BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why don't people want to believe in God

"And my break down is the scoffers which are people who mock; (the bible, God, Jesus atheist ect)shall come walking after their own lusts which basically means that they don't want God telling them what to do for example they don't want God telling them they are not allowed to commit adultery, fornication which is sex before marriage, stealing."You are getting it wrong. It's false that atheist don't believe in god just because they want to escape the law. Morality can exists without god. "But there is nothing wrong with God's laws he is a Loving God who just wants to save you from his judgement.And I believe that lot's people will face his judgement because they think they are better than their Creator." I understand that god may be a loving entity. Nevertheless, I won't believe in something just because it is good. I want to believe in something which has a logical argument behind.Also, atheist do not believe that they are better than god, they just believe he does not exist, that's it.Again, atheism is not about arrogance or escaping morality, but about searching for an argumented truth.
Why don't people want to believe in God

I am a born again Christian and I am going to use the bible as my means of explanation. So in the 2 book of Peter 2 peter 3:3 it says. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And my break down is the scoffers which are people who mock; (the bible, God, Jesus athiest ect) shall come walking after their own lusts which basically means that they don't want God telling them what to do for example they don't want God telling them they are not allowed to commit adultery, fornication which is sex before marriage, stealing. And many more things things. But there is nothing wrong with God's laws he is a Loving God who just wants to save you from his judgement. And I believe that lot's people will face his judgement because they think they are better than their Creator. Which is my totally humbled, honest, non-biased and correct opinion on the topic.
Why don't people want to believe in God

Thanks for the debate. Good luck!I will try to be as polite as possible, so if you get offended It's not my intention.I believe that the principal reason why some people don't want to believe in god is that these people want to "know the truth".I personally, and I feel that most people that don't believe in god as well, don't believe in god because I think It isn't the best explanation to the nature of our world.I was raised Christian. But I was really curious. I really wanted to understand the things around us. And in that effort to understand the world I discovered that god doesn't seemed a good explanation. I discovered that science had more logical arguments than religions.I think that the belief in god should be respected. However, It is just that: a belief. People who want to truly understand the world tend to seek for an argument based explanation, not belief. And that's why atheist don't want to believe in god.You also talked about agnosticism. Agnostics argue that the truth value of metaphysical claims is unknowable. This means that they think they cannot know if there's any god or not.
Minecraft Best Lock for building stone or wood

There are no enchantments for chopping wood down faster, but it makes up for it because you don't have to wait for it to go through a furnace to make stone. Wood looks much more professional due to the ability change the direction of the block and create more texture. Why would anybody build in the nether other than to protect the portal which can be done with netherrack and an iron door. Stone is a big part in advancing in Minecraft yes, however a stone building is not required to make it to the end.
By definition, in 2018 there have indeed been 18 school shootings in the us

Good point, the definition of 'school shooting' needs to be established. Your definition is as follows: "an attack against the school, its faculty, and/or its students, using a firearm." The definition you give is limited to willful malicious intent. It may not be what you meant, but this is what you said. What your definition seems to exclude are unintentional (and other types of intentional) shootings. Is there a definition for school shooting? No...there is not one way to classify school shootings. As evidence, Everytown has a definition that requires two conditions must be met: the firing of a gun on school property. The term 'school shooting' is just that. When a firearm is discharged on school property, it is a school shooting. Death or injury does not need to occur, nor a minimum number of rounds fired, to meet the standard. The phrase at question is 'school shooting.' Not 'deadly school shooting' or 'mass shooting' or 'accidental school shooting.'
By definition, in 2018 there have indeed been 18 school shootings in the us

This depends on what you define as a school shooting. By my definition, which I believe is reasonable, a school shooting would be an attack against the school, its faculty, and/or its students, using a firearm. By this definition, there have been a total of 11 school shootings. This includes instances where no injuries or deaths were reported, and where a firearm was discharged with the intent to harm another. The other 7 instances were a combination of accidental discharge of firearms and suicides by firearm. While 11 is still a high and concerning number, it is not the 18 that is being reported. Below is an article by PolitiFact, a fact checking website that has been deemed reliable by multiple sources. The original report was published by EveryTown, a gun-control advocacy group, and the incidents used for this report are listed in the Politifact article. http://www.politifact.com...
By definition, in 2018 there have indeed been 18 school shootings in the us

