BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

I must say that my opponent's response of a typical angry atheist who reads Richard Dawkins and comes out thinking that he is the most intelligent person in the world and his responses lack substance and are full of insults. He does respond to a few points that I made. I will respond and keep my laughter to a minimum. I asked him where he gets his foundation for truth, reliability of his senses, reasoning, uniformity of nature and logic. He does not answer except to ridicule mine. My opponent says evidence and proof are the same thing. As I already pointed out, this presents a fallacy in logic called asserting the consequent. Perhaps my opponent is not familiar with the fallacy, so I will try to explain it. This fallacy occurs when you assert one cause for an observed effect when in reality there could be a multitude of causes. (If P,then Q, Q therefore P) An example of this is lets say we walked outside and we observe the grass is wet. We conclude that it rained last night. In the argument form it would sound like this, "If it rained last night then the grass would be wet, the grass is wet, therefore it rained last night. " There are a multitude of causes for the grass being wet. Maybe the neighbors had their sprinklers on last night, a fire hydrant exploded or (philosophical skeptic's option) you are being deceived into thinking the grass is wet when in reality it is not. He responds to my assertion saying that there are lots of atheists the say that an abundance of evidence means that a theory is a fact. This is simply my experience having dealt with lots of atheists since about 2014. "Any good scientist and atheist will ALWAYS state "I don"t know" which is something that are true terrorist words to you christians because you pretend that you know EVERYTHING because that"s what your holy blank black hole bible is for. " Well first, before you try to insult me, please use better grammar. He was nice enough to give me a grade on how I am doing in this debate. I thank him for that. I want to respond with my grade. Grammar: This needs needs work. If you were in elementary school, I would give you a passing grade. Debate Conduct: Your response has an over usage of ad hominem attacks and just plain insults. I would give you a failing grade. You could work on that for this and future debates. Debate Substance: You did not have many thought out responses I have to fail you on that too unfortunately. Overall, I believe that my opponent fails his first response. I'm sure he could do better next response.
It is up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

I have seen my opponent debate previously on issues like the one before us. He has been rude to his opponents. I hope that my opponent respects that this is a debate on the exchange of ideas of why Christians believe what they believe. If my opponent behaves in a manner that is not consistent with the wanting to have a fruitful discussion, then I would reluctantly leave this debate. Before we can prove anything exists we need to establish criteria. What does it mean to prove the existence or nonexistence of something. I will now let my opponent's own words of establish his criteria. Lets examine his opening statement. My opponent states "There"s absolutely no evidence for god. None. There"s no tests that can prove god. None. So how do you even know god exists? " My opponent has made a positive claim that there is no evidence for God. This means that he has to prove this assertion. Also from this assertion I could conclude that he is an empiricist which means that relies on the the scientific method to establish truth. The scientific method has a lot of philosophical problems such as Hume's problem of induction, the reliability of senses and reasoning and the fallacy of asserting the consequent. (if P then Q, Q therefore P). Evidence and proof are not the same thing, yet there are lots of atheists the say that an abundance of evidence means that a theory is a fact. I would ask my opponent what his starting point or axiom is for his epistemology. How does my opponent know that his senses and reasoning are reliable to know that if something is "proven". Wow does my opponent account for the uniformity of nature the main assumption of scientific inquiry? The Bible as the starting point of our epistemology gives us sufficient reason to trust our senses, reasoning and uniformity of nature which I will explain in the course of this debate. I pray that this debate will be fruitful and edifying to believers and unbelievers alike. I now invite my opponent to respond.
The god of the bible would never be dumb enough to ever text as a form of communication to god

"Unless he wanted to give a sign from above to people every time he wanted them to understand something. " Wow. You are the only person who has solved this debate out of the 15 times or more that I have run this. Yep, God if god would never use text, Not ever, As a source of communication, The worst form of communication possible. Especially for man to foul up this superior ego god complex in which the bible is entirely about and nothing else with translation after translation after copy after copy after dead language after dead language and that's only for beginners. And especially to god, In which nobody can even prove even exists, He'd want his ego to be blabbed all across the universe without any mistakes that text would most certainly not accomplish. Certainly god if a god would have foreseen this and avoided text because of this flubbing. This god character can simply talk to us. The bible, Text, Is not evidence of any kind. So nothing more need be said. And nothing more on my part needs to be presented as to why (and there's really so so so much more) god would never use text as a form of communication. I'll save it for when I shall fire up this debate again sometime in the near future. Again, I congratulate you for getting it right! Its really not that hard to think about once somebody gets that "ah ha moment" that is really nothing more that a little bit of thinking, Reasoning, Rationalizing, Common sense and logic. Please tc and have fun!
The god of the bible would never be dumb enough to ever text as a form of communication to god

