BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or can he not create the rock? the answer is yes...

"But this IS NOT LOGICAL and doesn't solve the problem at all, because God is NEVER able to create such a rock. Why? Because from Pro's point of view, God is able to lift it ALWAYS, if he wants." god can create that rock. as long as he is not acting as the unstoppabe force when said rock exists. so it couldn't be exactly accurate to say God an 'always' lift it. but yes, he can always change his mind, allow time to pass, and then lift it. but they cannot be instanteously existing at the same time. " It is not illogical to ask a being to create a rock that he can't lift. ...... The reason it gets difficult when talking about an omnipotent being is because the absurdity is on the "omnipotent" part.' so it's not illogical to ask a nonomipotent being to create the rock, but illogical to ask an omnipotent? just making sure i undertand correct what you are saying. again, i dont see why God can't create the rock, as long as he is staying within the laws of logic while doing so, not acting as an unstoppable force at the same time as the rock exists. perhaps what my fellow supporter i had debated, his postiion might be better. God can limit himself by virtue of being unlimited, and cannot lift the rock if he chooses to create it. i see flaws with this approach, but it's an alterantive. this way, if GOd make the rock for ten days, according to that debater, he cannot lift the rock at all for ten days. according to me, he could, it's just that he probably wouldnt. he could according to me, because the rock would cease to be unliftable, and then God can switch to being unstoppable. "Pro already said. It is impossible to create such rock and at the same time that rock no being able to be lifted by an omnipotent being. You are just describing the paradox." all i said was that GOd can create the rock. but then he can decide to lift it. as long as he doesn't do both at the same time, he is acting consistently. con i wont deny is doing a decent job trying to argue why the paradox shows omnipotence to be impossible. this is probably easier for him given he is an atheist and does't like the connotations of God. but then we would also have to say that the 'unlimited even within the laws of logic' is impossible. can we really be ready to make that assertion? i would like to see con argue the 'pro' i argued against in the other debate i recently had. they were both good debaters, but i was better able to detect the 'illogic' in his arguments than in my own, if i even conceded it exists. having a hard time following your bachelor examples, but from what i can gather it's not applicable to the God paradox. i can gather that we shouldn't assume that God is unlimited without establishing first that he is?
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or can he not create the rock? the answer is yes...

""but he can't do both at the same time" would be against the definition. I will wait for Pro's definition on what he wants to defend." i don't think i need to provide a precise definition as i've what ive given supplies definitive details as standards. were i to define it i might need to define it as something like 'unlimited potential that accords with the laws of logic'. various reasons ive already given explain why i might frame it that way. but i dont want this to be 'is the definition good enough' when ive given so many details to hold me against as a standard. when i say he cant do both at the same time, create the rock and be someone who can lift it, i am only acnowledging the logical restraints God has to abide by. "Pro is misunderstanding the problem. The paradox is challenging logic, not because of the question being illogical, but because omnipotence is illogical." having a hard time following you. con gave an example that a non omnipotent being can find rocks he can't lift. some how he is trying to say that omnipotence is illogical, but doesn't explain how. "Here, there is no paradox. So the paradox is not in the question, but in the characteristic of god called "omnipotence". The reason Pro is creating a paradox on his own to make the question invalid is because he is IMPLYING god is omnipotent." still having a hard time following you. yes, that bachelor example is not like the omnipotent issue. but, God is omnipotent, within the laws of logic. when i show things that are illogical, a rock that can't be lift, and a unstopptable force of God, i am merely pointing out that logically both cannot exist at the same time. that cartoon actually says it well. God can create the rock, then he can decide to lift it. there might be effective constraints on what God will do, but there's not on what he can do. like i can say i wont drop a ball.... but i always have the ability to. if i were consistent, i wouldn't, but that doesn't mean i cant. to your first rebuttal two point, yes God is obeying the laws of logic. that's the way i described it, and began to define it. you even later seemed to acknowledge that that defintiion seemed optimal, as you made the definition yourself. "The paradox doesn't try to disprove god's existence. It just challenges the definition of omnipotence or the fact that omnipotence as it is commonly defined is not logically possible." yes i conceded so much in the opening argument. logic dictates that the unlimited, if it exists, can't make a square circle. it can't have an immovable object and an unstoppable force existing at the same time. the issues of time and discretions of God and the restrictions of God that have been placed, help ameliorate the perceived paradox and the perceived idea that the unlimited cannot exist at all.
pandemic!