This has been a hot topic since the school shooting in Florida last week. A few days after the shooting, an article was published that claimed there have been 18 school shootings this year. I agree: there has been 18 school shootings this year. The article has received critical reviews; with many pundits claiming the number is much lower, anywhere from 2-8. If you disagree, please let me know the number of school shootings that have occurred and explain why the remainder do not meet the definition of "school shooting."
in a fair fight, My Dad could beat up your dad

I saw my opponent's response coming from a mile away. All I can say is that my opponent is lying. It's unfortunate, I know, but the internet makes it quite easy to lie, and my opponent has taken full advantage of that. I provided a sworn affidavit from the Internet Supervisor himself, who confirmed that the images I provided were indeed what I claimed them to be. The Internet Supervisor is the highest authority on the internet, and his word is as solid as my father's physique.
in a fair fight, My Dad could beat up your dad

Here is a picture of my father: http://admin.moguling.com... As you can see, he is quite muscular and strong. Through the magic of the internet and my insane hacking skills, I have managed to find a picture of my opponent's father: http://blogs.citypages.com... As you can see, my opponent's father is quite the weakling. Proof that these images are what I've claimed: http://www.debate.org...
Modern games are better than old school or classic games

"Old games are definitely good, they all are good, i never said the contrary." That's not what you said during the beginning of your previous post. Maybe I just misinterpreted what you said. "Of course games are inspired on the past, that's actually my point, games evolved from that, and them they became something better, evolving concepts! And of course, design included, as far as technology go, you can do more on design side. But if you disagree give me something to go on... don't just say you disagree... so since this is my last statement on this debate i will expand my thought." Sorry I should've justified my disagreement but since you pretty much agree with me that old games can have pretty designs as well, there's no point to clarify my position. "Lets take an RPG for example, that kind of random encounter, is REALLY annoying, since we all went away from this kind of concept, games gotten better and more enjoyable to play, that concept is long gone and should remain far away from modern games. Those concepts helped us having a overall better experience when playing games." what do you mean by "random encounter" exactly? Are you talking about how when your playing you come across a random enemy while walking? "even if kinect sucks "for you", people like it, and they can have new ways to experiment different kinds of gaming, most of all, we can have openings to new ways to expand our game design with new ideas and possibilities, even with as you say "suck" hardware" Well that's just my opinion. the thing is very unresponsive. "I never said that, but what i said is that today, we have better designs as far as concerns about new artistic ways of gaming. Today, we have really more deep experience's from those games than we ever had!" I agree with you on that part well except that last part when you said that we have more deep experiences than back then but because I already explained why in my previous argument to you, there's no reason to justify or explain my disagreement. "Again, i never said that. I actually said the contrary and additionally, i said that overall today games are better than classic games. But i can say that there is lot of remakes, who lost that "catch" that the old classics have." Sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion. "But even so, if you play most every new Mario game, you can openly see that gap between classic and modern games, graphics, playability, design, possibilities, capabilities and so much more. Super Mario Galaxy for instance, is so incredible, you can never create such magic like that in the old days technology, in the Super Mario 3D World, you can see the variety of possibilities game design can do these days, he offer so much more new designs than older Mario games!" Yes I agree super Mario galaxy was an amazing game and you can still create an amazing game with or without good up to date technology. Play super Mario 64. That game is simply a masterpiece even today. It has a gorgeous art design and just overall amazing gameplay. I am happy that you were my opponent and I hope we can debate again sometime :)
Modern games are better than old school or classic games

