BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Something can not be true and false at the same time

Okay I have said to vi-spex that something could be a statement which he agreed to I hope he puts up a argument and I hope he doesn't spout random nonsense. But nevertheless too my debate! There is actually a slang word called fruse which represents something true and false at the same time so that means that the word represents a real thing! Lets look at somethings which are true and false at the same time. "This statement is false" If this statement is false then it has to be true but then it is false, then true then false this statement is a paradox it is true and false so Vipex I ask you if a slang word was made for it and a real statement then how will you defend your case?
Tombstone was best movie of all time

I thank the instigator for the opportunity to debate this topic. The movie proposed by the instigator is indeed a fine movie which I did enjoy. I will try to remain as civil as possible (note my user name). This is my first debate attempt. As I see no rules regarding parameters for each round, I will simply address the premise advanced by my opposition, without going beyond proposing an alternative, which I feel is required in order to properly challenge the assertion. I believe the 1993 motion picture, "Tombstone" is in fact, not the best movie of all time. In opposition and to substantiate my challenge, I propose the 1992 motion picture, "Unforgiven", starring Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and Gene Hackman as the best movie of all time.
The god of the bible does not exist

Scientific Evidence I believe that modern science does point towards God. Nonetheless, As you’ve stipulated that such evidence is not allowed then we’ll have to leave it at that. If you’re so confident that you could win a debate on this topic then maybe you should have thrown down the gauntlet rather than banned your opponent from making such arguments. As you’ve lost 65 of your previous debates and only ever won 4 I would question whether you are as logical/reasonable as you like to think you are. Text is the worst form of communication possibleThis is quite ironic considering that we’re currently using text to communicate with each. In what way is it the worst form of communication possible? 1 Timothy 2:5I think you’ve misunderstood what a mediator is. The original Greek word used in the passage is ‘μεσP55;της’, Which, According to Strong’s Greek dictionary, Means “one who intervenes between two, Either in order to make or restore peace and friendship” (see https://www. Blueletterbible. Org/lang/lexicon/lexicon. Cfm? T=esv&strongs=g3316) Therefore, The passage in 1 Timothy is not describing Jesus as a generic messenger, But focusing on his role as a reconciler between human sin and God’s righteousness. “The god of the bible most certainly does not exist according to your bible. ”Do you know what a tautology is? The God of the Bible must, By very definition, Be same thing as the God according to the Bible. Who is this "us" and "our"? There are lots of theories about this, Personally I think it’s referring to the trinity. The trinity has generally been interpreted as being compatible with a monotheistic God. There's no proofWhat counts as proof? In a court of law it means convincing a jury, Beyond reasonable doubt, That the defendant is guilty. In mathematics it means following some precise notation to layout a valid theorem. In the context of this debate, Surely proof must be judged against the set of rules you yourself have laid out. In your previous post you state that “I did accept your bible as evidence”; if that’s the case then the Bible verse I gave fulfils your criteria. Normally an atheist is entitled to reject faith-based arguments, However having specifically requested such reasoning you’ve boxed yourself into a corner!
The god of the bible does not exist

Backwardseden has laid out six very specific rules for this debate and it is by those rules you must judge me. For example, It'd be deeply unfair to criticise me for not providing any scientific evidence for God when such arguments have been explicitly prohibited (rule 3). Therefore, My proof is as follows: 1. Bible verses, Backed up by chapters and verses, Are the only form of evidence permitted in this debate (rule 4 "Chapters and verses only please") 2. Therefore, To prove to Backwardseden that the God of the Bible exists I must provide evidence which meets his very specific criteria. 3. The Bible clearly states that God exists ("For there is one God, And there is one mediator between God and men, The man Christ Jesus" 1 Timothy 2:5) 4. Therefore, The God of the Bible exists Now I anticipate that Backwardseden will respond by explaining he's a proud atheist and paid up member of the Matt Diluhunty fan club. If that"s the case, Then he shouldn't have accepted the Bible as evidence or banned scientific-based arguments in his original challenge. I may not have proven God's existence by the standards of the scientific method, Nor through logic, However I have by Backwardseden's rules as laid out in his opening challenge. If Backwardseden wanted to debate me on whether modern science points to God or whether the historical evidence for Jesus is on par with other events from Graeco-Roman history then that is the debate he should have requested.
The god of the bible does not exist

