BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is an illogical concept

I understand that not all of my points relate to logic, but rather in discrediting common views of God, but this does not exclude them from the debate. The unknowable is not in existence in itself, but rather a word we use for the lack of knowledge. Science, however, is gaining knowledge all the time, thus revealing that there really is no evidence for a God. Why have you taken me up on this point, when it comes under the evidence-not-logic arguments? I don't understand what you are saying exactly, but it does not show any evidence for a God, which was my point. Virtual particles are spontaneous particles, if particles at all [1] They give rise to the accepted modern beliefs that not everything needs a cause; we no longer live in a Newtonian clockwork universe but in one where there is not always a cause. It follows by Occam's razor that the more simple cause, or lack of one as the case may be, is a better theory than expanding the answer with a God that needs no cause itself. Your computer-crash analogy is a poor one, as logic does not work in this way. When there is a paradox, it is because the input is wrong. Paradoxes highlight an error in ourselves or in our working, not in logic. The statement that "God can do anything, ergo God is unable not to do anything", shows us a classic paradox that our initial statement is false. You ought to argue that God is a logical concept, but we have seen no evidence for this so far. Right. Beaches. I don't really see the connection. Logic is the surest system for ascertaining fact, as it is based on mathematics, a truth that cannot be altered. Sure, it doesn't give you details that evidence gives, but we have seen no evidence for God (i), and seen arguments against common conceptions of God which I intended to crush (ii, iii, iv, vi) Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
God is Black******

Jesus Christ is the Light of the world, and through Jesus God lives in us. therefor God is much more light than dark, never mind black itself. Black does not contain all colors, it contains no colors and is the absence of Light. It is in fact emptiness. A color wheel containing a rainbow when spun turns white not black tot he eye, and thus, God would then be white according to your argument if I had adopted your thesis and applied real physics and sciences to it. In addition, God created Light and separated the light from the darkness. He did not separate the light form himself. Therefor Black si not the manifested form of God. God is not black in the Essence of the cosmological Creator. In further addition. Jesus was of Jewish descent and they are not black at all: Not even close: more of a "make- everyone-happy" moca. So if God, having chose his son to bear his preference of skin to dawn upon humanity his divine form, He was well pleasing to all { except racists who do not use reason or logic and are therefor unsatisfiable, for even their satisfaction is delusion.]
God is Black******

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم First we'll need to define "God". Let's assume the common definition, being: "The creator of all things" and/or "The eternal essence of all things" or something to that affect. In that case, then "God" would need to not only assume but possess the quality (s) suitable for these roles. Logically, the color of Black contains all colors on the spectrum. Therefore, God must be (based on our definition (s)) Black. And if we assume that "God" lives in and/or is a part of all things it creates, then logic would assume the supreme representation of God to be Black in both metaphorical and literal terms. God is the totality of everything that was, is, and will ever be. Therefore, God cannot create anything it didn't already contain mentally. The mind precedes ALL 7 densities of creation in the order of: magnetism, electricity, light, ether, gas, liquid, and solid. Each condensation contains the previous condensation. Therefore, If all creation stems from the Mind of God, then God literally remains present throughout all densities of creation. Even "material" or what you call "human" لا إله إلا الله
God is Black******

Indeed, Allah begets not. he is eternal an unchanging, when he had established for himself a face so that the angels who came after him came into being could see him, he said the name of that face was Jesus, and that face was the face of God; a face through which one must turn to gaze upon the being of God himself, without being able to even then perceive his greatness and glory. This face, was the Wisdom of God, and only through his fruits and his works can God be known even to an angel. This word, His light, the face of God is Jesus Christ our Creator, who is the First born son, the first act of Our great Creator Allah. So indeed thank you WWNightmare for forfeiting this debate. Peace be upon you, and an everlasting joy and respite in the sanctity and all-mighty glory of God, who is all wise and all knowing and cannot be questioned in his ways, but is pleasing to all who come into an understanding of his person, and worship him as he has degreed is a most pleasing of all pleasing concepts of ways to live ones life. For truly the truth is enlightenment, the rejection of sin, and the reunification with devotion through works and joy in our existence as Gods loyal servants and devotees. God is without bias towards the people of earth in the likeness of their appearance. He is utmost pleased with those who are truly pleased with him, loving hat he loves and hating what he hates. God is a jealous God for those who suffer for his sake.
God is Black******

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم Lol... You all are hilarious. Ok I forfeit :) قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌۢ
Video Games Are An Art Form