Well there's not much else to use. Unless he wanted to give a sign from above to people every time he wanted them to understand something. The bible may or not be based upon the actual words of god, And you're right that regardless some amount of meaning will be lost in the translations. But god can get someone to understand something without using direct and exact words. He doesn't ever use direct and exact words, As far as I know, Apart from what the bible says. Communication could happen when a person in conversation drops a line that has a special significance to the other, Or when someone opens a fortune cookie to find an answer, Or when one flips to a random page in the bible and pokes their finger down randomly, Reading the verse it landed on. Or it could be that as you read the bible, A verse answers your questions. Shaped symbols are as good for sending a message as anything else in the physical world. I've never had any of those happen to me. I don't know how communication by god even works, Because I've never had a miraculous incident happen to me. I've never had anything that jumped out at me and said "this is too much of a coincidence" or even "this is pretty convenient". I don't know whether god would NOT communicate through written language. I don't know what the real way he does things is. But I wouldn't rule textual language out as an answer just because it's impossible to communicate straight. God can make miracles happen, And it would not be beyond him to arrange things so the right translation goes to the right person. The original meaning doesn't matter anymore if it's lost to time. What should matter is the meaning a person ends up reading and remembering, And thinking about.
The god of the bible would never be dumb enough to ever text as a form of communication to god

The god of the bible would not be stupid enough, Nor dumb enough, Not ever, To use text as a form of communication to god. (Taken from Dossier of Reason and it only covers a minute portion as to why YOUR god would never choose text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible) Which Bible? A. Over 450 English versions of the bible B. All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts C. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain, And how those verses read. D. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, Some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts. II. Availability - current estimate is that 2, 251 languages, Representing 193 million people, Lack a Bible translation. Of course there will be A LOT more thinking, Reasoning, Rationalizing, Common sense, Logic reasons why this god of the bible would never use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible, In later rounds. RULES: Prove that the god of the bible would use text as a form of communication to god. (A little hint: If you do not see the comedy of errors as to why this jungle brat god would never use text as a form of communication, Well let's put it this way, Not be intelligent to not use text ---ever---, Then you are blind behind the mirrors within your eyes) dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
The god of the bible would never be dumb enough to ever text as a form of communication to god

Your tone through all of this is condescending, Like you're the teacher here, Congratulating me and saying I had an "ah ha moment", And pretending I finally came around to the side of "thinking, Reasoning, Rationalizing, Common sense and logic. " It's hard to understand most of your argument because the sentence structure and capitalization is all over the place, But I think I'm getting a subtext of sarcasm? This sort of thing is more like fighting than arguing, And I'm not here to fight. If I shout insults back, You'll close your mind even more, And no person with something true to say can change your mind when you're like that. Did you read at all past the line where I said the only other alternative was divine signs every time he wanted to communicate? That was the only thing you mentioned from my side of the argument, And that was supposed to be something he obviously WOULDN'T do. I was being facetious (sarcastic). Maybe my argument is as hard for you to understand as yours is for me? At least I got the general idea; you did not. "And especially to god, In which nobody can even prove even exists. . . " You can't prove anything exists. Isn't this supposed to be a hypothetical argument? It's about whether he MIGHT use it, Not whether he DOES. I think what you're really trying to do here is find a contradiction in what Christianity says, And we can debate about that if you want to do that instead. My argument: I don't belong to a church, I only USED to, So I'm kind of at a disadvantage because I don't know all the details about what the bible says god is supposed to be. The only information I have is that god is supposed to be perfectly powerful, Smart, And good, And that god is supposed to have created everything. If god is perfectly powerful and smart, He can find or MAKE a way to use text as good communication. Even if the translations scramble the original message, A person can read a new translation and the words could tell them exactly what they NEED to read. God should be able to work with coincidences that way with the bible, Or with a horoscope page, Or a fortune cookie. You could open a fortune cookie and take out the message: "Time heals all wounds" or something like that, And it will turn out to be the answer to one of your big problems. I don't think that the history part of the bible is trustworthy at all anymore, But there are some good moral stories in the bible (and some bad ones, So you have to use common sense for which ones you should follow). You're right that a lot of the bible says things that make god seem all superior, Vengeful, And petty. I don't trust those parts at all, Which means I can't trust any of the good-seeming parts either, Since they could be wrong too. But the tortoise and the hare was totally wrong, And it gave a good lesson.
Modern Warfare has become dangerous to the citizens of most countries.

