BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is of Divine Origins

Please message me if you wish the debate's framing changed, especially with God's Definition. Definition: Bible - Text depicting the Abrahamic God, and the Life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The King James Translation will be largely used in this debate although I accept that this specific translation is obviously not going to be of divine origin (the debate will be about the original writings). God - The Abrahamic God who is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent and Intelligent 72h, 10,000 words. Pro can begin right away in Round 1 or just use that round for acceptance. Good luck.
Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

I would like to clarify that in no way that I have had any ad homs against my opponent, only reporting that he had violated the debate rules by posting rebuttles in R2, which had been prohibbited in the rules of the debate. This is something my opponent confesses to in the last round. My opponent has officially dropped my entire case in claiming that I was not 'truthful' or 'right,' these are not only insulting in stating that my opinion that I have backed with evidence throughout the debate for the existance of God, but the refusal to actually engage me in this debate based on not wanting to refute source backed arguments is equally as insulting as it is telling me that I wasted my time with this debate. Once again, I do agree that the Big Bang was initiated by that way, there is no disagreement there, but I have shown in my KCA and MOA arguments that it was through this, that God had led to creation.
Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

This is a message to my partner and my friends who tell me i am wrong - I am not an extraordinary man neither a overpowered person who knows everything and has extraordinary skills so do not think me as boastful and weak man i am just a common man as other people and i have the right to propose my views infront of everyone with the way i think . And as my partner said I violated the rules by rebutting itself in the first round and will be punished by the voters then for the kind information i intimate that my debating skills start with the intro with welcoming statements but before all this I first rebut my partner statements and then i come to debate... Dating back to the views of my partner in Round 3 I do not find any right and truthful information she has types from her inner heart and just used the sources so i will not go for rebutting these useless things and waste my time . God , as she said in round 4 is the cause of Big bang the only rebut i will state here that the big bang as proved by science is proved my the collide of two rays of some chemical elements to form a small matter that is universe i conclude as i have completed all my views in previous part .. i am off ... i do not use any sources so
Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

For the sake of his writing style, I'll be going over his arguments by round. Round 2My opponenet has engaged in rebuttles in the first round as he addresses my Teleological argument. This is a violation of the rules I posted at the beginning of the debate stating that these were not to be permitted in R2 which shall result in the forfeiture of the conduct point. He drops this entire contention as he simply states that he doesn't care, so I'll extend this point across the board. The next point he brings up is the point of existance can be attributed to the heartbeat, and this has truth to it. If our bodies were not created with the biological functions needed to survive, then humans would die. This doesn't quite have anything to do with whether or not God exists. I do believe in the Big Bang and do believe that God has caused it, as seen in my KCA and my MOA arguments that I have provided. These arguments were dropped by my opponent showing that this would have to be the case in this debate. The second argument that my opponent brings up in terms of mircales are atopical in this debate. It may be an individuals explination for belief in God, but is not reason to believe that God is more likely than not to exist. This argument should be thrown out of this debate. I myself am a fan of Stephen Hawkings as I own a few of his books, one of which is A brief history of time, which in it he states, ""As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. [1]" This actually furthers my own arguments in that since time did not exist previous to the Big Bang, this actually helps in my KCA argument. Round 3My opponent extends his arguments on Stephen Hawkings, but I have already addressed that this round. My opponent is once again refuting the wrong thing, I am not arguing that a specific religion is correct on the nature of God, but his own existance. In the my opening arguments, I have shown in my KCA argument that everything is a mind and God is the mind which all reality is grounded to. This was an argument that was dropped by my opponent. Please extend this argument across the board. My opponent had also dropped my MOA argument from my R3 arguments, please extend those across the board. My opponent partially agrees with my KCA argument by conceeding the greatness of the human mind. This was a key portion in arguing in this debate and it is something that my opponenet's concession does hold weight here. Sources1. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8
Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