I must say you do make a point that video games are art.What I was saying is that art is a skill and people making the games are very good indeed. You know this just came out of my mind right now and I never think of this before if video games are art then why don't we not hear they are admired as art should be?You admired them and I'm glad that you are , video games are more of a gaming way than admired by a few of their good scenarios and images.So really if you try put up a opinion of what would you do if you got a cool video game with nice graphics and good gaming the approximate will say that it's better to game than waste your time admiring the graphics
Video Games Are An Art Form

Now I think in order to properly analyze and argue what you have argued we must define art. Webster's defines art as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. " You make the contention that because video games are made of virtual images and pixels mean that it is not of artistic merit. I must say that whatever form art is made of does not dictate whether it is art or not. Would you discredit any film that uses computer generated imagery because it is not physically there? I'm sure if you spoke to anybody who programs for video games and created these "virtual images" you speak of you would know how hard work and artistry are required. You say that in your opinion "killing and blood all over the place is not the type of art. " First of all not all video games feature blood and killing, in fact some of the most aesthetically beautiful games (Flower, Journey, Braid) feature no killing at all, and even so if games such as BioShock or The Walking Dead feature killing and blood, so what? Schindler's List features violence and ruthless killing, does that make that film inartistic? Or Saving Private Ryan? Or any painting that depicts violence? You also seem to say that animation creates the storyline in games and the gameplay itself is simply killing and inartistic nonsense, also I must say that games such as BioShock feature in-game storytelling by way of audio diaries recorded by people telling of the fall of a great city by way of the interior politics (the game itself is an indictment of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy), and in Journey you yourself participate in all of the aesthetic beauty in the game, and even if in some games the story is told by cut-scenes and the gameplay itself doesn't carry much in storytelling I must again say this, so what? Cut-scenes are just as important to video games as gameplay, they give video games a way to tell the story in a way the uses angles and allows the creators of the game to create their artistic vision in the video game. If I have misinterpreted anything or left anything out please rebut.
Video Games Are An Art Form

Art in deifinition in my means is the picture of imagination and also by skill like a sculpture etc. I oppose your claims because video games are more social than art and for video gamers like you is art. People who plays these games might call them pixel virtual images or pixelations. So for u (the pro) might think they are art in your eyes anime people and cool scenes and images it's not i'm very sorry to say. Pixelations is classified differently than art it's more computer than by actual physical skill.In my oppinion killing and blood all over the place is not the type of art and lovely beautiful animes are just making the storyline of the game interesting and also can have more sales.
Video Games Are An Art Form

Are Video Games Art? Roger Ebert famously said that they can never be, yet even though I highly respect him as a film critic, I'm afraid that I must disagree, video games are art, and even though it may be the youngest medium I believe that despite the non-artistic video games (call of duty, wwe, etc.) there are many games that contain artistic merits of complex philosophical storylines (Metal Gear Solid, Shadow of the Colossus), and games that rival emotional impact in films and other mediums (The Walking Dead Video Game, Ico.) This will be a three round debate with each round being as follows: Round 1: Opening Arguments, display what your main arguments are. Round 2: Debating, challenge the other debaters contentions Round 3: Closing, End with a wrap up of the debate. So I argue that video games are indeed art, and unless the challenger and disprove this claim, then I believe I have won, and video games should be recognized as an art form by all.
DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: States Should Possess Nuclear Weapons

Resolved: States Should Possess Nuclear WeaponsDebate Details:Round Two of the DDO Tournament Take Two, Middle Tier. (http://www.debate.org...)Tournament Judges:Mikal: (http://www.debate.org...)YYW: (http://www.debate.org...)orangemayhem: (http://www.debate.org...)bladerunner060: (http://www.debate.org...)Blade-of-Truth: (http://www.debate.org...)Debate Competititors:FuzzyCatPotato is Affirming the resolution. (http://www.debate.org...)ArcTimes is Negating the resolution. (http://www.debate.org...)Debate Rules:Character limit: 10,000/roundPosting time: 72 hrs/roundBurden of Proof: SharedDebate Schedule:Rd. 1: Acceptance.Rd. 2: New arguments and rebuttals.Rd. 3: New arguments and rebuttals.Rd. 4: Rebuttals and summary.Debate Definitions:State: "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government," [1]Should: "Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness," [2]Possess: "Have as belonging to one; own," [3]Nuclear weapon: "A bomb or missile that uses nuclear energy to cause an explosion," [4]Thanks to all readers, to our judges, and to my opponent.References:[1] https://www.google.com...[2] https://www.google.com...[3] https://www.google.com...[4] https://www.google.com...Updates:Edit 1: I changed the definition of "state", because ArcTimes asked.
star wars vs star trek