Rules: Prove that the god of the bible exists 1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god. 2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god. 3. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence. 4. Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT. 5. For extra credit, Prove that any god has ever existed. 6. Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate.
Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is "stealing". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you "borrow" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you "pay back" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...#2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY "negative" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!
It is reasonable to not believe in God

I apologize for forfeiting a round. I didn't realize I only had one day to respond. However, pro forfeited too, so we'll call it even. Firstly, my opponent gives opinions, not facts, and openly admits they are such. As he has given no justification for any opinion, they should be rejected as baseless. However, I am willing to address these claims for a brief moment, just so I don't have to deal with them later. Firstly, pro states "we are all titled (sic) to are (sic) beliefs." Whilst that is certainly true, this is not relevant to the resolution in the slightest. We are also entitled to reject science and refuse to believe the Earth is round, but this would not be reasonable. Next, my opponent states an obvious fact: that many people saw something that made them loose faith. As this is incredibly unspecific, it is an illegitimate argument. Also, it doesn't imply loosing faith is reasonable. Now that I have rebutted my opponent's case, let's look at the overwhelming evidence for God. We know that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist. [1] Therefore, the universe has a cause. As the beginning of the universe also resulted in the creation of time itself, the cause must be independent of time. The only reasonable cause is God. Next, we look at the Resurrection of Christ. Jesus appeared to hundreds of witnesses, cross-verifying his story. Also, despite having every incentive and reason not to, Jesus' disciples took their belief in the Resurrection to the grave, indicating they truly believed it. [2] In short, both scientific and historical evidence cross-confirm the existence not only of a god but the God that raised Jesus from the dead. As the evidence for His existence is overwhelming, it is unreasonable to not believe in God's existence. Sources 1- http://www.reasonablefaith.org... 2- http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
It is reasonable to not believe in God

I believe it is Reasonable not to believe in God and my reason are stated below remember these are opinions not fact so don't judge me thank u for your Cooperations thank u . 1 . We are all titled to are beliefs if we what's we believe there's no reason to pressure us to be religious the human race has been deveined by many things but different religions have always been s key factor I believe we should leave religion up to those who see it . If your religious then be that way no one should or try to change u for being that way . If your Atheist or have any other belief . 2. Some of us where once religious but unlike that we saw something that made us looses are faith I can't give u a clear reason why we lost hope but all I can say is that there are many reason but most of them aren't good . Pardon my lack of reasons I'm low on time and am very busy I'll give more reason later . Thank you for your time .
edible vaccines

My rebuttal of your points is that you believe we could use potatoes, bananas, or algae to use as a base for vaccines. First of all potatoes would not be viable because once cooked the vaccines would wear out. Bananas might work but we would have to make sure we had the correct dosage in them before injected or else that could cause under doses or overdoses both extremely dangerous. I don't see anyone eating algae so I don't know why that would be an option. So that leaves only bananas which if not eaten while ripe could lead to food poisoning. The cost of edible vaccines is also a factor for we would have to transport the seeds over to third world countries and that would be very cost effective. A solution would be to send normal vaccines over which would be quicker and would not have to develop. Overall I do not see how we could be able to have edible vaccines in the near future due to the cost and limitations.
edible vaccines

Edible vaccines are clearly a very cost efficient and simple tool that could be used to save millions of lives. Opponents say that this is such a huge risk but is it really? A group of scientists have fed rats tobacco with a hep B vaccine, and when they were exposed to the disease none of them contracted it. The rats proceeded to live a healthy life. This shows that edible vaccines are safe to use and would be incredibly helpful in third world countries where every year 6.2 million die of preventable diseases like malaria and tetanus. The dosage issue is another argument that has come up but according to the Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology an easy solution to this would be to either have one dose per cup of banana or by drying out the fruit then grinding it up and taking it as a powder. As you can see all of the issues with edible vaccines are not really issues, they are just people who are scared of change no matter how many people they help.
edible vaccines