Its time still continuing the opening arguments and i am here to express myself in my opening arguments ... As i have said about in my previous debate that God does not exist and i have given a valid reason of Great scientist's Stephen Hawking ' s views that only science has offered the most logical explanation about the creation of universe and science is the main factor behind the creation . Now coming to the the next that If God created the universe then who created God? And if we ask to the priests in the temples and to Father in the Church they say that it is God only who knows that who created him ? and God has no explanatory views about that . So we say there are different religions and they existed from the very beginning of Earth ... No the Human Being has created this religion and the human beings are the solely responsible for the discrepancies created and the fight occurring between the different religious communities .. Great Revolutionary leader Of India Mahatma Gandhi once said "There is no God higher than truth " and his statement is always true if we can take any and different assumption in our daily and practical life . you say that God is the best explanation for the origin of universe and fine tuning of it ... But lest you forgot that Humans have minds and talents through which they learn different activities and use it to develop themselves and run the whole world economy .. I now rest my case and waiting for my partner's rebuttals ..
Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

I am just philosophical and state my views philosophically. First point as my friend has stated the theological concepts which as in my point of view i do not care about it... existence of God.. that is what he has to prove rather he has provided that there is some reason exists behind the creation of human being and the whole matter.. The concept of heartbeat and pump blood is not just a reason behind it rather it is just only a matter and it is simply the reason behind the human existence and there is nothing any cause behind it. Man has been created it on its own way and by its explosion in the deepest core of the biosphere ... which would anyone call it Big Bang but we could not testify that here also god is behind it.. I would like to simply tell u the thing that people believe it is god's existence ... example - If a man is going to an interview to get a job in a multinational company then before entering to face the pool of questions he prays to god that "O god , please help me" and he later on gets on the job .. then he or anyone present over there will believe that he got the job because of kindness of god but he forgets that the same man has read and well prepared for interview so here in this part it is only his knowledge who has won him the job neither his God.. Side by Side if the same man has not will read anything and did not come prepared for exams and the interview and only is dependent on God then damn sure job will run away from him ... By stating examples here i want to say that God doesnt exist .. then the matter comes to universe creation then the greatest scientist of all time Stephen Hawking has said and stated that there is no creator necessary for the creation of the universe rather there is spontaneous creation is nothing but the existence of universe by itself . Therefore God doesnt exist .. As my friend has stated the different reasons behind the existence of God but as a simply word writer i would explain it all in these only words .. I doesnt consider of providing different sources for proving my point as i am a practical man. . Thus as a practical i request my friend to showl live examples rather than going on for sources. and copy pasting it.
Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

RulesFirst Round is rules and definitons by Pro and acceptance by Con. Second Round is for Opening arguments, no rebuttals. Third Round is continuing of Opening Arguments. Rebuttals are permitted. Forth Round is for Rebuttals. Fith Round is for rebuttals and conclusion. No trolling. No Kritiks. No CounterplansNo Sparks Arguments. No semantics, the definitions provided shall be the definitions used throughout the debate. No profanity. Burden of Proof will be shared. Sources may be placed in the comments section if need be. Minimum ELO to vote is 2500. Deviations from these rules shall result in forfeiture of the Conduct point or the debate by the said violator. DefinitionsGod - the mind which grounds all reality. Likely - probably. Existent - having being; existing.
Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

.. I do not have intentions to hurt anyone or any religion but i prologue my views in a skeptical and critical way and make my debate strong . . Thus a question urges in my mind to ask the voters and the people who watch this debate "a shop owner does sell many goods daily but one day his shop falls down due to Earthquake , my question is Why would God break his Shop ? Why would make life harmful of an innocent man ? Should the man blame the God for this ? " Thus I end here by stating that GOD DOESN'T EXIST rather they are the outer energy we get to do the most impossible work in easy way .
Uk voting age

Just cause a few people out of tens of millions are better than the rest does not mean it should be lowered. At least 50 percent should be like that, not a few people. Also, driving is a physical act that requires little thought of the brain and has little consequence for the most part. On the other hand, choosing who will rule you, reading through the lies that surround the person and actually understanding what is happening is much harder than driving or any other activity.
Debate.org voter data should be publicly available

I submit that all debate votes in this site should be publicly viewable to site members. How it's done is not relevant, though I can think of a couple ideas. A new tab could be added to each debate called Voter History and when viewed, lists every vote, by whom, and when. Alternatively, a new menu could be added to the debate.org banner called Votes, in which members can view report-like listing of votes by debate or by member. However it's done, it's important that voting no longer be anonymous. By exposing votes and voters alike, accountability can be added to the site. This will assist in identifying abusers of the voting system as well as encourage members to vote more honestly. I am convinced there is no reason strong enough to keep the status quo.
Debate.org voter data should be publicly available