"This is my opinion" Your personal opinions, if not sated with adequate reasoning and evidence, are practically useless in the realm of debate. Rhetorical prowess requires that people's opinions be reinforced and supported by a list of points (assertions) followed by warrants (reasons why assertions are true) and implications (why the previous two matter in terms of the resolution). Try to provide a case like this for your next debate. Improvement is a constant progress with debates. Good luck! "I think that star wars is so much better than star trek cause I love light sabers. "Phasers are superior to light sabers in strike range and effectiveness. C1: TechnologyA. Light saber vs. PhaserAs far as technological might is concerned with my opponent's choice of weaponry, Star Wars' light sabers are primative weapons in comparison to Star Trek's phasers. Light sabers have a strike range of around 4-5 feet, while phaser shots can continue indefinitely in space. Dont bring a sword to a gun fight! B. TeleportationStar Trek features transporter technology that beams species, objects, anything really from one location to another. This teleportational technology is a huge improvement upon Star Wars. C. Spheres and CubesWhereas Star Wars' villan Darth Vader has only one sphere, the Death Star, the Borg have literally thousands of spheres, cubes, etc. D. Technological InspirationStar Trek, as you may know, inspired many of the devices we take for granted today. These range from the cell phone and social media to interplanetary travel and tablets. [1]C2: Real World IssuesA. PhilosophyStar Trek often invoked philosophical questions and moral concerns in its numerous episodes. Questions about death, life substitution, conflicts of rights, privileges, and standards. Is it okay to love another species? At what point should life cease to have meaning? It addressed these issues in a poignant and nuanced way, tying them beautifully into the entertaining story lines with panache. Star Wars was just action and special effects. [2]B. RelationshipsThe episodes of Star Trek also dealt in the arena of relationships with great depth and humanity. Star, William Shatner, brilliantly put it like so, "Star Trek had relationships and conflict among the relationships, and stories that involved humanity and philosophical questions. " [2] [3]Sources[1] . http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com...[2] . http://theclicker.today.msnbc.msn.com...http://www.youtube.com... #! [3] . http://www.pajiba.com...Thank you for reading and debating! :D
Cloud Seeding Should Be Used

Since you have failed to give me an example of an instance where another material has been used instead of silver iodide and was successful, i'll have to ignore that argument. You stated yourself it was lethal. It doesn't matter if the chemical is fairly diluted, it is still dangerous and can cause serious harm to ecosystems. The testing of the soil is faulty and unreliable, so it very possible other studies don't have accurate information. In conclusion, cloud seeding should not be used. This is because it is plainly unnatural and has already wreaked havoc on several ecosystems. Silver Iodide is a harmful chemical that should never be used in the first place. Vote Con! Thanks for the good debate.
Cloud Seeding Should Be Used

I would like to stretch my argument on Silver Iodide before continuing, for you seem to not understand how dangerous this chemical is. As for the Sierra Lake study, I would appreciate it if you left a link to this source because I can't see where it ever gives that information. According to the Colorado National Park Service, the result of cloud seeding Silver Iodide runoff has had adverse effects on the soil and vegetation. Testing the rainwater has also been a faulty and hazardous experience. According to the PGCD, since they can't control where the seeded clouds dump water, the sampling process is nearly impossible. Many ecosystems may be harmfully affected by the seeded clouds we don't even know about. Since the contaminated water sinks into soil and can runoff into streams and other bodies of water, it doesn't make sense the dangerous chemical wouldn't harm aquatic or land animals. If it has such dangerous effects on humans, the same should happen with any organism. Saying it doesn't harm the organisms would be going against facts I have found on several websites. As for the dry ice method, unless you can give to me a specific example where this has worked, I have no way of knowing if the dry ice would help anything.
Cloud Seeding Should Be Used

Often times, cloud seeding does not achieve the desired effect, and produces harmful side effects. These include -Rain Suppression -Flooding -Tornadoes -Silver Iodide Toxicity Silver Iodide is a chemical found in much higher quantities in seeded cloud rain then regular cloud rain. The Office of Environment, Health and Safety, UC Berkeley, rates silver iodide as a Class C, non-soluble, inorganic, hazardous chemical that pollutes water and soil. Your sources were wrong in telling you that it was not harmful to the environment, because it very much is. Seeded clouds have hazardous chemicals that pollute water and the soil. This can be harmful to animals and plants alike. This is an article describing the effects of Silver Iodide on the human body: "Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce "iodism", which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin" In conclusion, cloud seeding should not be used worldwide. This is because it is harmful to the environment and animals, and the rain from the seeded clouds is high in harmful chemicals. Source- . http://www.ranches.org...
Wikipedia is a reliable source of information

