BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists with a probability in the range of 0.006

Rebuttals: 1. I was not saying God is nothing without The Bible. I was simply using God's Word(The Bible) to help prove his existence. 2. So by me reading the Bible to better prove God's existence is idolatry? That doesn't even make any sense. I in no way worshipped the bible. 3. That doesn't even make any sense. 4. This isn't the court of law and your opinion that it "should not in general" is irrelevant. 5. You say the bible contradicts itself? Where? I've never read any contradictions and I would love to be able to read about them if I could. 6. You say it's wrong to use the lesser to prove the greater. Yet how God is the greatest and most powerful in existence. So anything I use to prove his existence is going to be "lesser". God gave us The Bible so we could learn about him and learn the right way to live life so how can you say I can't use it to prove the greater? Contentions: 1. Medical doctors all over the world are working together to document the countless healing miracles that are a very powerful reality on this planet. Some people choose to deny it, but those who get healed and the doctors who verify these healing miracles, know better: there is a God who heals. These medical doctors have already scientifically documented hundreds of healing miracles. 2. The Bible speaks about the supernatural gifts of the holy Spirit that God gives to believers in Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 12 & 14). These gifts are meant to encourage one another through the power, the love and the voice of God. 3. Despite of you not liking second person evidence, two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt G"del. I pasted the article below so you can continue to read it if you choose. 4. Final point, burden of proof is on you. Yet, so far you have done nothing to prove God exists with a probability of .006. Sources: http://arxiv.org... http://abcnews.go.com...
God exists with a probability in the range of 0.006

It is an error to reason from the words of the bible to God's existence. Without looking too some apparent contradictions in the Bible there is the more fundamental of using the lesser to prove the greater. 1) It is theologically unsound to place more weight on a created thing than God. Without God the Bible is nothing not the other way round 2) To cross this bound is idolatrous. 3) The fact that the Bible is important because of what it says and what it is for but is valuable only for the truths it expresses. 4) Uncorroborated second person evidence dos not count in a court of law as evidence and should not in general.
God exists with a probability in the range of 0.006

The Bible has proven to be historically accurate. In fact, it's proven to be more accurate than any other ancient book. Two of the greatest 20th-century archaeologists, William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck, both lauded the Bible (even though they were non-Christian and secular in their training and personal beliefs) as being the single most accurate source document from history. Over and over again, the Bible has been found to be accurate in its places, dates, and records of events. No other "religious" document comes even close. The names of over 40 different kings of various countries mentioned in the Bible have all been found in contemporary documents and inscriptions outside of the Old Testament, and are always consistent with the times and places associated with them in the Bible. Nothing exists in ancient literature that has been even remotely as well-confirmed in accuracy as has the Bible. Historical evidence routinely includes ancient literature, business records, and government documents, analyzed in conjunction with linguistics, geography, and archaeological analysis of physical objects (pottery, coins, remains of buildings, etc.), using forensic science techniques. I say all of this because I'm going to use scripture to defend that God exists with a probability much higher than .006. Scripture is in the Bible and the Bible has been proven to be historically correct. In Genesis 18:1-2, God and two angels come to Abraham while he was at his tent. Abraham gets up and bows down before his Lord. God came that day to tell Abraham he would be the father of many angels. Conclusion: God physically comes to earth in the bible, the bible has been proven to be historically correct, therefore God has a much higher probability of existing than .006. Thank you and good luck. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...
God exists with a probability in the range of 0.006

My apologies it is from a debate show where Dawkins to the best of my recall offered a .006 region of probability. I am referring to a scientific God in the sense provability. If you go for atheism as a low probability assignment I think it is possible to prove the statement God exists from any such assignment. That does not make such a proof of a God of religion. I had hoped to encounter an athiest they seem to run shy of offering any actual probability assignment. To make the debate interesting suppose I had instead made assignment from a probability filter over incompleteness of physics, a probability assignment to every even has a cause and probability measure of global inter subjectively derived assignment of belief and got that number. The God of faith can be proved .or anything you suggest.
history is an important subject to study

This is my first debate on Debate. org, so I hope to start off well. Your statements: "R1: support your opinion " and "Please don’t argue the first round" Seem to contradict each other. However, I will be posting my definitions and framework; I hope this is ok with you. Definitions: History-a past notable for its important, unusual, or interesting events. [1] (Because of the word “study”, I am assuming this debate only applies to history before the studier’s lifetime, as opposed to, say, things that happened yesterday) Important- entitled to more than ordinary consideration or notice; mattering much[2]-(I am going to interprate this as being a priority over other subjects or activities) Burden of proof (BoP): The BoP is exclusively on pro to prove how history is important. My role is to present a case that history is not important, and the time of people studying in elementary through high-school would be better spent studying more practical subjects, such as computer science or personal finance. I am NOT arguing that history should not ever be taught, nor that no one should ever know it. 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...2. . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Stephen Harper was the best federal government we had.