Thank you for your quick response. Pro agrees that the Vote Removal System (VRS) is vital to correcting the problem of voter abuse. It is his contention that the ideal situation would include both the VRS and Publicly Available Voting (PAV), as well as greater moderator presence. On this point we are both in agreement. The disagreement comes on importance. Pro places PAV above VRS. With PAV, he claims, voter abuse is more easily identified. However, as I stated in the first round, this does nothing to dissuade certain people from creating a number of 'suicide vote bomber' accounts. By definition, these accounts do not matter to the vote abuser, so he will not care if it is public knowledge that his account participated in vote abuse. Worse still, the damage is already done. Without a VRS, the suicide vote bomber account is highly successfull because his votes will remain, and he can create new accounts to repeat the process. In any Vote System Reform proposal, the VRS should be at the top of the list. The VRS is effective where the PAV is not. It dissuades people from attempting to abuse the voting system because their time will have been wasted once their accounts are banned. They would have no reason to even attempt such a thing when their actions literally produce no success. I admit, the PAV would be a very helpful companion to the VRS, since it would make it easier to identify abuse. However, the VRS should take first priority. To pick up the work for PAV would require time away from completing the VRS, which I have shown is more effective at eliminating the problem. I would like to close the debate by thanking the eminently respected KRFournier for providing the opportunity to debatee this most interesting of topics.
Debate.org voter data should be publicly available

My opponent brings to light the Vote Removal System (VRS), which is certainly something this site needs. However, the resolution did not state that Publicly Available Voting (PAV) was the only means by which the site is to be improved. In fact, ideally, both improvements should see the light of day. I present four scenarios ranked in order from most improving to least improving. 1. VRS and PAV. 2. PAV. 3. VRS. 4. Status Quo. By far, the best approach would be to institute both programs. The VRS has the excellent virtue of reversing malicious voting practices, which is vital in deterring would be abusers. However, abusers have to be clearly exposed before such action can be executed. Without PAV, the admin (and there is only one at the moment) would have the burden of monitoring dozens of debates everyday all on his onesie (savvy?). However, the addition of the PAV means members can spot suspicious activity and report it to the admin, allowing the admin to examine and--if appropriate--fix the debates as they come. A perfect synergy between the web master and its constituents. If, for some reason, both systems cannot be implemented and only one must be chosen, the PAV is the better solution. As it currently stands, the only deterrent against abusers is banning. Of course, as my opponent pointed out, this does not prevent abuse as much as slow it down. But then again, it takes weeks for the admin to single out the abusive accounts and ban them. With the PAV, abusers could be much more quickly identified and reported. Sure, abusers could still create new accounts, but if they were banned every other day rather than every other week, it still proves more effective than the status quo. By itself, the VRS suffers from the same slow response time as the status quo. A single admin cannot be expected to simultaneously improve and police this site with any significant degree of efficiency and accuracy. It is far better to get the community involved in the process. In fact, it's the community through a LOT of hard work (askbob) that is exposing the worst abuse this site has seen. Lets give them the tools they need to work with the admin in making this site what we all would to see it become. In conclusion, I like my opponent's VRS suggestion, but I think it's effectiveness is limited without the PAV. And if we could only choose one, the PAV should be that choice. It transfers the burden placed on a single webmaster to the shoulders of a community dedicated to this site. Therefore, my resolution stands, no matter how you slice it, Debate.org voter data should be publicly available.
Debate.org voter data should be publicly available

org community. While Fournier's intent is a positive one, it lacks the strength needed to eliminate the problem. Instituting a system whereas all votes are public knowledge would be utterly ineffective when the voter does not care if his 'vote bomb' is public knowledge; of if is a 'suicide vote bombing' account. The proposed reform would useless if a regular moderator(s) was not hired to monitor new votes or to investigate claims of voter abuse. ---------------- ALTERNATIVE Given the ineffectiveness of Fournier's Proposal, the Administration's time could be better spent on more efficient reforms. VOTE REMOVAL This is the reform on which the Administration has been supposedly working. This system would render a 'vote bomb' wholly useless. 'Vote bombs' are so effective at this time because someone can spend a few hours time with several illegal accounts voting down debators he/she dislikes. Once a 'vote bomber' uses up all of the votes he/she no longer has a use for the 'suicide vote bombing' accounts. He then discards them and creates new ones. Therefore, he does not care if they end up getting deleted. 'Vote Removal' takes away this incentive. Under a system of Vote Removal, all votes from a closed account would be removed. 'The vote bomber' would find that the time he spent voting with his 'suicide vote bomb' accounts would be completely wasted. This would lead to one of two benefits for the DDC community: 1. The Vote Bomber is discouraged from practicing his craft, because ultimately his votes would be removed. 2. Illegal votes would be removed and everyone's records would fall back to normal. CONCLUSION Fournier's Proposal is an excellent short term fix. However, it would slow down the development of more efficient long term reforms such as Vote Removal.
The Nazis were not racist (or they were racist against white Nordics)