On to the arguments:Argument 1 - Wikipedia is well-citedWikipedia is most often criticized in regards to its validity because anyone in the world is allowed to edit most of the pages on Wikipedia. Although this is 100% true, one must also remember that an overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles are cited to reliable sources. Here is just a single example of a well-cited page [1] with over 160 reliable citations, but keep in mind that there are many more of this article's kind. Any article written second-hand (meaning it was not written by a person who witnessed or otherwise experienced a topic for themselves), which the majority of encyclopedic articles are, is only as reliable as its sources. The majority of Wikipedia articles, like most textbooks and printed encyclopedias, are well-cited and therefore a trustworthy source of information. Given that it is a community-driven website, one cannot expect for every page to be cited, and therefore it is up to the common sense of the viewer not to rely on information from such articles. Argument 2 - Wikipedia vandalism is addressed quicklyAgain, like any peer-reviewed website, Wikipedia is subject to vandalism. But one must look at the other side of this as well: just like there are people willing to vandalize Wikipedia, there are also people willing to fix those vandalizations. According to a study by IBM, Wikipedia vandalism is usually so short-lived, that most people will never get to see its negative effects [2]. A 2007 study by authors from the University of Minnesota notes that 42% of damage is repaired nearly instantly [3]. Any remaining vandalism is usually seen to shortly after. Also keep in mind that all edits are memorized by Wikipedia, so if extensive damage is made to an article, it is easy to simply restore the article to its state before the vandalization. Argument 3 - Wikipedia allows helpful information from billions of people to be added to a single pageWikipedia is one-of-a-kind. It is the only major, free, online, user-contributed encyclopedia of its kind. This means that Wikipedia, unlike most encyclopedias, research reports, and other sources of information, it is able to be contributed to by billions of people worldwide. People with first-hand experiences on a topic can contribute to an article and give it valuable information that other sources of information that have only a set number of researchers and editors could not, thus increasing its reliability and accuracy. Good luck to my opponent as he makes his opening arguments. Sources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.research.ibm.com... [3] . http://dl.acm.org...
Wikipedia is a reliable source of information

Burden of ProofPro must prove that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information.Con must prove that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.Debate StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 - RebuttalsRound 4 - Defense against rebuttals and conclusionsDefinitionsFor the purposes of this debate, "Wikipedia" refers to the English version of the free, online encyclopedia which can be viewed at: http://en.wikipedia.org...Other Rules - No semantics Anyone who accepts this debate agrees to the above rules for the debate. I look forward to what I'm sure will be an interesting one!
Abortion

When you have sex, You should assume the risk and the responsibility you may have a child. Personally, I believe sex should only belong in marriage, But that's a whole other topic. Say you were a teen that was pregnant. You should go until it's born as it's a life you created, Whether you choose to accept that fact or not is up to you. I can assure you that there are many people that would be willing to adopt your child, Or you can fall back on your parents or grandparents for support. They may be upset at first, But generally they will see past it and help you bring a new life into the world. Also, You don't have to go into debt and become an alcoholic if you do raise it, And you most definitely won't gain debt as fast if you don't consume copious amounts of alcohol. You mentioned the easy way, But in general, The easy way out isn't the best. The child is a human no matter what stage they're in, Why else would someone who killed a pregnant woman get charged with double murder? It is a selfish decision to end a life for your own comfort, And most, If not all people who receive an abortion feel depression after, And you will need to undergo post-abortion care, Which makes it sound a more painful than you insinuated. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, That is the only time an abortion is acceptable as it is to save all lives you can, Which would be the mother's, Rather than letting them die. Would you rather we all lived in a false comfort, Or respect human dignity and have some personal responsibility?
Abortion

Let's say I'm a teenage mom, The victim of an accidental pregnancy, Who do not want to take on the financial and civil responsibility of a child. I can risk childbirth, Give my child up for adoption after it's born, And leave that child to never know it's mother, Or drown in debt and alcohol because I decided to raise it, But the easy option is to abort that child before it becomes "Human" The fetus has potential for life, But at the earliest stages cognitive functions are just starting to develop, And it will be painless and easy for both mother and fetus. What if there are medical complications/deformities? Will the mother risk her own life for a fetus she doesn't want and was going to give up anyway?
Abortion

I believe abortion should be illegal as it is a violation of human life. Inside the womb, The child has it's own heartbeat, Blood type and DNA. It also has a zinc powered flash when it is conceived, Indicating the creation of a human life. One cannot argue that a human does not value outside the womb morally, So why do we let mass slaughters take place on the unborn? It is immoral and should be illegal to harm a child, In or out of the womb. I am looking forward to a civil debate, And hope we can both learn off each other's opinions.