It has been fun and enjoyable. Funny situation. My computers internet has been shut down and wont be up again til friday. I am writing this off my phone, which so inconceinently logs me out literally every five seconds. Also my phone doesnt have the capability of showing previous arguments. In other words i have absolutely no idea what my partner has said in the last round. Once my computer is up i can post a proper argument, hopefully not too late. I may either post my response in a seperate challenge or in the comments section depending on what koopin chooses. Thankyou again! Ghost writer
pandemic!

Now that my partner in crime has accepted this challenge, LET OUR PLOTTING BEGIN! 1. My first theory of what would cause incensessant is if animals were allowed to walk freely among citizens and ownership of them was never permissable and considered slavery, the world would be in utter pandemic. This is true because human kind could never live peacefully among animals. Humans are more intelligent beings, who have the ability to control themselves, and have the ability of making logical intelligent choices, which animals do not have. All mammals generally need to eat meat to survive. Before humankind became sophisticated, we would have to savagely hunt for our food. Thankfully now that the years have progressed, humans have found much more efficient and less violent and socially inattractive ways of getting meals. However, most animals do not have this ability. This argument is aimed mainly for the animals who must eat other mammals to survive. Let's take for example a Lion. A lion is going to be in no way able to control it's survival instinct when it get's hungry. It's first goal is going to be finding and eating meat. Now allowing lion's to roam free among humans, would put alot of meat on the table for them. This is very bad, and would undoudbtebly lead to nation wide pandemic. 2. My second theory of pandemic is if every human being broke their nose at exactly the same moment in time. This would lead to wide-spread disaster for many reasons. (1.) Where is the person going to go to? All the doctors and nurses have broken noses they have to care for, let alone some patients broken nose. (2.) Everyone would be bleeding everywhere! There are so many viruses and diseases in peoples blood, that having them all unleashed at the same time would open up aids and milaria big time for people all over the world. (3.) What about all the babies and the grandparents? For some of the frail people, a broken nose could prove to be fatal! Not good stuff. These would all lead to worldwide pandemic as well. 3. And my third theory is that the world would become incapable of taking care of itself if all the worlds smart people were abducted, and would lead to pandemic. Smart people are the ones who lead and rule our lives and keep this in control and order. If we had all our most brilliant people abducted by aliens, we would no longer be able to take care of ourselves. The smart people are who run and manufacture clothing, distribute food, and who keep law and order. Without all these things we would not be here today! After we use up all of our resources pandemic would arise and we would be forced to go back in to the caveman era! http://www.youtube.com... These theories are all devastating, however if true would cause sweet pandemic. I will now allow my foe, to have the table to lay down his evil plots to see how they compare to the vast destruction mine suggest. Thankyou Koopin for accepting this debate, and good luck. -Ghostwriter.
pandemic!

This is it! The end of the world has finally come! Sweet chaos and disaster at the hands of two intelligent creators will. I choose Koopin to be my partner in crime in our newst plot: Destroying the world! This debate is meant to be humerous. The purpose of this debate is for each debater to make a theory of the things that would cause world wide pandemic. If koopin accepts this debate, then we will each start the round with three theories of what could cause wide-spread pandemic and disaster world-wide. We will each take turns in explaining about why our theory would be correct, then will move on to dis-proving why are opponents would be in-plausible. For example: Debater one- 1. If everyone was transformed into chickens the world would be incapable of being able to take care of itself. 2. If every person was forced to listen to enigma, their brains would explode. 3. The world would end and pandemic would arise if man kind were to burn a hole in the atmostphere. Debater two- (states there three theories then move on to negating their opponents) 1. This would not cause pandemic because chickens are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. 2. Enigma would actually cause world peace thus mute point! 3. We have enough scientific material to fix up or patch any hole made in the atmosphere. This debate is meant to be taken light heartedly, and to have fun with. Koopin if you do decide to accept this challenge, this debate will start in round two. Let our plotting begin, my fellow evil mastermind!
Science Disproves Religion