1. The Nazis were racist to many different racesThe Nazis targeted Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies for extermination, and it was not the religious aspect they were attacking, but the racial aspects. Aside from those listed above, they targeted Black people, who were not allowed to be married to or in any relationship with a member of the “Aryan” race, and were subjected to forced sterilization in the Rhineland. It was a very direct racism. 2. The Nazis believed the blue-eyed blond haired Nordic to be the master race The Nazis believed that the pure Aryan race was one of Nordic descent. “The master race is a concept in Nazi ideology in which the Nordic race—a branch of what in late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century taxonomy was called the Aryan race—represented an ideal and pure white race. In Nazi ideology the Nordic race was the purest example of the original racial stock of those who were then called the Proto-Aryans, whom the Nazis believed to have prehistorically dwelt on the North German Plain and to have ultimately originated from the lost continent of Atlantis. The Nazis declared that the Nordics (nowadays referred to as the Germanic peoples), were the true Aryans (ethnically closest descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans) because they were much less racially mixed with peoples who were "non-native" to the European continent, than other Indo-European peoples, such as the Slavic peoples, the Romanic peoples, and the Indo-Iranian peoples. From all of the European peoples, the Slavs (particularly Poles and Serbs) were considered the most racially inferior, and were placed at the bottom of the "racial hierarchy" along with Jews, Romani people and persons of color.” http://books.google.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
jesus is a zombie virus, part 3. no rest for the wicked

Zombie refer's to the term animated and alive, Jesus could have been neither of which since he was seen killed. I do not believe he came back to life but instead he was puppeted by the Romans. If you have ever used a marionette you would know that the cross is basically a controller, all the Romans had to do was get somewhere high enough not to be seen and string small enough to be invisible. Jesus was not a zombie, but instead a puppet
jesus is a zombie virus, part 3. no rest for the wicked

emotion is the truth or false moon of belief.. the "knowledge" obtained through a false body.. sight of the blind even a blind man sees the possible fear=when a solid rock statue of a dragon breathes fire and claws at me=god of nightmares it is a false body by the sight of the movement of a solid rock figure, is it not? Jesus=following the rules of christianity, unbound by truth of reality..
which society functions smoother: one of equality or one of inequality

Well in reality, everyone is not equal, so to treat everyone equally is not logical. In other words this kind of government, weather it's communism, or socialism, it does get rid of many crisis In the country, such as starvation. In an ideal thought people would chose job occupations that they enjoy, and would work hard for their own incentives. But there are a lot of lazy people, and in common knowledge, a doctor does do a lot more work, then a dishwasher. So to say it would function smoother then a capitalism country, is not to far from reality. With many capitalism countries, the middles classes are dieing, and the rich just gt richer, and they are the ones who control the government(ex Donald Trump). But as an example of a communism country, when I was in ne the last time, I went to a restaurant, and all the tables had a sign on them saying reservation. Even if there were only three people in the whole restaurant, the waiter would say that they were full, and you would have to bribe them to see if they could "misplace" a "reservation", so they could pocket a little cash, and if you didn't bribe them, they didn't care, cause they don't want to work anyways. Capitalism is what makes society function able, Communism, and Socialism doesn't work, but neither are ideal, i believe that all post secondary education should be free, given that everyone pays a tax for it, for that it shouldn't just be the rich families being able to send their children to these schools, we want the greatest minds to being doing the gift God gave them, it is a struggle for me, becoming a Doctor with paying for the education, i don't think it just. But i think that the world is in a struggle all together and it will be tough to save it. The worst things ever pasted were the free trade agreements in capitalist countries, destroying the economy for the middle class. It would be best if the two societies don't interact with each other, there isn't really a compromise in either philosophy.