Please forgive my spelling and grammar if there are any errors I wrote this on my phone. -------------------------------------------------------- I think you have them confused, a conservative government favours having minimum control over it's people and economy. A liberal favours having absolute control over it's people. Basically means they want the people to rely on them to service them. You should take a look at this website post it explains a true conservative and liberal. http://www.studentnewsdaily.com... The NDP government will promise whatever to keep the union people happy, a liberal will do whatever it takes and promise whatever to get a persons vote. Even when half the stuff they promise will not be done when they are elected. Conservatives do what is best for business. Which is what every government should do. How do we get a strong economy? Through jobs, who creates jobs? Businesses, if you tax businesses like Trudeau wants to do the business will either have to raise the price of the consumer goods they sell which results in inflation increases, or even worse they have to lay off employees. People think rich people are the main people who should be taxed. They already are taxed a ton, I believe the top tax bracket is just about 50%, and now you want to tax them even more? Chances are these people own there own business and hire people like you and me, you keep taxing them so much they eventually will either leave the country, sell the business, early retirement, or they will start hiding there income(cash sales etc) I just got the numbers for the amount of people making over 180k which is who justin plans to tax to pay off his 10bil deficit. 223,000 or so is the amount of Canadians making over 180k/year. If you do the math each one will have to pay an extra $43,000 to pay this off. Good luck trying to collect that. It doesn't work the middle class makes up the majority of taxed income in Canada. Anyway let's say it doesn't matter. Liberals will promise and create all these "free" programs for people. The problem is they never balance the budget. They borrow and spend all this money and they never pay it back. The only way to pay this all back is by massive tax hikes.
Stephen Harper was the best federal government we had.

I agree. a Police Service and a Military are too things we can ill afford to become privatized via lack of government funding (paid with tax revenue.). That is an essential service. over all. The conservative government seems to think that running our economy is their primary responsibility. It is not. The responsibility of the Government is to govern the people. Who gave us health care? The NDP promised it, and then the Liberals gave it to us because they couldn't compete with the NDP platform otherwise. I agree that the statutory income tax rates need to be revised. There is no way that you should have a HUGE tax increase because you made an extra $500 dollars that year, leading to an extra $1000 income tax hike. regardless. The conservatives were acting as though a steady Stock Market meant the economy was healthy. That is not how it works. The economy looks good if the big hitters pass their cash around in a circle creating an illusion of stability. And through creating an illusion of success other people invest in a Trap Stock market which goes up and down and only those controlling it make profit. The fact of the matter is. Our country is robbing itself blind under the Conservative government. ps. where is my high speed rail?
Stephen Harper was the best federal government we had.

I think you mean taxes provide those services. And I'm not saying remove taxes, I'm saying don't increase them and make new ones. Trudeau will offer all these stupid programs like $15/day child care. Who pays for this? You and me. You gotta pay each government employee their government salaries, paid 6 week vacation, 20 paid sick days. Who even knows how many government holidays. Etc. Lowering taxes effects the rich? If you make over I believe it's 26k/ year or so you start paying taxes. Anyone making under gets it all back in tax returns. I personally pay about 10k a year. Now why should they have to increase? What next year I gotta pay $11k? Jesus that's a lot of money. Ever since Pierre Trudeau we've become a country that relies heavily on government to be there for us. It's like we think government knows what to do better with our money. Let me tell you. No one knows what to do with your money better than you. But whatever let's say taxes are some how a good thing. The problem with Trudeau is he always overspends and we end up having a massive debt with interest building up every year. Eventually a new government comes into play and gets blamed for creating a new tax to finally pay off some of the mountain he's created in debt. Do you seriously believe any form of government is there to help you? They all want money, the people that actually want to help you never get any seats in whatever party they are in. Free healthcare? Free education, free policing. Nothing is free. The only thing I believe we need is some form of police/military. Everything else needed by an individual should be paid by him. Imagine if there was no taxes. An extra $10k/year I could do a lot with that. Drop minimum wage laws, and all of a sudden you have 0 unployment. Economy will thrive. The government is the main reason why we have inflation. Anyway I'm getting off the topic.
Stephen Harper was the best federal government we had.

excuse me, BUt Taxes are good. there are no problems with Taxes. Taxes prevent media, education, healthcare, transit, infrastructure, policing, military, natural resources and all other government run organizations like festivals Running. lowering taxes leads to privatization of government equities. Low taxes is For the rich not for the poor, by enabling them to suggest the government can't run itself anymore, and privitization would be favourable by giving the government deniability in the case of fraud, bankruptcies and employment insurance. The government sells government equity every time the taxes go down. That is bad. Multiculturalism is not bad So longa s we pay taxes. { Privitazation of media and school allows false information to be taught as Truths, and it is used as a controlling aspect of the country. That is what lower our taxes DID to our country. and Harper was GUIL-T }
Stephen Harper was the best federal government we had.