I accept my opponents definitions and offer the following argument: Firstly: The World War II My sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... Ok lets start off with just the sheer number of death of civilians in this war alone. The number came to between 37 million and 55 million, to put that into perspective that is about 1/5 of the U.S. gone or dead. To put some numbers together, that was the most civilian deaths even for any war known to man up until then. The cause: modern weapons that have grown to catastrophic proportions. A few weapons that could be large factors in this, The atomic bomb was a large one, killing millions in a flash and many more later form the radiation. The shock from this war was horrible as well, people could not get over it. It became the most devastating war ever no doubt about it. Ok lets look back to prove my point further. World War I. Not near as many casualties as World War II, but a huge factor came into that. First: The weapons of that war where crude and unfinished to their true potential. After World War I people felt the need to further their weapons to much better then they where. The effect: Better weapons More deaths military and civilian This proves my point in today's debate. Any questions and concerns are welcome I urn this over to the Con and wish them well.
Modern Warfare has become dangerous to the citizens of most countries.

Thank you for a good debate topic. I wish my opponent well. Definitions. Modern Warfare- concepts, methods and technologies that have come into use during and after the Second World War and the Korean War http://en.wikipedia.org... Become- to come, change http://dictionary.reference.com... Dangerous- able or likely to cause physical injury http://dictionary.reference.com... Citizens- a native or naturalized member of a state or nation http://dictionary.reference.com... Most- in the majority of instances http://dictionary.reference.com... Countries- a geographical region http://en.wikipedia.org... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I let my opponent take the floor. I will begin my argument in round 2.
Modern Warfare has become dangerous to the citizens of most countries.

Thank you for being so kind to wait for my arguments. Rebuttal "Ok lets start off with just the sheer number of death of civilians in this war alone. The number came to between 37 million and 55 million, to put that into perspective that is about 1/5 of the U.S. gone or dead. To put some numbers together, that was the most civilian deaths even for any war known to man up until then." - Using your same resources the causes of civilian death were from disease, famine, war crime, and holocaust victims. The resource you gave says one of the causes was strategic bombing which I believe is referring to the atomic bombs dropped in Japan. Even though that is one of the reasons I believed more civilians died by the holocaust which isn't a modern warfare technique. Both of the atomic bombings took an estimate of 150,000 - 246,000, while the holocaust took estimate of 5,933,900. The death caused by modern warfare took only a 4.1% of the total number of death that was caused by the holocaust. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... "The cause: modern weapons that have grown to catastrophic proportions. A few weapons that could be large factors in this, The atomic bomb was a large one, killing millions in a flash and many more later form the radiation." - I do agree the atomic bomb is a devastating weapon, but fire ovens a terrible type of primitive weapon used to burn many civilians. Holocaust is a great example because many people died of these horrible fire ovens that burnt millions of Jews during the war. "Ok lets look back to prove my point further. World War I. Not near as many casualties as World War II, but a huge factor came into that. First: The weapons of that war where crude and unfinished to their true potential. After World War I people felt the need to further their weapons to much better then they where. The effect: Better weapons More deaths military and civilian" - World War I didn't have to many death because they was almost no fight in the east, but in World War II Empire of Japan conquered most of Asia and many soldiers of Japan died with other Asian soldiers. Of course the second World War had the better weapon, but I don't believe that caused majority of civilians to die. http://en.wikipedia.org... Arguments -If you believe modern warfare causes more death then what about the Korean War? The death of soldiers were somewhere between 1,965,735 - 2,323,875 Civilian death was somewhere 2.5 million. Both death were almost same. There was improve meant in modern warfare, then where was the increase of civilian death than World War II. http://en.wikipedia.org... -Now take a look at the Vietnam war. http://en.wikipedia.org... There was more soldier death than civilians death even though there was improvements in the weaponry. I have made my point and I hope Pro will give his argument accordingly. Thank you.
Marco Rubio has a better chance at becoming the GOP candidate than Rand Paul

