unstable isotope of carbon, and decays into nitrogen-14 over a fixed time period.The regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials.With a high degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth. Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have tried to influence the rate of radioactive decay to try and test the true accuracy of dateing by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay. Therefore we can all come to the conclusion that since P1 and P2 are valid and backed by evidence and science the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.We have no reason to belive the laws of physics were any different long ago.
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

I argue that the links do not work, and thus you are lying for such having to do so. Now, I rephrase my previous arguments more simply: the radioactive dating is not very accurate and could be very inconsistent. Even furthermore, the existent of god is not yet proven to be false, and even though I, not being a Christian, believe that IF god exists, he could make the illusion that earth is very old and "mature", so as to be speaking, so to be impressive. "Goddidit!" Many creationists say, and I agree with them--if god could create so much planets in so few days, he could definitely make billions of years seem only like thousands of years and manipulate many laws such as the law of the speed of light, purely for experiment to see how we react.
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

As I had stated previously, Wikipedia.org is not a very trustworthy source. Away from that, now, I admit my first argument wasn't very good and supporting, but now--onto the age of the earth. Now, radiometric dating methods do not prove millions of years. Radiometric dating was not developed until the early twentieth century, by which time virtually the whole world had already accepted the millions of years. For many years creation scientists have cited numerous examples in the published scientific literature of these dating methods clearly giving erroneous dates (e.g., a date of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades). In recent years creationists in the RATE project have done experimental, theoretical, and field research to uncover more such evidence (e.g., diamonds and coal, which the evolutionists say are millions of years old, were dated by carbon-14 to be only thousands of years old) and to show that decay rates were orders of magnitude faster in the past, which shrinks the millions of years to thousands of years, confirming the Bible, and as thus, the age of earth is not billions or even MILLIONS of years old, but below 10,000.
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

vidence has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%) . This value is derived from several different lines of evidence however i do not have to prove that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old i simply must prove that the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.P1. Radiometric age dating The oldest rocks which have been found date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago by several radiometric dating methods. Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia. These values alone do not excatly indicate an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age P2. The realiability of radiometric dating The atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable have a fixed decay over time by dischargeing particles at a fixed rate, transforming the material into a stable substance. For example, half the mass of carbon-14,(the hardest substance known to mankind)Is an unstable isotope of carbon, and decays into nitrogen-14 over a fixed time period.The regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials.With a high degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth. Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have tried to influence the rate of radioactive decay to try and test the true accuracy of dateing by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay. Therefore we can all come to the conclusion that since P1 and P2 are valid and backed by evidence and science the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.Sources. http://tinyurl.com............http://tinyurl.com............http://tinyurl.com............http://en.wikipedia.org............;
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

Firstly, I argue that the Bible teaches people that the earth is under 10,000 years old. While it may not be true and outdated, there are two billion Christians all believing in that fact. What truly matters is their beliefs, which overrule the scientists' research, as there are more Christians than scientists. Even furthermore, wikipedia.org states that Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old, and as we all know, wikipedia.org is not considered a credible source, even Wikipedia.org itself says so! And so, for round one, I make the sound conclusion that the age of the earth is 10,000 years old or younger. Thank you, thank you.
Agnostic athiesm makes no sense

Firstly, I would like to give the conduct point to my opponent. I forfeited a round, and thus forfeit conduct at the very least.1. My opponent seems to misunderstand my argument. I am not arguing that if God changes reality in order to hide the evidence, he isn't God. I'm arguing that since any reality warper is capable of insuring that it cannot be discovered, we cannot ever know whether or not a reality warper exists. It's certainly rue that we cannot disprove that life is nothing but a dream. But our senses pretty much universally indicate that it is not, and if we behave like it is dream we risk a great deal (before someone thinks of Pascal's Wager, I would point out the flaw in that argument is that many deities have commandments that contradict each other). We have evidence of fire. We have evidence that you shouldn't stick one's hand in fire. We do not have the same evidence of deities.2. I base morality off the fact that I see morality as saying what we should do. I then determine that it would be in our best interests to do what we find most pleasurable, and that there is no fundamental difference between me and any other person that somehow makes me more important than them. At that point I reach act-preference utilitarianism. As far as the probability that this world is random--well, that would be pretty difficult to say, since we don't really have a sample size. While it's true that weak atheism does refute the concept of knowing about the existence or nonexistence of a deity, we have fairly little evidence either way. We do not have our senses, and we do not have scientific evidence. All we have is faith. And faith is not something weak atheists set much store in.
Agnostic athiesm makes no sense

