BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"is god real?"

If god was testing us i think he would have tested the people that believe in him,he would have tested those that believe allready.Besides if he would have striked down the wicked he would have killed half the population of the planet allready. And what about the people who beleive in diffrent gods like Buhdda and islam or Confusciuose and the jewish beleifs.If there was only one god don't you think that everyone would know about that one god.Thats why people around the world should all listen to everyone's opinion of "god". And addition to that,thats only one speiceis around the universe.And also who are we to say that animals and insects or liveing oganisms on this planet beleive in a god that the human race beleives in. And also gods are just something that people beleive in to have some kind of hope that there is a savior to all their problems but there's not.The only person that can save them is themselves.I dont care about how poor or miserable their lives can be they just have stop praying to thin air and just live life and make the most of it.
"is god real?"

Why is God real? Because that's the ONLY possible explanation for the state of the world as it is. You see the global dynamic of conflict, genocide, and hardship is simply illogical. Why should we assume it's natural for the world to be a horrible place to live? We have the resources and the desire to transform Earth into a living paradise .... so why haven't we? The Only plausible explanation is that life as we know it is really a testing ground for our souls. If it was a living paradise, then it would serve as a truly awful testing ground wouldn't it? And therefore God is real. He's testing our souls in the only manner possible, a world/life of hardship and distress.
"is god real?"

there can't be a god. because even if there was he would have done something about the wars that have been fought between cristains and islamics.like the war for the holyland.besides even if there was he would have taken some action over controlling the universe. And also if there was a god don't you think that he would have smited the people that have denied him all ready?And the fact that the world has so many religion's there would'nt be an ultimate leader of the world unless the whole world agrees on it.
World War One was the most brutal war

I have 2 possible wars that could be used for this debate. 1) The 2nd Sino Japanese war: 1937 - 1945 (this is largely not counted as ww2 before 1941)2) Taiping Rebellion: 1850 - 1864 (Civil wars are also wars; Civil war: "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country"[1])I will present my case after pro does. I would like to remind everybody reading this that even if one of these wars are proven to be more deadly than WW1, the debate belongs to Con. For Pro to win the debate, he must prove that WW1 was deadlier than atleast one both of the wars.References:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
World War One was the most brutal war

Hello fellow debaters. I have decided to start (what I would call an interesting) a debate titled World War One was the best war. This debate is unique in that we will consider sheer brutality of the wars in question.Definitions:Brutality: The state or quality of being ruthless, cruel, harsh, or unrelentingMy opponent is allowed to choose another war they deem more brutal than World War One (besides World War Two, see below for reasons) and then we will have a face off as to why the war of our choice is more brutal than the other.For obvious reasons I am excluding World War Two from this debate, as it is the only war where atomic bombs were used. Additionally, the Holocaust was a real tragedy that appeals to emotion. As such this war will probably get the sympathy vote and we don't want people to vote for sympathy. We want voters to determine this debate by sheer blood lust. http://upload.wikimedia.org...; width="454" height="469" />This debate is presently only open to debaters with a higher or equal rank to me. If you want to accept this debate and due to rank are unable to. Please leave a comment and if I feel you can adequately defend the blood lust I may open the debate to you.First round is acceptance and a statement of which war you think was the most brutal.Good luck to my opponent. On a sidenote: I am trying to be light hearted, but this is clearly a very real and horrible subject.
World War One was the most brutal war