The case for Marco Rubio over Rand Paul1) Pollinghttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...As you can see from the chart above, Rubio's momentum and popularity as a candidate have MASSIVELY increased over the past few days, whereas Rand Paul has now fallen to fourth place behind Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker. If the GOP race started today with all candidates in the poll running, Rubio would already be holding a 4 point lead over Rand Paul, indicating he would have better odds at becoming the nominee. 2) Match-up against HillaryRubio is down against Hillary by about 7.2%http://www.realclearpolitics.com...Rand Paul on the other hand is down against Hillary by about 7.7%http://www.realclearpolitics.com...The GOP hates Hillary more then it likes any of its own candidates, so if the goal here for the GOP is to beat Hillary (Which it is), then Rubio is more likely to beat out Rand Paul for the nomination since Rubio's odds of beating Hillary are better than Rand Paul's3) FloridaIn the primary races, the candidate who gets the most delegates is the one who ends up being nominated. Florida is the home state of Marco Rubio, and Florida carries a MASSIVE number of delegates, which means Florida is way more likely to throw its massive number of votes to Rubio than it is to Rand Paul when looking at these two candidates, which will mean that Rubio's chances of becoming the nominee would skyrocket, while Paul's chances would grow immeasurably harder. 4) IowaIowa is the first race and always gives the winner of the Iowa caucus a massive amount of momentum in the rest of the election. Rubio currently has a 2 and a half point lead over Paulhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com...If the results in Iowa hold constant, Rubio will get more votes than Paul, and have a better chance at catching momentum in the opening of the race. 5) New HampshireNew Hampshire comes after the Iowa Race, and in New Ham[shire, Rubio's popularity is on the rise, whereas Rand Paul's is not: http://www.saintpetersblog.com...6) Rubio has widespread support among the GOP "Seventy-four percent of GOP voters could see themselves supporting Mr. Rubio — the highest among the candidates and potential candidates included in the poll"http://www.washingtontimes.com... Rubio has the ability to appeal to more Republican voters than Rand Paul, which means as weaker candidates get weeded out in the primaries, those candidates' support base is more likely to support Rubio over Rand Paul7) Rand Paul is a gaffe machineRand Paul has a knack for saying stupid stuff on a regular basis, as you can see below:http://www.washingtonpost.com...http://www.politico.com...http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...These gaffes, the first of many more to come, can and will quickly alienate a good chunk of voters from his base, while Marco Rubio is a much safer bet when it comes to not saying something stupid very often. This will give him better odds of maintaining his support as the primaries progress, whereas Paul's gaffe making is a huge liability to his campaign as the election cycle progresses
Marco Rubio has a better chance at becoming the GOP candidate than Rand Paul

I believe, and shall argue, that Marco Rubio has a better chance of winning the GOP nomination for president in 2016 than Rand Paul. Con shall argue otherwise. This debate is NOT about who SHOULD be the nominee, just who is more LIKELY to be the nominee. First round is OPTIONAL acceptance only. If Con decides to argue in the first round though he must then not post counter arguments in the last round. 4 rounds, 4,000 characters.
"Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes" is a "bad" game.

Sigh, my apologies for not responding to the earlier round. I was out of my country for a while and didn't find the time to type a response. But I do now. I would first like to state the obvious, that Nerd Cubed is but one "reviewer" who is unprofessional and scathing to listen to. Nonetheless, he brought up some of my points on the price and mechanics. He claimed he did enjoy the mechanics with the exception of the reflex mode. I do have a rebuttal for this because the game is not meant to play that way. In order to get the highest score in the game you HAVE to turn reflex mode off, heavily increasing the difficulty and bringing back the great tension we all know and love from an MGS game. SO, I have explained why reflex mode is just a way to play the game in a more action orientated way, but a true MGS fan would have turned it off from the start. Furthermore, Nerd Cubed complained a lot about the price, but I have already shown that price does not dictate the quality of the game and so that attack is invalid as it does not explain "why" the price should be a deciding factor in the score of the game. Lastly, I do have one major point to address, the failure of my opponent to speak his own words. My opponent has only quoted one source, a source that I would deem un-credible thanks to his profuse language and heavy intent to be "funny" as opposed to actually giving an actual review. After seeing the video, I somehow got the sense that my opponent had not only taken all of his points from the video itself, but most likely had never played MGS: GZ in the first place. So not only is my opponent taking his attacks from a single source while I take my attacks from personal experience and the combined reviewer ship of metacritic, my opponent has no right to dictate the games worth because he himself hasn't played it. My opponents laziness of just linking a video is a poor gesture for debate, so my opponent must lose this round. To clarify, I have refuted the two logical points that Nerd Cubed presented, I have shown that my opponent has only used one source which is inferior to my own, my opponent is promoting unfair debate by linking a video and not cohesively explaining his reasoning and most importantly, above all else; I have assumed enough data to infer that perhaps my opponent hasn't even played the game at all. If my opponent wishes to beat me, he should use the power of his own mettle than that of a "humorous" Youtuber who's opinion isn't that note worthy to begin with. All my points stand because my opponent has not refuted them and I have pointed out the many flaws with my opponents method and ideals. This debate can only have one winner, and that is to go to the NEG.