Currently, skepticism became the basis of dealing with anything we don't know or is missing from direct observation. It judges the validity of something from not understanding it, and some would even consider it a scientific method.The mind can be divided into a scientific method and logic, they are the basis of thinking and conception of materialistic and non-materialistic reality we witness and feel. For any mental process to take place, previous knowledge about that reality must exist, and without such knowledge no mental process will happen in any thinker. For example: A child will not be afraid to place his hand on fire although mind and reality (fire) do exist, and that is because he lacks knowledge about the properties of fire. Mind alone cannot complete mental processes as it also requires knowledge. Mental processes have nothing to do with opinions, it is about connecting previous knowledge about reality, previous opinions are not a factor in any mental process. So the two things we need is mind and knowledge.Logic can prove something exists, but the error is when logic is used to identify the nature of something or it's properties. But the scientific method is about studying the materialistic reality we can experiment on, it manifests when conducting experiments, we take information and observations, and put opinions aside. It's goal is to learn the nature of the subject being studied after making conclusions.The point is: The scientific method is not the basis of thinking. It is a method to think after information and knowledge is acquired with observation.Now we come to weak atheism. It have no positive existence at all. Skepticism takes a negative skeptic stand at any scientific truth without differentiating between previous knowledge necessary for any scientific method, and opinions which are excluded in any mental process. Weak atheism refuses any unproved truth blatantly, and at the same time, they keep repeating the term: "Relative truth". How can they demand knowledge of absolute truth when they doubt the principle of their atheism? There are hundreds of unexplained phenomena. Yet, industrial application and technological advancement that came from previously unexplained phenomena keeps coming. Imagine if they used skepticism too rather than trying to reach an answer.If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,would it? -Albert EinsteinThere is no better soporific and sedative than skepticism. -Nietzche
Agnostic athiesm makes no sense

My opponent raise some good points, but I do believe his central premise is flawed, and I'll attempt to illustrate how below.An all-powerful reality warping entity is fundamentally impossible to disprove--any reality warping entity is simply capable of warping reality so that the test never happened, assuming one manages to get a positive result in the first place. Memories can be removed, records destroyed, history itself rewound. If the entity couldn't do it, it's not all powerful.Now, I would like to draw a parallel. Let's talk about spiders, specifically purple-polka-dotted spiders from Alpha Centauri. There's no proof they exist. There's no reason to think they exist. So why should we think they exist?Belief that something does not exist, I posit, falls into two categories: active and passive. Active is actively going about thinking 'this does not exist'. It is similar to active belief in this fashion. Passive disbelief is simply, when one considers issues relating to the thing being believed/disbelieved, working from the assumption that it does not exst. Moreover, if one believes it is prudent to believe that it does not exist, either from probability or there being no reason to believe it at all, one could well, after considering the issue, decide that they did not believe that the entity in question existed.Weak atheism, as my opponent has described it "not believing in the existence of deities but not explicitly asserting that they do not exist" is indeed a very sensible concept. The weak atheist looks at the world and sees no evidence of deities. Therefore he or she has not reason to believe in them. Therefore the weak atheist does not believe in deities.To comapre this with the spiders: A person who does not believe in spiders from Alpha Centauri looks at Alpha Centauri through a telescope. They see no spiders. They look at astronomical data. No evidence of spiders. There is no reason for them to believe in spiders on Alpha Centauri. Therefore they do not believe in spiders on Alpha Centauri.