Where did you find that under doses of vaccines cause bipolar disorder?: I'm saying that if edible vaccines were to be used for medication in bipolar disorder than an under dose would be very dangerous. You say edible vaccines are an unacceptable risk but isn't it worth it if it saves lives? I say its an unacceptable risk because instead of spending money to build these edible vaccines we could use the money to transport needle vaccines across the world. The second argument of mine is that edible vaccines would be a waste of time to evolve when we have much more other medical advances in our path. We also could use this money to transport the vaccines or work on advancing new stages into cancer treatment development. These two things are tied together as they both indicate that once we have extra time and money then we could possibly evolve into edible vaccines but that is clearly far away. I know it takes time because of the PDF by Charles Amtzen being written 14 years ago and indicating that the future of edible vaccines is near but 14 years later there has been little advancements. We could also use money to find out all the different causes of cancers and diseases.
edible vaccines

hat happens after you inject the potato? You don't inject the potato. the scientists genetically modify the genes in a potato so it grows the vaccine inside of it. Do you want to eat a raw potato? No, but a potato doesn't necessarily have to be what is carrying the vaccine bananas are another and much more popular alternative. You have to cook it and then the vaccine wears out? Again if a potato was the food with the vaccine then this could be an issue but there are many other options out there which don't have to be cooked. Has a food been genetically modified with a vaccine yet? Yes there has been some plants that scientists have genetically modified to carry vaccines. for example there have been some tobacco plants which act as a vaccine for hepatitis B, though it has not been released to the public yet. What happens if you apply the wrong dosage in a banana? On the other side of this anyone could ask how do you know if you put the correct dosage in a regular vaccine? The answers are the same. There are safe checks to make sure you dosn't. The dosage can be measured per cup, one cup is equivalent to one dose this system makes it very easy to tell how much you are taking. With regards to your point the scientists would not have to touch up the roots at all, all they would need to do is collect the seeds from the first generation of the modified plants and then give the seeds to farmers which would not cost a lot at all. Aside from the benefits of lower cost and easier access edible vaccine help address needle issues. Many of the needles and syringes can become contaminated with other diseases and they can contaminate other objects or people if they not kept in the proper conditions. This can cause more problems. Bacteria or viruses can reside on needles if they are improperly cared for. Also correct needle handling can be very hard due to poor conditions in some third world countries. Innovation is an important thing to help the world keep moving forward and this is what edible vaccines are doing. They help to move the world forwards by helping thousands of people. The human race could have stayed the same as it was doing just fine, but we still invented the computer and the cell phone these were just ways to make our lives a little easier. Just like the edible vaccine will make lives easier and better for thousands. My Questions: Where did you find that under doses of vaccines cause bipolar disorder? Are you sure it "ain't broke" "because my research shows that thousands of people in third world countries are dying because of disease that can be prevented. You say edible vaccines are an unacceptable risk but isn't it worth it if it saves lives?
edible vaccines

What happens after you inject the potato? Do you want to eat a raw potato? You have to cook it and then the vaccine wears out? Has a food been genetically modified with a vaccine yet? What happens if you apply the wrong dosage in a banana? A risk of edible vaccines is that a wrong amount of medication is applied and then leading to an overdose or underdose. If this were to happen edible vaccinations would likely be sued. Why have a vaccine that causes a chance for disease when you can't tell how much is in a banana? With a needle you can find out how much is in it by looking at the measurements. With an underdose the person could become at risk for many diseases such as bipolar disorder which can also lead to death. You cannot locally have a genetically modified plant without the help of a scientist to "touch up" the seeds. Which would cost money especially for help in poverty ridden countries.
edible vaccines

