BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
can God make a rock so big he can't lift it? my answer - no.

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this subject. The resolution: God cannot make a rock so big that he is unable to lift it. My Opponent asserts that due to divinities omnipotence, that by definition, it cannot limit itself; it can do anything it wills. I will demonstrate that this is false. I will show that divinity can enact rules that it must abide by, or that are self-limiting, and cannot be abated by omnipotence. “And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”[1] “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.”[2] “Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”[3] “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” [4] There are a number of things that God cannot do, he cannot in certain occasion defeat iron chariots, cannot work for 7 straight days, and even requires rest. Can God make a soul that he cannot save? Indeed he can. I apologize for the shortness of my first argument; I had mistaken the time allotted to present it. I will ensure I’m better prepared for the next round. [1] http://bible.cc... [2] http://bible.cc... [3] http://bible.cc... [4] http://bible.cc...
can God make a rock so big he can't lift it? my answer - no.

in response to the classic paradox... can God make a rock so big that he cannot answer it? if you say yes he can make the rock... then he must be limited in that he can't lift it. if he can't make the rock... then he must be limited in that he can't make the rock. the reason i say no. this is akin to asking. can the unlimited limit itself? by definition it is unlimited, so the answer is no. then we approach the other end... is the fact that the unlimited being unable to limit itself, then a limitation on the unlimited? as a play on words only... the unlimited cannot contradict itself by limiting the unlimited.. it can't limit itself. it's a play on words, like, can a square be a circle? no, cause it's a square. our langauge is builty upon concepts that have limits... but we're not accustomed to concepts that don't have limits, or the "limits" on things that we might say are unlimtied. we're used to using limtied language to describe things, but it doesn't work right with the unlimited, as it's is contradictory to the natuire of the unlimited.
If God were real, (she, he) would be a homicidal manic.

As a response to your question God still demands sacrifices just not the same as before. The reason sacrifices were bigger and the reason why animals had to be sacrificed is because Jesus hadn't died on the cross for our sins and presented a method to help us get rid ofthe sins we were born into. Back then you had to sacrifice animals since yeah this wasn't an option. Now you simply have to sacrifice maybe that girl you slept with on the side or an offering or sacrifice your time, or fast and sacrifice eatig. Now it's yes easier then back then, you don't have to literarrly died for God because Jesus already died for our sins. He died for our sins so WE don't have to die on a cross or whatever. That was the reason God sacrificed himself so we don't have too. I presented the path that GOd offered for us in the last round, but yeah God wouldn't send his son to die for no reason. NO one would o such a thing, God sent his son to die for us becuase he loved us and didn't want us to suffer the same fate and end up in hell which is where we were destined.
If God were real, (she, he) would be a homicidal manic.

I have to tell you that I instigated this debate in response to the criteria needed to post a comment on another debate. I apologize for my initial lack of thoughtlessness and disregard for everyone related to this forum. You were good enough to respond to a topic so vague the issue isn't even apparent. I appreciate your knowledge of the bible, your faith and the time and effort you have invested to share it with me. Thank you. My point is there is no God. There is no proof, only faith. When you ask, why would God favor the People of the United States over Nigeria, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan? Watch them starve, suffer and die from disease when he could end it. Watching people, women, children and babies all over the world as they are abused, neglected, raped, tortured, and murdered. All the while listening to each and everyone of their prayers begging for his help. If the only unanswered prayers were those of non Christians you could say, well that's what happens when you don't turn your life over to the lord, ask for forgiveness and be baptized. The suffering in the world are not asking for the road map to heaven, they are asking for relief from their suffering on earth. If this is the will of God, how could you not see him as a homicidal maniac. Why hasn't God demanded any human sacrifices lately? Maybe he has and they were mistakenly sent to prison.
If God were real, (she, he) would be a homicidal manic.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "For God did not send the son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (John 3:16- 17) God made the rules, why would God so filled with love and grace, sacrifice his son to a horrific death, to pay for the sins he had given people? That is psychotic. When your making the rules to your game, and one of them is to sacrifice your son. To expect a man to sacrifice his son to prove his loyalty. 1. How could this make sense to anyone? 2. How can people believe this is a wonderful thing, worthy of their love, devotion and worship? The DSM-5, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders is where you will find a more accurate description of God.
If God were real, (she, he) would be a homicidal manic.