It seems that my opponent has forfeited the last round after being challenged to actually debate rather than, to quote him, "wangling evidence" to support his claims. He has produced absolutely no evidence to support his claim and has not even attempted to counter my rebuttals. In any case I have a little bit more to add to my rebuttals. Animals were put directly on the Earth The definition of "produce", from . http://dictionary.reference.com... is: 1. to bring into existence; give rise to; cause: to produce steam. Therefore God did not just place animals on the Earth; they were created by the Earth. You believe what you want to believe Just to add to my point; just because you want to believe something doesn't mean it's not real. To quote the immortal Dumbledore, from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2: "Of course it's all in your head, Harry. Why should that mean it's not real? " - Professor Albus Dumbeldore (Michael Gambon), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 The point I'm getting at is that God would make you believe it is real. What would be more effective; a dream of an angel or an angel itself? A dream means only one person would "see" it; if it was "real", how many people would? Actually seeing an angel would produce irrefutable proof of God's power, but that's not how God works. Belief in God is based on faith so that only those worthy of the kingdom of Heaven will reach it. And, just to link this back to my quote, God would put the dream in your head so that, to all intents and purposes, it is a genuine message from the divine and is therefore "real". Closing Statement As I have already pointed out, my opponent has absolutely no skill at debating and has produced no evidence to support his claims. On the other hand, I have produced numerous arguments to support my claim and successfully countered all of his points.
Science Disproves Religion

I'd like to begin by pointing out that this is a debate. As you'll recall from my first statement I said that the previous round was for arguments for your point of view. Your complete ignorance of this fact and the inability to produce any arguments to support your side just shows your incompetence and lack of ability to debate. Nevertheless, I will commence with my rebuttal, as per my opening statement. Your "opening statement"Animals were put directly on the EarthThat statement is false; Genesis actually claims that God said:'"Let the land produce living creatures'" Genesis 1:24Your "argument"Your first point. To quote you:"instead of basing their arguments on faith they are wangling evidence to try and support Christianity"So, if the evidence is, as you say, "wangled", why do you place your faith in it? Also, just to point out your glaring lack of experience or skill, how would you interpret the evidence, seeing as you failed to mention that in your statement? Matthew 7:6I don't see how this quote is relevant to the argument, however I interpret it as, "Don't give what you value to people who won't appreciate it. "Your third pointThe Bible's literal translation is not scientifically accurate, however digging beneath the surface reveals the true nature of what it is trying to say. This has only been capable in the last few years after vast leaps in our understanding; as I pointed out people 4,000 years ago would have dismissed it as "too complicated". Also, your "latest theory" is still a theory. What evidence do you have that it is more credible than the current theory of evolution? I would also like to point out page you posted a link to does not exist. The Bible should be interpreted exactlyReally? So how would you interpret this quote from Daniel:'"It will be for a time, times and half a time. "' Daniel 12:7 (NIV). I'd also advise you to read Daniel 8:1-14 and then explain to me whether it should be translated literally. You believe what you want to believeYes, as a matter of fact I can say the same for you. You refused God because you saw other evidence, but why can't you see that the two can be together? Seeing as you, apparently, went to church as a child it would have been others who would have convinced you to become an atheist. In any case it would not have been your "open mind" but the influence of others. So you, too, believe what you want to believe. Stubborn? I'm not trying to be arrogant here, but I'm not stubborn. in fact, I could go as far to say the same thing to you; you refuse to believe a God could exist, while, according to your debate, there is no evidence to disprove God's existence. ConclusionWhile I have produced much evidence to support my claims, my opponent has brought up no evidence to support his claim and has given weak rebuttals, all of which have been countered.
Science Disproves Religion

