BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The god of the bible would not be stupid enough, Not ever, To use text as a form of communication

NOTHING is established in scripture so everybody can get it wrong as there have been 0 updates in at least 2, 000 years. There's no biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled, No god that has been proven, No christ that has been proven, No miracles that have been proven, No nothing. Only a god's frail superior ego god complex of characterization in which the bible is entirely about through faith of all things which is not evidence of any kind and nothing else. Everything in this bible swirls around this god's superior ego god complex and collapses entirely. There"s translations upon translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies upon dead languages upon dead languages which die off with absolutely 0% of a chance to trace it back to the original. And there"s no original in the first place! So absolutely nobody is interpreting correctly. Not you, Not the pope, No minister, No priest, No pastor, No-bo-dy. And within those translations and copies throughout the generations, Characters and what they have said, Especially with its leading characters, Namely god and christ, Their quotes/ verses have changed over time. Oh really? Who has the right and or know how to change ANY of god"s language to update it to whatever they felt like and or to amputate it into ---their--- language? Did they consult god and or jesus to see if this was OK? Of course not. And more importantly did they get it right as an updated version to what these characters would say in this day and age, Or even back then when the translations were updated? So once again god if as stated was reasonably intelligent, In which he"s clearly not, Would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible because he would have certainly have foreseen all of these major faults. Oh and btw, Nobody can even prove that this god of the bible exists! Further rounds will reveal verses that choke on themselves by mere translations, Thus the bible chokes on itself. There will also be videos presented which will show that not only is the bible NOT evidence of any kind but will thus show that the god of the bible would in fact be pretty stupid to use text, Namely the bible as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. RULES: Prove that the god of the bible would use text, Namely the bible, As a form of communication. (Hint: There are at least 50 reasons why the unproven god of the bible would never use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. Surely you can think of at least 3. ) dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
Solve the riddle 4

Ooooo thanks for the riddle debate! I love riddles and will try my hardest to solve this one. Ok, let me just type out my thoughts to this. Obviously it's a trick kinda question. Like a pun or trick question(it doesn't actually asking for letters). So I gotta think inside the outside of the box (if that makes any sense to you; it makes sense to me). Anyways, maybe it's spelling like a word. So I will list all the letters that sound like words (ICUP (Lol) as an example). A?=a B=bee, be C=see, sea I=I J=jay K=cay (sounds the same) M=Emm (hmmm.... you never know. It could be a name). O=oh P=pee R=are T=tee, tea U=you Y=why Hmmmm.... thats all I can think of but now that I'm actually seeing the words that are simular I am kinda doubting that is the way to go. Soooo it must be an actural word then not abbreviation. So what changes a girl into a woman? First think that pops into my mind is "her time." Actually time is a good answer. Except it's four letters not three. Grrr, ok back to my line of thinking. For "her time" I need a three letter word. ... Crap, all I can think of is period or menstrul cycle which wouldn't work either... What else, what else??? Change... change means the act or instance of making or becoming different. So what makes a women different? First three letter word that jumps to the front of my mind is KID. As in, kids, children, the supposed little bundles of joy. That would change a girl wouldn't it? But then again, some people never have kids and that doesn't make them not women does it? So I suppose that doesn't work. On the topic of change I'll just start thinking of things that change ourselves or our life. Joy? Nahhh that doesn't make much sense... I'd say love but that's four letters of course. So it can't be that. Hmmm... emotions.... sad; that's three letters but doesn't make sense for this riddle... Diet, death, trust, taxes, jeez I'm getting very off task aren't I? CAT! lol Anyways... Hmmmm.... What about time? I think I've already done this but I'll think more on it. Time is just such a perfect answer. Soooo what are other words for time? Day, pace, date, clock, bit. Bit would make sense but sounds stupid so I'll come back to it. Occasion, while, span, space, (I'm just listing words out of my thesaurus lol) instance, era, duration, generation, extent, continue... OK this is not going too well.... Past, present, future? Nooooo. (past might work except it's four letters; duh) Life? Age? Hmmm... actually age makes a lot of sense! OMG did I seriously just stumble across the answer to the riddle? Wow I am so proud of myself! I can like never get riddles. But WOW age makes tons of sense!!! And it has three letters (duh) and age changes people (especially women). So yeah my final answer will be... AGE! Let's see if I gots it right, hah? :D
We should not educate children about bad things when they're young