"So your telling that in terms of design old games aren't as good? Really? Ever played Donkey Kong country ,super Mario world, super Mario bros 3,super Mario 64, Yoshi's island, and many other numerous retro/classic games with creative design and graphics?"Old games are definitely good, they all are good, i never said the contrary."True but many of those games were inspired by a certain game from the past. First I would like to admit because of technology we are able to make more interesting graphics and design than in the past but honestly to say that they are better in terms of design, no I disagree."Of course games are inspired on the past, that's actually my point, games evolved from that, and them they became something better, evolving concepts!And of course, design included, as far as technology go, you can do more on design side.But if you disagree give me something to go on... don't just say you disagree...so since this is my last statement on this debate i will expand my thought.Lets take an RPG for example, that kind of random encounter, is REALLY annoying, since we all went away from this kind of concept, games gotten better and more enjoyable to play, that concept is long gone and should remain far away from modern games.Those concepts helped us having a overall better experience when playing games."the Kinect sucks, so I don't comprehend why you would add it on here."even if kinect sucks "for you", people like it, and they can have new ways to experiment different kinds of gaming, most of all, we can have openings to new ways to expand our game design with new ideas and possibilities, even with as you say "suck" hardware"you fail to realize that games back than also had creative designs."I never said that, but what i said is that today, we have better designs as far as concerns about new artistic ways of gaming. Today, we have really more deep experience's from those games than we ever had!"New concepts don't mean better though just like new designs. New designs don't mean better designs. I hate the saying "up with the new and down with the old." because that mentality is stupid. not everything new is better than everything old."Again, i never said that. I actually said the contrary and additionally, i said that overall today games are better than classic games.But i can say that there is lot of remakes, who lost that "catch" that the old classics have.But even so, if you play most every new Mario game, you can openly see that gap between classic and modern games, graphics, playability, design, possibilities, capabilities and so much more.Super Mario Galaxy for instance, is so incredible, you can never create such magic like that in the old days technology, in the Super Mario 3D World, you can see the variety of possibilities game design can do these days, he offer so much more new designs than older Mario games!(I am sticking mostly with Mario, because its easier to use as example, because he is around since classic era to today)
Modern games are better than old school or classic games

"i am not saying that every modern game are better than every classic game, they are not! But overall, modern games are far better than classic games, and not only because technology advances, but game design advances!" So your telling that in terms of design old games aren't as good? Really? Ever played Donkey Kong country ,super Mario world, super Mario bros 3,super Mario 64, Yoshi's island, and many other numerous retro/classic games with creative design and graphics? "In the technology perspective, you can see so much more ideas coming through, when you see Super Meat Boy, Fez, and even the most recent Mario game, the Super Mario 3D World, where you can see incredible ideas that was not possible before!" True but many of those games were inspired by a certain game from the past. First I would like to admit because of technology we are able to make more interesting graphics and design than in the past but honestly to say that they are better in terms of design, no I disagree. "Things like better online play, and aspects like different kind of hardware like kinect and wii mote! things that 16 bit era only wish!" Well first off while online play is an interesting feature in a game and console I would like to add I don't play a game or console simply because of its online capabilities. Also I admit that motion controls sucked back than (play the power glove XD) also the Kinect sucks, so I don't comprehend why you would add it on here. "in the design aspect, you can see lots of new artistic approaches, like Journey, Dear Esther and Gone Home, you can see really beautiful experiences who really show how games have matured along the time, thing that you never saw in the early ages 16 bits and before" like I said before I will admit that we have achieved more creative designs and such due to superior tech however you fail to realize that games back than also had creative designs. "Nostalgic feeling is awesome, remember us of how was our lives in the ages that everything was new for us, this is all amazing, but even when we see a game remade, he got new concepts of modern age of gaming!" New concepts don't mean better though just like new designs. New designs don't mean better designs. I hate the saying "up with the new and down with the old." because that mentality is stupid. not everything new is better than everything old. "when i say, nostalgia is bad, is regarding the idea of comparison between old and new, when you comparing such a thing, you cannot put nostalgic feeling together with reasonable arguments." Your right on that one. When it comes down to arguing over anything in general nostalgia should not be a reason.
Modern games are better than old school or classic games

So let get things clear here! i am not saying that every modern game are better than every classic game, they are not! But overall, modern games are far better than classic games, and not only because technology advances, but game design advances! In the technology perspective, you can see so much more ideas coming through, when you see Super Meat Boy, Fez, and even the most recent Mario game, the Super Mario 3D World, where you can see incredible ideas that was not possible before! Things like better online play, and aspects like different kind of hardware like kinect and wii mote! things that 16 bit era only wish! in the design aspect, you can see lots of new artistic approaches, like Journey, Dear Esther and Gone Home, you can see really beautiful experiences who really show how games have matured along the time, thing that you never saw in the early ages 16 bits and before. Nostalgic feeling is awesome, remember us of how was our lives in the ages that everything was new for us, this is all amazing, but even when we see a game remade, he got new concepts of modern age of gaming! when i say, nostalgia is bad, is regarding the idea of comparison between old and new, when you comparing such a thing, you cannot put nostalgic feeling together with reasonable arguments.
Modern games are better than old school or classic games