Well my response is Jesus was 100% deity and 100% man (scriptures= Philippians 2:5-15 and Hebrew 4:4-16 Jesus wasn't a homicidal maniac and he was the closest thing you will ever see to god. Next the 10 commandments says no killing so even if god decided to use a human body forever he wouldn't violate his own commandments. I provided a small response because my opponeont provided a small argument just for those who are wondering. Didn't want to over respond.
God's Existence (Part 2)

Again, I can't post an argument now, life just got in the way. I will try again for the next round, if you feel cheated in any way or form, then we can stop this. I however don't see the necessity for that. Perhaps I should do the invites in the future, as I always like to give the maximum time possible, 72 hours, there's nothing wrong with that and it gives you time to do research, think over what you're going to write, and then actually do it. For the future, I advise you to do the same. Shabbat will be here soon and I won't be able to respond nor see your arguments until Sunday.
God's Existence (Part 2)

(Everything below is in reference to judaism's argument in part 1) "Have you ever read Genesis 1:1? Tell me, is there a co-creator involved? Perhaps a creator before G-d, or anything else? None of the sort. G-d is the ONLY creator. "You alone are the L-RD; You made the heavens, the heavens of the heavens and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them, and You give life to them all, and the heavenly host bow down before You." (Nehemiah 9:6) "'To whom will then you liken Me, that I should be his equal?' says the Holy One." (Isaiah 40:25) "I am the L-RD, that is My name, and My glory will I not give to another. Neither My praise to graven images!" (42:8) "This is what the L-RD says, Israel"s King and Redeemer, the L-RD Almighty, 'I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no G-d! Who then is like Me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before Me. . . Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are My witnesses. Is there any G-d besides Me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.'" (44:6-8) "So said the L-RD, your Redeemer, the One who formed you from the womb, 'I am the L-RD Who makes everything, Who stretched forth the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth by Myself.'" (44:24) "I am the L-RD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no G-d. . . I will strengthen you. . . I order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the L-RD and there is no other!" (45:5-6) ". . . who announced this before, who declared it from the distant past? Is it not I, the L-RD, and there is no G-d apart from Me, a righteous G-d and Savior; there is none but Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am G-d, and there is no other!" (45:21-22) Why can't you people get this through your head? G-d is the sole creator, there is no other! Yes, G-d can be complex, why not, He's the creator after all!" - How do you know that the scripture is valid.
DDO_Challenge: Create your own Superhero/Supervillan!

Welcome Fellow Geeks and Geekettes...Rounds: 1: Acceptance2: Origin story to Superhero/Supervillan (Has to have an original background.)3: Details about Superhero/Supervillan (Can use visual aids. Ex: Superhero/ Supervillan Logo, Superhero/Supervillan. Just be creative.)4: Introduction to Arch-Enemy.5: Scenario to test Superhero/SupervillanRules1: Plagiarizing results in an automatic 7-point loss applies to both pro/con2: At least 5000 Characters must be used each round (Does not include acceptance) if pro/con fails to use at least 5000 Characters then the same 7-point loss applies to pro/con.3: No rounds can be forfeited or the 7-point loss applies4: You have exactly 72 hours to issue your stance, if you fail to do so then you will get the 7-point loss penalty 5: No Semantics, or again... 7-point loss.I wish the best of luck to you..For Now. LET THE GAMES BEGIN
The current concept of macroevolution is far from solid

I'm sorry, this doesn't really answer the question. I agree that the media misrepresents almost everything, but textbooks are the foundation of our education. We study them, we learn out of them, we write exams based on them to get us to higher levels. Kids may question the media, but they generally don't question their textbooks or what their teachers say. So textbooks must be accurate, or what we 'know' becomes invalid. And, speaking of 'knowing', Neanderthals were not 'white people' but a hominid species remarkably similar to humans, except with a few skeletal differences such as a larger cranium, heavier brows and jutting jaw. No-one claims they were 'white', because no-one knows the color of their skin (which decays or turns to a leathery mess pretty fast). And this debate is trying to establish whether we arose from apes at all, and if so whether it was according to the current explanation, and it's extended to cover all species. So the chimp issue isn't really relevant, though they are arguably the closest species to man.
The current concept of macroevolution is far from solid

First of all, perhaps I should lay out what I mean by evolution here. There are two types of evolution - macro and micro. Microevolution - the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection that give rise to differentiation or improvement of species - is a proven deal; it's been observed, tested and recreated both in nature and in the lab. This is the finch's evolution in Darwin's Origin of Species. But the theory of macroevolution, on the other hand, attempts to explain how life arose and diversified up to this point using the science of microevolution, with the absence of any external (or maybe I should say extraterrestrial) influences. Most, if not all, biology textbooks today present both forms of evolution as an open-and-shut case, a thing that's been proved over and over again. But is this really true? I have never found any literature that has definitively defended the theory of macroevolution, and the ever-widening field of molecular biology tends to contradict rather than support the theory as it is today. So is the education system lying to us, or does anyone have evidence I haven't read about yet?
John McCain is the next George W. Bush.