Edible vaccines would solve many issues that make regular vaccines so expensive. They also would make the process of vaccination easier. Edible vaccines can be grown locally and cheaply. Having the vaccines grown locally would eliminate some of the shipping issues and costs. Regular vaccines have to be mass produced by scientists who could then focus their efforts on finding cures for other diseases. Also most vaccinations have to kept cold enroute to their destination which costs a lot and is a big energy waster. It also makes mass shipping very difficult because different vaccinations have to be kept at different temperatures. Once the vaccines arrive at their destination they usually come with some of the following issues: insufficient ice-packs, a short expiration date, lack of adequate labeling, and the the largest problem the high cost of getting it there. In addition, once the vaccines arrive at their destination some families still may have to travel a long way to get to a health care provider thus adding challenges. According to healthcare websites the price for one chicken pox vaccine is around ninety dollars which in the majority of third world countries is too much for one person to afford let alone all of their families. Since edible vaccines could be grown on a farm just like regular food and be grown rather quickly they would cost a lot less which would be better for everyone.
edible vaccines

Would you want to provide a vaccine that can have the power to mistakenly attack unaffected tissue? That is a strong possibility and would be worse for the human body than better. This is why I suggest to keep vaccines the way they are through needles. My mentality is "If it aint broke don't fix it" this applies here because rarely do you hear about a needle stick infection and if you provide too little or too much of a dose in a banana then you could end up very sick. This is important because it takes lots of money out of our pockets to fund this sort of research and experiments. If this was ever to take place it is years away and is unrealistic to think of when there are worse matters on our hand. I see how people could argue that it is easier and quicker to produce than other sources of vaccines but I believe that Edible Vaccines are an unacceptable risk that the world cannot afford to take with other more important tasks.
edible vaccines

The majority of people living in third world countries aren"t wealthy enough to afford vaccines for themselves or their families. This can cause millions to lose their lives to diseases that can be prevented. Scientists have found a way to solve this problem. Geneticists have found a way to genetically modify different plants such as bananas, potatoes, or even algae to carry vaccines for a multitude of diseases. This new and innovative way to deliver vaccines could help prevent a lot of people from getting sick. This could help so many people that it is surprising that some people are opposed. Shouldn't our priority be to help others? According to the opponents, they believe that there are just too many problems with this idea and that the end does not justify the means. There are some issues, but they can all be easily remedied. Dosage is one of the main ones. People think it would be incredibly hard to control, but if you think about it, its not. If every banana was a quarter of a dose or half of a dose it would be easy to control how much you took. There are some cons but the pros far outweigh them. People just need to ask themselves- isn't every human life worth the effort?
god is a fart that never happend

There is a lot of proof that god does indeed exist. For example, some sickly people amazingly recover from deadly illnesses, it is a medical miracle from god. Another example is answered prayers, many people pray to god for advide and for help. And many times - he helps the person in need - he responds to their prayers. And we know that he does because if he is the only one you told about your problem/s and he fixed it, you can further prove his existance. Finally, science has proven that god is or was real. There have been many recordings of things happening in nature out of nowhere - which could not have been predicted and were pretty much impossible to happen without the work of god.
why schools should put more money into their process

Your argument is very confusing. Please use the period more often. Just kidding, but seriously.... You say that rich communities don't give enough to schools, then you can't name a single one when you yourself say there are tons. Just pick one! Put it in the comments section, with a link. "like I said they would rather spend their money on things that get them more you think their not giving out enough taxes you think they should give more? don't you think they could pay for one simple thing such as note books?" People pay taxes only for schools in their district. You're criticizing people for not paying taxes to support their own children. You probably don't live in a rich town, if you did, you wouldn't be telling me about stupid notebooks. A rich town would not need to pay for notebooks through taxes. They could just buy their kids the notebooks. If parents can afford to pay taxes for the school to buy notebooks, then the parents can afford to buy the kids notebooks. Notebooks go for about .49 in US dollars(1). I don't know exactly what your argument is. (1)-http://www.schoolsuppliestoyou.com...
why schools should put more money into their process

I like how you say answer to that like you just came up with an argument that surpasses the Holy Grail in awesomeness. Well, schools simply can't afford it. It is not the school's choice how much money they have. Money that they do have is spent on teachers, textbooks, gym stuff, matinence, extra curricular activies. Were you in any clubs in high school, middle school or anything?