The problem with Trudeau is that he doesn't balance the budget. He spends more than they revive through taxes and we end up with a deficit and the debt rises. This is the major issue, with Harper we had a surplus up until the 2008 house market crash which affected the whole world. And we were just about at the end of the tunnel this year climbing out of it. Justin is just going to pull us back in. You say he conservatives did nothing for this country? Not raising taxes, increasing the TFSA, lowering taxes for businesses the ones who create jobs. And especially he was raising the old age benefits to 67 from 65. Which really needs to be done, he massive baby boomer generation is going to be retiring soon. How the hell can we pay for all their benefits? It's not like the government has been saving funds away for this like they should have. Cpp has always relied upon taxing the future generation which is you and me. We have a massive culture issue, so Pierre Trudeau introduced multiculturalism when he was in power. Which is great, but what he didn't do is make it mandatory when becoming a Canadian citizen to learn their culture. I live in Surrey BC, so we claim to not be racist yet why is it that the massive majority of Chinese people live in Richmond, East Indians live in Surrey. This is because of the language barrier, you let all these people in and they don't even speak our language and we will never communicate and socialize. And you end up creating these zones where people live. I can walk up my street and I'll find at least 6 East Indian homes with people that don't speak a word of English. What happens when a murderer is killing people and I go and try to warn them, I can't even tell them to lock their doors or go hide. So Trudeau wants to raise the taxes on the wealthiest "1%" and businesses. Sounds like it make sense at first glance. But businesses don't pay taxes. The taxes they pay are included in the product they are selling which is marketed towards the consumer public you and me. So if you raise taxes on them they will either raise the price of the product resulting in inflation, or they will even worse layoff employees and we loose jobs. On top of that the wealthiest paying increased taxes and the middle class is lowered it just doesn't add up. Even if you taxes 100% of what the rich make it wouldn't add up to how many people are of the middle class. And if you tax these wealthy people enough they will just take an early retirement or move to another country.
Stephen Harper was the best federal government we had.

You know what I think I prematurely accepted this debate. I agree Trudeau's agenda and policies will not aid our government, and will continuously increase corruption and neglect and the privatization and restrict vital services, and social benefits will be non existent: However the Conservatives were useless. All the economic value that arose in the last 15 years of Canadian government were developed by the country in an economic and technological opportunity that was not aided or promoted/ supported by our treasonous government. Harper did nothing to aid Canada or the World; he did however sell out to American corporations and completely shat on Canadian ethics. All the past governments we had prior to Harper were all better over the course of my 25 year live. I will stand behind that.
Partition of India and Pakistan was inevitable

But, the facts he proposed as the basis of his opinion were rotten from the roots and perhaps actually gave evidence instead for my opinion. To my opponent's point that there were actually communal violence between the Hindus and Muslims for a long time, it wasn't a new thing, right ? Well, that was just one of the main reason for the separation, that is to end these frequent clashes between the two religions. For example, citing your example of the late Sikh uprising in India, what if another rebellion started in 2000 and another in 2014 ? Well, most of the wise minds will definitely think of giving them Khalistan . Secondly, to the opponent's point that they were willing to work together . Yes, they did work together during the Khilafat Movement, but isn't this a bitter truth that to drive away and fight enemies, even the bitterest of enemies can combine together ? And just after the leaving of British looked like a strong possibly, Hindus really didn't care enough now about working with the Muslims. After all, Jinnah's first demand wasn't to create a separate country. It was just to raise the status of the Muslims in the governmental level on the basis that they had been the ruling power over a long time. But when Hindus didn't took him ( esp. the 14 points ) seriously, and Muslims had to face worst tyrannies in the period of Congress rule ( 1937 - 39 ), it was just the only possible option left for him to demand, "Partition". And finally, another reason I would propose for the Partition's inevitability is that during the Mughal rule, Muslims did allow Hindus to carry on with their religious duties and commandments, to an extent that Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb even tried to combine Hinduism and Islam. But when Congress came in power during '37 - '39 , they did not did the same. They put ban on Azaan and all other things I have aforementioned, Congress ( which represented majority of Hindu Politicians) didn't looked even a little bit concerned about the well-being of Muslims and allowing them religious freedom. I hope that I proved my opponent's argument unjustified by back-firing his reasons upon him, and that really "Partition of India and Pakistan was inevitable" because of the increasing persecutions by Hindus which Muslims rarely did when they were in power, and as to avoid any further communal violence.
Partition of India and Pakistan was inevitable