The problem is, you are taking yourself as the example not the exception. Look at abstinence only education, states with it tend to have higher STD and teen pregnancy rates. Not learning about things doesn't always work. If a kid is out with friends and someone offers him a bit of alcohol and pressures him, he might go with it because he doesn't know how bad it is, and reject parents ideas as they only said it was bad with no explanation. If someone knows all the side effects, and learns why it is bad, they would be more likely to stay away instead of just going with it because they don't know how bad it is. I'm not really sure how learning you stick a needle in your arm is going to make someone want to do heroin, or if they learn other side effects of it. Knowing something can kill you and ruin your life along with things like losing your teeth and control of your bowels doesn't make kids want to use it
We should not educate children about bad things when they're young

I grew up without any knowledge of bad things, and I am fine. I have never smoked, never taken drugs, never taken alcohol and will certainly never do these things in the future. When I first learned about these things, I was told in a very clear and short way that it's not good and to stay away. I did. I guess my problem with teaching young children about these things is that it causes a curiousity and the "do not do it" gives them a wish to do it, since they are not developed enough to process information and achieve critical thinking.
God(Super-Natural power) does not exist.

The most controversial topic in today"s world is whether or not GOD exists. In todays world everything is materialistic and a very speedy, in todays world people who work full time hardly get any kind of family time leave far time for spirituality and religion. Don"t you think it is Hippocratic how we boast of technology and scientific advances but at the same time we believe in a "super-natural" power that has no proof of existence and neither any logic behind it. Until now every connection, link or clue of existence of GOD has not been proved. Let me ask you all something, does God exist. While answering this question keep in mind that for every decision of life we think practically and scientifically in some instances, why don"t we apply practicality, logic and basic science to answer this question.
Kitties, Love and My First Discussion! Yay! Take it easy on me please! >'.'<

Oh look, I struck a nerve in the coward that has to love, instead of face the world in its truest nature. Your mother would be crushed by my words as every other parent that tried me ended up choking on their words because of my charm and my ability to create arguments beyond anyone else. You're young and naive - this place is not for you, dear. I am a passionate man, why would I ever reduce myself to fear and anguish to the pain inflicted by another? I laugh at those that try to inflict pain on me - I have no pain; I am pain. I would be nothing without pain. You cannot spell paint without pain. The world is truly black and white without pain, little girl. You can take off your rose-tinted glasses now; you have the wrong shade of red in your life. You're a coward that loves only because they are afraid to dislike and disagree with others. It must be so easy for you to get friends that only are your friends because you tell them what they want to hear - I have friends that are intellectually advanced and emotionally capturing because they are people who have become diamonds like myself, not degenerate opals like yourself.
Kitties, Love and My First Discussion! Yay! Take it easy on me please! >'.'<

I asked my mother to read what you wrote. she thinks you're a jerk that needs to learn some manners! She said if you were her child, she'd tan your hind and make you sleep outside for acting like an animal... I agree with her. None of the animals in our house behave worse than you do. That's just sad! '>' Did someone hurt you so much that you forgot how to love? You're so cold and ruthless. If there's any light inside you right now, I hope you find it. I don't think I ever came across anyone that misbehaves as much as you! My father was an alcoholic... Good thing this debate is over. This was a very bad first experience, kinda makes me sad a little. :(
Kitties, Love and My First Discussion! Yay! Take it easy on me please! >'.'<

You are an idiot. Did it ever occur that your love is a poison to your ability to understand the world on a practical level? Love will not save you from the things that lurk inside reality beyond your desires and wishes - learn your place, girl. Your age and your sex does not change how stupid your ideas are. Loving cats when they don't pay attention to you? What does that even mean - please go ahead and elaborate what you could possibly mean with that monumentally dreadful conundrum of yours. Because it seems to me that you're not even thinking - you're just reacting, which is a sign of weakness in your mental state, thus giving me the privilege to call you an idiot. I don't know which smells worse: your ideas and your annoying mindset, or cat urine.
Kitties, Love and My First Discussion! Yay! Take it easy on me please! >'.'<

Don't be an idiot. Humans have much larger cognitive systems than a mere cat. You're so selfish to even think that a cat should give you attention. They don't even recognize that you're human, kid. When you pet them, they react as they would react to their mother licking them. It's all an illusion created by what is more than likely your very delusional childhood. It's okay to be loving and caring, but not at the degree that you're at right now - that's simply being blind and naive.
Kitties, Love and My First Discussion! Yay! Take it easy on me please! >'.'<

Hi! I am new to this site. :) My favorite philosopher is Mother Theresa... She taught me how to love everyone and to never doubt yourself no matter what. I have a pet hamster named Joey and he just inspires me with just the way he keeps going in circles no matter what. Okay, okay. I'll stop babbling, I'm just happy, haha. Today I want to discuss about... cats! Yes! They are so adorable. I just want to snuggle in many kittens. Meow~ Why do we love them so much when they don't really give us the attention like a person can? I love them even when they don't really pay attention to me but if others don't then let's discuss that <3. Like my bestest friend ever listens to me, but cats just stare at me! >'.'<
So far, the Obama presidency has NOT been beneficial to the United States.