Thanks to my opponent for a great debate. It is my hope that at least readers of this debate if they are new to this topic will walk away with some new insights. In this round I will firstly deal with some rebuttals and then move onto a clarification as to why I believe that WWI was the most brutal war. I feel the need to address one important issue. Numbers do not brutality make. If this was the case then we could easily point to multiple other wars that have higher death tolls than both wars mentioned in this debate. Additionally if we want to get technical depending on the source the death toll is up to 65 million in WWI. Additionally, we need to consider what world populations were like at the point in time to determine how massive these umbers were 1.8 billion in 1920 versus 2.5 billion in 1945. Basically, what I am trying to point out as stated above, numbers are not everything. Although if we look at numbers it works in my favor, as the Sino-Japanese war is not even on the list of deadliest wars.(1) Although the reason the Sino-Japanese war it is not mentioned is that those numbers are included in the world war 2 figures to give a maximum of 72 million. I apologize for my blanket statement that life carried on as normal. However, lets not be deceived that continual bombings happened on all the cities mentioned in the previous round, viz Shanghai, Nanjing, Guangzhou. The bombings were actually only done for a short time before the troops moved in and took the cities, see my opponents sources in round 3. The one city that received multiple bombings was Chongqing as pointed out by my opponent. In fact using my opponents source we find out that during the five years “268 air raids were conducted against Chongqing.” This is very different to unrelenting bombardment that my opponent is claiming. My opponent also said “Pro conceded that WW1 is less brutal than the 2nd Sino Japanese war on the point of being unrelenting, as WW1 lasted shorter. ” This is not true in fact what I said was “I know time does not make a war more brutal,”. So I am not sure how my opponent has interpreted this as I conceded nothing of the sort. Lastly regarding disposed chemical weapons during the Sino-Japanese war. This again is nothing amazing after all, there are still unexploded mines and bombs and chemical weapons from WWI too. In conclusion, here is a list of just some of the topics that I have discussed in this debate. This list surely helps you understand why I believe WWI was the most brutal war. Mass mechanization and old war techniques that resulted in mass loss of life. Use of chemical weapons that killed slowly and gruesomely Unrelenting bombardment for four years. Flu pandemic due to unsanitary conditions. Trench warfare that led to new conditions been named i.e. shell shock and trench foot. Massive number of civilians executed and caught in the crossfire. The enslaving of Belgian citizens to help the German war effort. Sheer number of nations involved in the war effort. Once again I thank Con for a great debate. Good luck in your last round. (1) http://www.wonderslist.com...
Young Earth Creationism is negated by much of modern science, not just the theory of evolution.

I'm new to this website so forgive my decorum. Premise: My stance will be towards creationism in general because young earth/old earth is a tangent. I may invoke biblical scriptures as creationism is rooted in scripture as correlation not causation (I will use scientific examples). I will attempt to prove Darwinian evolution as false. Clarification- When you say "Much of Modern Science" are you referring to: amount of scientists, greater or lesser value within certain fields of science, current perceptions, or which relevant fields of science (astronomy or biology), as pertaining to creationism.
Young Earth Creationism is negated by much of modern science, not just the theory of evolution.

In this debate, I will argue that Young Earth Creationism conflicts with much of modern science, not just the theory of evolution. As such, it is an untenable position. My opponent will defend that this is not the case either by demonstrating how much of modern science is in agreement with the YEC worldview or by refuting my claims (or both). To keep the debate short and sweet, I have set argument max to 5,000 characters with a 48 hour response time. Please ensure you are available enough to avoid forfeit. Remember that others might have wanted to take on the debate. Rounds: 1st round = Acceptance. 2nd round = Opening statements (no rebbutals). 3rd round = Rebuttals. 4th round = Final rebuttals and closing statements. Rules: -no name calling -arguments should be organised into coherent paragraphs for clarity. -correct spelling should be used as much as possible. -statements should be backed by sources. -please make time for the debate.
Young Earth Creationism is negated by much of modern science, not just the theory of evolution.

I feel great I took place in this debate, both as a debater and to my opponent. I enjoy the fact that my opponent point out in his second paragraph that "The metaphor often used to describe complex biological processes, as parts of an elaborate machinery, is extended beyond its purpose." Well thank you very much, I enjoyed my evidence as well. As per Darwins' finches I can only give so many examples of a creation (designer), and the fact that Darwin drawn as evidence gives credence to its substantiation. If the instigator had clarified, sorry quantified this in the the topic in my clarification ergo dogs, porpoises, felines yes even fish and reptiles all bring forth unto their kind and differences in appearances is merely adaptation not evolution. The error falls onto the Instigator. I have provided substantive evidence for Y.E.C and as I insinuated the Instigator has glossed over the evidence and presented little rebuttal to my evidence. As such a fulfilled debate is on once again on the burden of the Instigator. In the Nature source the introduction of the source is "we explore the arguments in favor of viewing bacterial flagella as evolved." and "speculate as to how an experimental program focused on this topic might look". Please do not accuse me of speculation when the source you are using is speculation especially if it is in the Nature Review section. Simply looking up blue stars revels there age I trusted since you used Wikipedia for sources a ten minute research would reveal they are not billions of years old. Speaking about fallacies that you have so steadfastly accused me of during the course of this debate. who is the one who is introducing new evidence that hasn't existed before into your closing statement? I wish my opponent continued success in discovering and yes even uncovering the mysteries of Gods' creation and can come to accept Jesus as his personal savior just as many scientists have done before and after the secularist corruption of science and discovery. I conclude my evidence to be substantial and my opponents to be riddled with error based on the evidence I presented and cases I have made with the rebuttals I have received from my opponent. This has led my to know the earth and its distributed inhabitants to be from a Young Earth Creation.
Young Earth Creationism is negated by much of modern science, not just the theory of evolution.