I meant you never know until he is president. Your topic states that John McCain is the next George W. Bush. You're topic should have stated "I predict that John McCain is the next George W. Bush.", because the topic that is up now is a statement and not a prediction and A prediction means practically a guess or that a particular event that may occur in the future and you just said it was a prediction so it is inaccurate.
John McCain is the next George W. Bush.

This is 4 rounds so that both sides have a chance to give an opening statement before debating. John McCain and George W. Bush... What can I say? Both in love with the Iraq War? Check. Both infringe our freedoms? Check. Both treated better because of their fathers? Check. (McCain wasn't killed off as a P.O.W. because his captors knew his father was a high-ranking officer) Both will be/are complained about but still voted for? Check. Both have/will run the country on fear? Check. I will not compare them both being republican because they are the most liberal republicans ever.
Resolved: Vegito from Dragonball Z would defeat Gogeta.

Thank you Poachi for accepting. I will begin by defining some essential terms which are: Gogeta:Gogeta (ゴジータ, Gojīta) is the resulting fusion of two highly powerful Saiyans, Goku and Vegeta, when they perform the Fusion Dance properly.(http://dragonball.wikia.com...) Vegito:Vegito (ベジット, Bejitto; "Vegetto") is the immensely powerful result of the fusion between Goku and Vegeta by the use of the Potara Earrings(http://dragonball.wikia.com...) Defeat:to win victory over (Merriam-Webster) I will know present my case: There are atleast 2 major reasons that Vegito would most likely kill Gogeta. My first contention is that the Potara Earrings is more powerful and less difficult to do than the fusion dance. My first point of evidence comes from Elder Kai who states that the earrings are more powerful than the dance. Also I would like to point out that Super Buu fought a fusion dance fused Saiyan named Gotenks and even at Super Saiyan 3 which is not even close to the initial level of Vegito which in that he didn't seem to have trouble defeating Buu but he simply wanted to end it quicker. A Super Saiyan 3 has 4 times the capability of a Super Saiyan 2. Considering Trunks and Goten's inabiity to transform to Super Saiyan 3 in regular form it can only be inferred how high a level a Vegito may be able to achieve from a more powerful fusion. Also it should be mentioned that Vegito's fusion cannot fail but the fusion dance can. My second contention is that Gogeta has a time limit of only 30 min and other limitations. Considering the time of Gogeta's state and permenant fusion of the Potara earrings Vegito has a distinct advantage. Also it is evident from Gotenks that Fusion dances can also be terminated by a sufficiently powerful force. Goten and Trunks fused to fight Hirudegarn in Dragon Ball Z: Wrath of the Dragon, and during the battle, the monster hit Gotenks with sufficient force to seperate Goten and Trunks far before the 30 minute time limit had been reached. So theoretically Vegito only needs to hit Gogeta with a real strong force and knock him out of his fusion to defeat him. Thank you and I await my opponents argument
Resolved: Vegito from Dragonball Z would defeat Gogeta.

I will be arguing in the Affirmative but the BOP will be shared.If my opponent argues for a Super Saiyan 4 than he must allow me to argue that Vegito can go Super Saiyan 3 considering Gokus ability to do this at that time. I will await my opponents argument sense BOP is shared my opponent must not just tear down my arguments but place his own. I must likewise tear down his arguments and place my own. No personal attacks or I will consider this forfeit.
Income Taxation Is Not Theft

I accept this challenge, and look forward to my opponent's arguments. However, I would like to submit an alternative definition of theft [1] because the current definition uses the term "criminal" which is defined as breaking a law or being unlawful [2]. Theft can easily be lawful, as my opponent pointed out in his statement "taxation can be theft,"and therefore that definition should not be used. Instead, I propose to use Merriam-Webster's definition, in which felonious means very evil [3]: "the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" This easily fits the terms of our debate, and will provide grounds for logical discussion. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Income Taxation Is Not Theft

Resolution Income Taxation Is Not Theft The one-liner: ‘Taxation is theft’, is a slogan many libertarians espouse.[1] I think however that this statement is fundamentally untrue. In this debate I want to focus especially on the income taxation. I want to emphasize that I do not dispute the fact that taxation can be theft, but it is the claim that taxation is theft I reject. For this debate we will use the USA as country of reference. Please, refrain from semantics in this debate. Definitions Income Tax: A tax levied on incomes, especially an annual government tax on personal incomes.[2] Theft: A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.[3] Burden of proof The burden of proof will be on me. Pro has to argue that there is more reason to believe that taxation is not theft than that there is equal or more reason to believe that taxation is indeed theft. Argumentation R1: Acceptance. R2: Opening arguments. R3: Furthering arguments, rebuttals. R4: Closing statements. No new arguments allowed. Sources: [1] http://www.libertarian.co.uk... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Rap Battle #3