I affirm the resolution. ==Definitions== Beneficial-conferring benefit; advantageous (www.dictionary.com) The Obama Presidency-anything that can be attributed to President Obama that occurred after January 20, 2009. ==Arguments== (a) Since Obama took office on January 20, 2009 the national debt has increased $954,324,742,369. That is almost one trillion dollars added to our debt in a six month period. If the national debt keeps on climbing at this rate by January 2013 (the end of Obama's first term) the national debt would have increased $33,083,257,735,458. That is 33 trillion dollars for the mathematically impaired. This can be attributed to Barack Obama. (http://www.theobamadebt.com...) (b) The unemployment rate has risen during Obama's first six months in office from 8.7% to 9.7 percent. That is a one percent increase in six months. If this pattern continues than by January 2013 we can expect the unemployment rate to be around 17.7%; the highest since the Great Depression. (http://www.google.com...) (c) Obama has heated up race relations. In a news conference President Obama sated that the Cambridge Police Department acted STUPIDLY when they arrested Professor Gates for disorderly conduct. He did not have all of the facts, he admitted that himself in the video. He has reinforced negative stereotypes about the relationship between law enforcement and African Americans. Obama has wound back the clock when it comes to race relations. (http://www.youtube.com...) I will reinforce my points when they are attacked. I thank whoever accepts this debate.
Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

Introduction I will rehash my positions, so everyone understands, I've already shot down every point made in my opponent's closing remarks. The Missing Component I made it clear to my opponent, that a similar argument for a creator God could be used as the one I used for the Modal Ontological argument. The creator attribute is part of the ontological argument. My opponent, just didn't understand what I was saying. That's what I meant, when I said its a given. God is a necessary truth. This means he doesn't depend on anything for his existence. An omnipotent, omniscient God by definition is the creator of the universe. He is the Alpha and Omega. He is the beginning and End. The Creator attribute is part of the ontological argument, despite not being explicitly stated. Omnipotence Paradox My opponent states for God to demonstrate an omnipotence and omniscience would be impossible. She gives some hypothetical tests for God. I already pointed out the logical absurdities of that argument. Even if the logical absurdities didn't exist, her argument still falls short. The omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe, doesn't need to demonstrate anything. I made a logical argument for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, creator God. He can be omniscient and omnipotent without ever demonstrating it to himself or certainly to any lesser beings. Concluding Remarks I have made a logical argument, precisely for a God my opponent said a logical argument can't be made for. Is that proof of a God? No, but that's not the point. My opponent didn't prove a logical argument couldn't be made for the God she specified. I went above and beyond. Not only did I undermine every single one of my opponent's arguments, but I proved that a logical argument could be made for the God she specified.
Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

The Missing Component “Yes, the creator God is missing from the Modal Ontological argument.” My opponent essentially concedes that his Modal Ontological argument is not relevant to this debate. Again, the resolution calls for arguments involving a creator god, yet my opponent willingly admits that his argument does not have the creator god aspect. “I thought it was a given that, if a being is omnipotent and omniscient, that it would also be the creator.” Why? You’ve even admitted in the previous sentence that your argument doesn’t involve the component, yet now you’re saying it’s a given? Besides, it does not follow that: 1) If a god is omnipotent and omniscient 2) The god must be the creator It is entirely possible that an omnipotent, omniscient god, could not be the creator. Again, the Modal Ontological argument is not relevant to this debate, as it does not address the creator aspect, which is required in this debate. Omnipotence Paradox “I think it's clear, you can be without limits while creating limits.” This doesn’t counter the argument I made. This is my argument: when you’re demonstrating intelligence, in order to prove your existence, you must be limiting yourself to the task’s rules, otherwise intelligence cannot be determined. Yet at the same time, this would mean that you haven’t shown you’re omnipotent, because you are limiting yourself to the task’s rules. The problem is that a god cannot demonstrate omnipotence and infinite-intelligence via creating. The problem is not that god can be without limits while creating limits. My opponent’s argument misses the fact that in order to demonstrate intelligence, god must limit himself to rules. With the resolution’s context requiring demonstration of (infinite-) intelligence, my opponent’s argument is rendered a slight straw-man. “Let me just address omnipotence parodoxes in general” My opponent then continues to argue that omnipotence paradoxes are silly, without taking into account the demonstration of infinite-intelligence component that I argued. If he had addressed the specifics of my argument, instead of arguing in generalised terms (and in doing so, missing the point), then, maybe, he would have addressed my argument. I did not argue those apparent paradoxes, and I clearly outlined my argument in the 2nd round. My arguments do not revolve around the internal problems with omnipotence, rather, my arguments suggest that demonstrating both omnipotence and infinite-intelligence, is inherently contradictory. Concluding remarks My opponent doesn’t quite understand the specific argument I’m making, hence, he hasn’t addressed it properly. His arguments don’t address the resolution, because he’s left out the creator part of god. I thank Wylted for his arguments, and I thank you for reading both his and mine :)
Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