First, I apologize for unintentionally hurting any sentiments (if I did), I can assure you I didn't mean to be rude. I was merely pointing out that Muhammad Ali Jinnah was about to die of tuberculosis, and had Mountbatten known that, he would have postponed the Indian Independence Act 1947, successfully avoiding the partition. My opponent makes one basic point, that the difference between Hindus and Muslims was too 'strong' for them to ever live peacefully. The idea, however, is fundamentally flawed. India definitely wasn't a communal paradise before the British invasion. But that really doesn't matter. BOTH, Hindus and Muslims were willing to work together, *despite* their differences. They did cooperate together in the Khilafat movement, as I stated in the previous round. They reached an agreement at the Lucknow Pact [1] to work together and pressurize the British government, to have more say in the working of their government. Whether or not it was a 'golden opportunity' for Hindus when Britishers came and colonized their country, whatever the historical dynamics, they agreed to work together against their common enemy. Living together wasn't completely a far fetched belief. EVEN the second in command in Muhammad Jinnah's cabinet, Liaquat Ali Khan was willing to negotiate, according to the revelations of the governor general at the time. The only person who essentially fathered the formation of Pakistan was Jinnah, who was suffering tuberculosis at the time. My opponent doesn't really address this. EVEN the person who overlooked the passing of the partition bill stated that HAD he known that Jinnah was suffering from tuberculosis, he would have postponed the bill and deferred the partition of India. The partition, thus, could have easily been avoided. It wasn't inevitable. Reiterating, yes, there were conflicts between Hindus and muslims. But both of them were willing to work through them. Existence of conflicts doesn't mean that the onlyinevitable response is a partition. There could have been more proportional representation at the center, better laws in the parliament, more negotiations, a myriad of steps that could have been taken to pacify the Muslims. Partition was a sad reality, not a unavoidable one. India does have other minorities living here, without trampling on their rights. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
As a black homophobic atheist, my rationality is far superior to ALL atheists who support gays

1. So you admit that you're wrong. Thanks 2. That's because you did not put the name of the study. Google "homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear" 3. Studies show homophobia is rooted in DISGUST, not fear http://mentalhealth.about.com... Homosexual activity elicits disgust http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Homosexuals induce disgust http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... Studies show disgust is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior. http://m.rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org... Homophobia = disgust Disgust = disease avoidance behavior Homophobia = disease avoidance behavior Homophobia rooted in unwanted sexual advances http://instinctmagazine.com... Disgust as embodied moral judgment http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Disgust sensitivity levels indicates disapproval of gays. In other words, people with a stronger evolutionary disease avoidance behavior are more likely to disapprove of gays http://www.pubfacts.com.... 4 so you're saying not one atheist in the whole world believes homosexuality is natural population control? Watch "Darwin Day 2015 Questions: #1 Is Homosexuality Nature's Population Control?" on YouTube https://youtu.be... "4-7. you can only attack arguments made by me" You fail to understand that, my premises is, my rationality on homosexuality is more rational than pro gay atheists. Therefore, to prove my argument is invalid, you have to prove that pro gay atheists argument is more rational. 8. Before embracing behaviors like smoking, incest and homosexuality, we need to at least acknowledge if the behaviors are high health risks. Using your logic, no one should mention that smoking is unhealthy if they don't smoke themselves 'Better' or 'more skillful' are synonyms of 'superior'. My point is, my rationality on homosexuality is better than that of Pro gay atheists. The term 'better' in regards to rationality is not subjective because it could be examined , compared and scored. 'superior 'in general terms is subjective but when comparing skills between opponents, superior is objective. If the Lakers beat the bulls 5 seasons straight, The Lakers skills is superior to the bulls during those five seasons. In conclusion, my opponent seems to not understand my premises. my point is, my rationality on homosexuality is better than the rationality of pro gay atheist on homosexuality. Rationality can be scored, compared and tested. I demonstrated my rationality and compared it to known arguments from pro gay atheists on homosexuality. My opponent had the chance to prove that my rationality is invalid or flawed. Instead, he's trying to win this debate on technicalities.