You forfeited that round!? You must be already defeated, get off the ground! Aww don't you frown Just cuz you be lookin like a clown Just go back to where you came from, the dog pound My sound Make you astound You sit on your as(s) and play Halo 3 Wasted your life thinkin what you could be Gosh I bet you whine like a b-i-t-c-h For you Life's a glitch Alright settle down I'm done And yes I indeed pawnd you son
Rap Battle #3

Well let me start of by sayin You better start prayin Because when Im done You will be lookin like your spun, lookin like you just got back from a long run Ohh sorry Hun. No mercy will be given You might as well just give in Barry you 6 feet deep and have to dig you up Lets gang up, Yes Gang Rape, Even though your balls are smaller than just one grape And hairier than an ape Then mend your as(s) with some duck tape See I'm only 13 And as you can tell my lyrics aren't that clean And I like to demean Splattered your blood everywhere, now gotta clean up the seen Anyways back to me And how I'm so damn obscene? Well whatever, I seem to put you in quite an endeavor Because I'm very cleaver With my raps You must be so lost you need some maps Okay your turn to see if you can defeat, Which i doubt cuz got my lyrics down like concrete.
Women play on easy mode

I'll start off by saying that I have no intention of becoming emotional during this argument. I want to look at this objectively and I believe that emotional appeals should never be applied to anything that has not first been filtered through objectivity. The first thing I would like to do is figure out what you mean by equal. If you mean that we're different physically, Then I agree with you. To deny that would be illogical since it is a demonstrable fact. If you're saying that we should have different treatment based solely on our gender, Then I must disagree. I believe that all gender roles are social constructs. Let me be clear what I mean by gender roles: Women have to wear dresses, Men must have short hair, Women must stay at home and raise kids, Men must go seek work and support. These things are not inherent. They are traditions of society. We have grown as a species and we must leave these sort of simplistic ideas behind us. The only different treatment that a person should have is based solely on their individual physical limitations. So maternity leave makes sense because men don't have babies or breast feed them. This is not inequality. Equality is fair individual treatment. That means I give any individual the same treatment that I would give any other individual with the same attributes and limitations. I completely reject that idea that women don't have to do as much work as men. I could make an appeal to my time as a stay at home dad to exemplify this, But I think that would be a lazy argument. Instead, I will just explain the logistics. A women who assumes the role of stay at home parent has to: do the dishes, Do the laundry, Sweep the floor, Tidy the house, Feed the kids, Dress the kids, Take the kids to school, Take the kids to doctor appointments, Change diapers, And while all this is going on they have to make sure the kids don't do something dangerous and give them love and attention throughout the whole day. This means even after the bread winner gets off of work, The home maker is still working their shift. Because kids don't know what down time is. It's easy to just exclaim that women ONLY have to sit and home and have kids, But when you actually specify everything that entails, It becomes clear that women doing a lot more than you would like to admit. As for your comment about evolution, I will say that I'm not convinced that evolution is the sole factor in the form of our gender roles. Even if evolution was, In fact, The sole cause of gender roles I would say that we shouldn't just do something simply because of evolution. Natural Selection rewards the behaviors that keep the species going. These behaviors are not permanent nor are they absolute. Inferior behaviors slowly fade from evolution in light of more productive ones. That means our old view of gender roles will fade as well. Honestly, I think your argument falls on it's on merits. It's very structure is built on a foundation of prejudice. I'm not saying you're a bigot or anything. I'm just saying that if you say men and women get different treatment before you even add a person in, Then the system itself will be prejudice.
Women play on easy mode

The recent social justice fiasco in the United States has shown us both the logical and illogical sides of both arguments when it comes to equality. However, I believe this has clouded what we as humans are capable of respectively. To me, It seems like this topic of discussion ignites too much emotion, Clouding the views of many. It is my opinion that, Regardless of what you might hear, That men and women are not, In fact, Equal. Let me start of by saying that I believe both gender roles are required to maintain a sound family and community, But this does not mean that each of these roles are equal to one another. Men are expected to fulfill as many roles as possible to take care of their family. Meanwhile, A women is expected to do nothing more than look for the kids and take care of the house. And this is only after marriage takes place. The entire idea of finding a partner has been designed through evolution so that men must go out of their way to be the best version of themselves as possible, While women must only look pretty and wait for the men to come flocking. I am not trying to be rude or insensitive, However I would like to see what someone else has to say about this.