I have to say I am not surprised in the outcome of this debate and the perception of the Instigator to have a debate that focuses on Young Earth Creation (YEC) and still mention “not just evolution”. When addressing not only evidence against evolution but evidence in favor of Y.E.C he has completely glossed over the main points of YEC let alone his own evidence. First point of fact Irreducible Complexity was invoked to use against me when I never mention it in my debate so that charge against me vaporizes. My opponent contends that in his evidence of the nature article is just a speculation as how to set an experiment to prove the origins of bacterial flagellum and me know when they do. The nest point of a type III secretory protein being transferred to the host cell, well no kidding bacteria transfer proteins for replications and division all the time, it is basic biology let alone groundbreaking. Side note, 80% of the proteins are non transferable in at most an experimental concept.Just so the instigator is aware in his arguments Darwin's finches was used a definitive proof of evolution. Read quote #3 [1}Transitioning to physics it is solid evidence the Instigator did not simply understand the ramifications of what these conventions imply. To illustrate this point I will ask my opponent to simply describe to me what is the speed of the one way direction of light. Meanwhile since I have illustrated that the point is still at the convention stage the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention. The graph clearly shows the symmetry yes, which is a correlation not a causation however the return speed would be much slower this graph also shows Einstiens' Synchrony Convention, which both are still in line with special relativity.Blue Stars as in the evidence to support them and the source provided, you could have potentially built a case around this but glossed over it, not exclusively but I would have been interested to see where you went with it. If my opponent cross-referenced this it would have been and interesting point.As to magnetic dipole field reversal pattern is erratic and unreliable to use for the case of the age of the earth simple fact not 780,000 years ago (consensus). The point the Instigator is making when he says ”we would have died many times over from supernova explosions and the sky would be all white”. Technically its just a pulse of light that happens at extreme distances and were shielded by the magnetic field. If our magnetic field can protect use from radiation of the sun which in the grand scheme of things is not very far away well........Ill save the rest for next round.1 http://todayinsci.com...
Young Earth Creationism is negated by much of modern science, not just the theory of evolution.

As science advances the fact of creation becomes more and more apparent. This is why modern scientific examples are needed as we throw comfortable science out. Evolution is an example of comfortable science. Although I may seem comforting to think of a slow evolution of species from one species to the next species with transitional fossils serving as markers between species, neither has had evidence to substantiate. This belief in evolution must end. I will start with Biology."If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."--Charles Darwin, Origin of SpeciesAnything that represents machinery represents a designer and not random chance. The flagellum rotor.1 Animals formed whole Fish in the cambrian automatically develop a gut, and fish specific muscles which has not existed before and confirmed between two independent research groups.23Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. Still finches. Adaptation not evolution. Now young earth creation.AstronomyAnisotropic Synchrony Convention Now although the speed of light is constant however set in one direction physicists contend by convention that light travels faster towards objects than away and by faster much faster maybe infinite. Basically time there is faster than time back while the speed of light hasn't changed. 4 This suggests that lights traveling from dying stars can arrive the moment it occurs. CometsComets can never last more than 10,000 years ever,ever. Now the evolutionist would assume then that comets can be replenishes to give way to the notion that the universe is billions of years old. The Oort clouds are the current speculative theory. However no such evidence exists5. Giving rise to a young earth ~6000 years. Earths Magnetic Field DecayThe earths magnetic field is decaying. Now the dipole reversal pattern is erratic and not conclusive to the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. If the earth was 4.5 billion years old like the evolutionist suggest the earth would have no magnetic field by now.6 Blue StarsBlue Stars do not live for billions of years let alone 4.5 billion. We have never seen a star form. star forming regions are just clusters of blue stars. Geology AgeBiomaterials that ar fossilized must not be millions of years old let alone billions of years old otherwise they would be non-existant, any fossilized DNA recovered can never be more than 10000 years old.7Science is catching up with religion.Entertainment value (food for thought): http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Sources: 1-http://www.uncommondescent.com...2- http://www.icr.org...3-Genesis 1:244- http://sciencechatforum.com...5- http://physics.stackexchange.com...6- http://news.bbc.co.uk...7- http://www.icr.org...
X2 is one of, if not the greatest Jedi ever in Star Wars