Ahhhh another "Evidentialist". Definitely a step forward for Christianity, instead of basing their opinions completely on faith they are wangling evidence to try and support Christianity. Firstly I will start by asking you about how you would interpret this quote from the bible: Mathew 7:6 "Don"t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. Secondly, you can't say that the bible isn't scientifically accurate and then refer to it as pointing out Evolution and the Big Bang, you are contradicting yourself. Also the theory of all life starting in water is still a theory and has not been proven as fact yet. In-fact a new theory has just been proposed: "How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory." New theory as how life on earth started; "http://www.scientificamerican.com...; Thirdly any sentence with more then three words can be interpreted in at least three different ways and so by that notion, if you really are too blind to see and really are stubborn to read the words on the page and interpret them as they were meant to be interpreted then theoretically speaking no science can not disprove religion, why? because you believe what you want to believe. A case study to prove my point: http://www.psychologytoday.com... Now you could say the same about me but it would be a lie I grew up as a Christian but I approached everything with an open mind and because of the evidence before me I am now an Atheist.
Science Disproves Religion

I would like to start by recommending that you stop referring to yourself as a Christian. For the definition of Christianity is this "Christianity is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings as well as the Old Testament.' Thus listening to everything the bible preaches, including the idea that the earth was created in 7 days. Rather refer to yourself as a theist. Secondly it would have to depend on which religion you were talking about for instance there once was a religion that would not harm any creatures on earth and every where they walked they would carry a broom with them to sweep tiny creatures that might be hiding in their path that they did not want to kill. So one day the British came into contact with these people and found out about this religion, they took one of these people, put some water under a microscope and showed them the little organisms that they drank everyday. Needless to say this religion died out. The point is there are countless amounts of religions in the world and to say that science disproves all of them would be an uneducated assumption but if you are talking about the most popular ones like religion then yes it has. The bible refers to animals just being put straight on the earth, this was disproved through the theory of evolution. The bible refers to the earth as being created before the stars this too was disproved through the big bang theory. Thanks
Science Disproves Religion

Hello! I'm new to this but I decided to start a debate about one of the the BIG questions: does science disprove religion? I will be arguing against, because I say that science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive and that neither of them cancel out the other. This debate will primarily focus on creation. I hope you will respect me as a person whether you agree with my views or not and not begin to insult what I believe in. Round 1: Opening Statements Round 2: Arguments for your point of view Round 3: Rebuttal of opponent's point of view Round 4: Closing statements I'll start by clarifying what I, as a Christian, believe. Contrary to what I expect is popular belief, I, as well as many others, DO NOT take ALL of the Bible at face value. Although it is a verified historical document and much of it has been confirmed as true, books like Genesis, which deals with the story of creation, have been thought to be out-dated and not scientifically accurate. I agree with this, at least in part; I DO NOT believe that the Universe was created in 7 days or that it just popped into existence. Therefore I believe that science is as correct as what I believe as a Christian and that neither of them are mutually exclusive.
Human Cloning

For one, plastic surgery is not a good thing. People should grow up knowing that they are beautiful, not how much they will need to spend. Also, Pro said "potentially" a lot, which means that it wouldn't necessarily work or change anything. SO there is no proof that Downs syndrome, liver failure, or cancer could be cured. There are a lot of "what ifs", and without hard, solid facts, we should not experiment. There are many dangers that do lay in cloning. Did you know that people shed millions of cells throughout their day as their skin cells fall off? Did you know that you can leave skin cells even on a computer keyboard, and those cells could be used to clone you if cloning becomes a reality. What laws would there be to defend your rights as the true non-clone compared to the clone? Would there be any defense against people collecting cells and cloning random people? Cloning has not yet been perfected and problems are likely to occur. Genetic abnormalities and diseases within the clone are known to happen through experimentation. When cloning becomes successful, the life span is still shortened. If someone is going to live, their life shouldn't be shortened just because they have been cloned. On the other hand, cloning is also very expensive, and only very wealthy people would be able to afford it. Cloning has not been successful and money is wasted on trying to improve on something that will never be 100% perfect. Another thing, the world isn't big enough. Do you really think cloning more people is the solution? Its humans against clones when it comes to competing for natural resources. There isn't enough resources in the world for the both of us, and everyone will suffer because of scientists' brilliant idea in thinking cloning is a good idea. There's no point in cloning, because there are too many risks.