may the best debater win! First and foremost I would like to add that in some cases your right in terms of technological advances modern games are superior but does that mean they are better? No! A game can be technologically superior to another game and still not be as good. True I wont deny the fact that better technology does give a game more advantages than a game from for example an nes. If done right however even a technologically inferior game can still be amazing. Also I hate it when people like yourself play the nostalgia card. In my honest opinion its just very cowardly. not to mention I don't like classic games simply because of nostalgia. I will however admit that there are certain old games that I have a somewhat nostalgia bias towards but I've played plenty of old school video games that I've never played when I was younger. Also I don't understand why gamers like yourself use nostalgia so negatively. Nostalgia is more of a good thing than it is a bad. Its a mental medicine that helps cope with stress, (although this is kind of irrelevant to this debate. ). My point is however nostalgia is a good thing! Its saving the game industry! Tell me do gamers like you just want shooters in the market?
God's Existence is More Plausible Than His Non-Existence.

I wish to debate the proposition that God's existence is more plausible than his non-existence. This does not necessarily have to be the Christian God, just a Being, as described below.God will be defined as a Maximally-Great Being. God has all great-making properties (such as honesty, power, etc.) to their maximal extent, and no lesser-making properties. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.I will take the Pro side and present my arguments in round two.As the one with the Burden of Proof, I do not have to prove God's existence beyond the shadow of a doubt, I only have to show that God's existence is more plausible than his not existing.Round 1 -- AcceptanceRound 2 -- Opening arguments/rebuttalsRound 3 -- RebuttalsRound 4 -- Rebuttals/closing statements
Resolved: Gay marriage must be legalized in order to uphold morality.

*Sorry for this sub-par argument, but I wanted to avoid forfeiting*When speaking of something so highly subjective as morals, I believe that it is impossible to objectively classify one system of morality better than the other, as it is said in Latin "De gustibus non disputandum est". For this reason, I will simply say that yes, it is possible that Gay Marriage must be legalized in order to uphold some arbitrarily selected morality, but legalizing it would not uphold all morality. To prove this, I present the KKK. Their morality would not be upheld through the legalization of Gay Marriage. Therefore, I conclude whilst Gay Marriage might uphold some morality through legalization, it would only uphold a single morality, not morality in general.Sources:http://kkk.bz...
Should a Child in school have to censor his/her opinion on homosexuality and accept criticized

I apologize to the readers for the formatting errors and typos in the last resposne; I had to leave the computer quickly, and with the short round time my opponent has established for thei debate, I wanted to ensure I posted my response in case I didn't get back in time. That was supposed to say"I'll use the first round to clarify a few things right off the bat"not"I'll use the first To clarify a few things right off the batCon has not posted any arguments yet, so I have nothing to rebut. I believe my position stands on its own, and hope my opponent makes his case next round!
Should a Child in school have to censor his/her opinion on homosexuality and accept criticized

I accept. I will be taking Pro, that is, that a child in school should, in certain circumstances, have to “censor his/her opinion”, and should accept criticism. I'll use the first To clarify a few things right off the bat: My position on the subject of criticism shall be that any opinion a child in school expresses is subject to the marketplace of ideas. Particularly in a learning setting, where children can be presumed to not have a full appreciation or understanding of certain subjects, and therefore may have a wildly fallacious view on a subject. Certainly they should be subject to their peers expressing their own opinion on their opinion; as regards to teachers, well, it is a teacher's place to teach kids how to critically think. If, for example, a student says “I hate gays because of the bible; they should be illegal because the bible says it's immoral”, I expect a teacher to explain the principles of the first amendment. My position on the subject of discipline shall be that, while no student should be disciplined solely for their opinion, at the same time they may need to censor it to avoid expressing it in a disruptive manner. “F$@#@king f@gs must die” is not appropriate in a school setting. My opponent would need to source circumstances where students actually were disciplined purely for their opinion and not their manner of expression if that is a point he wants to make. Thank you, and I look forward to a spirited debate!
Should a Child in school have to censor his/her opinion on homosexuality and accept criticized

I do not think that a child should have to accept a gay persons view because since the whole outbreak of homosexuality has begun I have not only been criticized but disciplined for my opinion. I say if you are going to fight for something don't cry when someone is against it, that's life deal with it and it is also offensive when a gay person trays to "hallo" at a strait person and suddenly becomes offended by rejection but they do the same thing when a person of the opposite sex approaches them.