You're nothing. I am the greatest Jedi to have ever lived. Don't you see? That's why I took this debate on in the first place. I wanted to see just how weak your mind was. And what a poor show it was. You are incredibly foolish, you mere infidel. I am the Jedi master. I am the king of all. You are weak. I win.
X2 is one of, if not the greatest Jedi ever in Star Wars

X2, a Jedi which most people would not know about unless they are a Star Wars fan and even then many do not know. Rules: 1. Pro must show that X2 is either one of or the greatest Jedi throughout X2's life. 2. Con must show X2 is not the best or even one of the best Jedi masters and show that at many other Jedi are better with their lives. 3. Maintain appropriate conduct. 4. Forfeiting is not an automatic win although it will hinder your chances. 5. Biased voting will not be tolerated. 6. The rounds must go like this. R1: Acceptance or opening arguments R2-4 arguments and rebuttals R5: Closing statements and final rebuttals. If Con chose to do opening arguments round 1, he/she must waive round 5. 7. If you pull up a source that says top *A number* best Jedi and X2 isn't on there, that does not matter since most do not know about X2 and likely would not put him on there.
There is no evidence for Noah's flood story

In order for a discovery to be legitimate, a date must be assigned to the artifacts (1). I asked Ron Wyatt's team for the method of dating of his artifacts and the progress of it, he said it has yet to be dated. He also had a reputation for pseudoarchaelogy (2). With that in mind, i cannot seem to trust his discovery because of the lack of sufficient evidence. Sources: 1. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Christianity Is Immoral

Misogyny, Hate, and Judgement Well my opponent starts of by stating that there is hate, misogyny, and judgement and for these reasons the bible is immoral. But what my opponent fails to give is where are the examples of such things. Just saying this is in the bible, is not enough. My opponent needs to provide specific examples, so I know what he considers these types of things. I also don"t understand how judgement by itself is immoral, there is such a thing as just judgement. Slavery Pro is disregarding context in which the bible is written and what it is referring to. As we know the gospels are truly the heart of the bible everything Jesus teaches in there does not condone abuse of another by taking advantage. Looking outside the gospel one may find a verse that points otherwise and seemingly contradicts the bible but recall the bible doesn't explicitly condone slavery as ok it just tells slaves how to defer to their masters or may have instances in which one of God's chosen people had a slave. For the first part the bible centers on people being a humble and servile for the glory of God. To always be rebellious isn't always Godlike because God does place redemptive value in suffering. So a slave that is obedient would be pleasing to God not because God wants him to be a slave but moreover because God wants him to show that he is willing to embrace suffering and be humble and servile as a way to glorify God. On the second part slaves in that contact might not have been like the slaves we think of today in human trafficking or transatlantic slave trade. Some slaves were even treated as family members and groomed to sometimes even we'd the daughter and continue their lineage. Even though they are engaged in forced servitude there life isn't necessarily wrought with the suffering we tend to conflate slavery with. Some of them are just children that don't have homes and need a domestic occupation. Therefore this such thing is not immoral. Jesus" Sacrifice My opponent claims that the omniscient and omnipotent god kills himself in order to force the whole world into his debt, I don"t really know what pro means by saying that he Forced the whole world into his debt, but depending on the religion, Jesus may not be considered God. In some Jesus is considered his son, and in some just some random wise preacher. Wisdom over Greed Blessed is the one who finds wisdom, and the one who gets understanding, 14 for the gain from her is better than gain from silver and her profit better than gold. 15 She is more precious than jewels, and nothing you desire can compare with her. 16 Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. 17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called blessed. The bible is filled with wise passages and quotes that will help someone guide their life and live by a moral code. For example the lesson in this quote is to be encouraged to find wisdom, and it will profit the person better than monetary things. Money isn"t everything.
Christianity Is Immoral

Ah I see. Thank you for the challenge. Well the Bible is full of hate and judgement. The Old Testament is pretty much a list of who to kill and who to hate. It says slavery is acceptable, it says to judge others, and it says to kill many. This is not moral at all. Although it can be debated that the New Testament overrides the old, the New Testament is just as bad. The New Testament is full of misogyny and judgement. Also, the whole concept of Jesus "sacrificing himself for our sins" is completely sick and dumb. An omnipotent and omniscient god kills himself in order to force the whole world into his debt. It does not make any sense. Overall the entire religion is not as accepting and kind as it claims.