Introduction I've refrained from addressing the soundness of the Modal Ontological argument until this round. I've done so, because I already know that the Ontological argument is irrefutably logically valid. I wanted to give my opponent a chance to attack the soundness, instead of trying to anticipate her arguments and write a bunch of uneccesary stuff. The Missing Component Yes, the creator God is missing from the Modal Ontological argument. I thought it was a given that, if a being is omnipotent and omniscient, that it would also be the creator. I suspect my opponent attacking that missing piece is just a desperation Hail Mary, to try and discredit my whole argument. A similar line of reasoning in the ontological argument can be used to show, that a rational argument for the ontological God can be made via modal logic. The only thing that can reasonably be attacked, would be the soundness of the first premise. The first premise is (It is possible the ontological God is the creator). Really, that's uneccesary. If the ontological argument is shown to be logical then obviously so will the creator part. Omnipotence Paradox My opponent brings up, the classic omnipotence paradox. "The third premise is internally defunct, as for a god to be omnipotent, that god would have to be without limits. Yet, for a god to be the creator, he would be demonstrating limiting via the creation of everything. " I think it's clear, you can be without limits while creating limits. The creation of a world with limits is not the same as having limits. I can create a model train set and limit the path the train goes. This in no way implies that my path is limited. To suggest otherwise is just plain silly. Let me just address omnipotence parodoxes in general, before my opponent gets carried away. Pro implies that omnipotence is, the ability to do the logically impossible. Nobody that believes in an omnipotent being, believes he can do anything. Asking some of the stuff my opponent asks is like asking: 1. "Can an omnipotent being, create a square with 3 sides ? " 2. "Can an omnipotent being, tell you the shape of purple? " 3. "Can an omnipotent being, toad an 11? " (Questions taken from InspiringPhilosophy YouTube channel) It's just, scenarios and questions that make no sense. They are gibberish. An omnipotent God can't commit logical absurdities. Nothing about the definition of omnipotent would mean that an omnipotent God can commit logical absurdities. Conclusion My opponent has failed miserably, at showing the modal ontological argument to be unsound.
Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

Semantics 1. Self Refuting Arguments Semantics, are important to keep the debate on topic. I ask my opponent to avoid any argumentation using self refuting arguments against me. These things are easy to get around and would unfairly cause me to waste space with rebuttals against something easily refuted. Not to mention that it would be unfair to ask me to defend an argument which refutes it's self. 2. Intelligent Design When my opponent mentions intelligent design in her last sentence, she is in no way trying to have a debate on the scientific theory on Intelligent Design. Instead she is trying to debate the resolution that any argument for an infinitely intelligent creator god is illogical. 3. Meaning of the Resolution I'm assuming my opponent is saying the contents of any argument for an itelligent creator god is illogical, and not that the act of arguing for one is illogical. She's free to correct me, but that is my interpretation of the meaning. 4. Definition of God My opponent went through a lot of trouble defining God. I will presume that it's to avoid any abusive interpretations of the word. Just as she is taking efforts to avoid her opponent using unfair semantics, of the word god, I would also ask that she doesn't use her provided definition of God in an abusive way (example: ridiculous self refuting arguments against). 5. Logic Logic is a system for determining the truth about something. It is in no way perfect. Something being logical has nothing to do with something being true. This debate isn't about discovering the truth about anything. It is about determining if a logical argument can be made for an infinitely intelligent creator god. It doesn't matter if the argument is true. It only matters if the argument is Logical. It would be unfair for my opponent to expect my argument to stand up to every single logic system. For the purposes of this debate, I will use Modal Logic.
Gay or same sex marriages should be legal.

I understand what it is that you are saying, but my issue is that when a woman and man decide to get married it doesn't necessarily mean that they know whether or not they can have a baby. They are just in love and are taking it to the next level. I also understand why you talk about heterosexual couples having help by doctors in order to have kids and that's fine, but to me that doesn't have to do with the actual act of getting married. You have to understand that growing up with two of the same sexual identities is incorrect and morally wrong. Thanks for the battle. I always love a good debate.