BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is God real, Is the bible real

Thank you for having me. I am currently in a similar debate like this so I will repeat what I said in that debate as my first argument. Premise 1:Believing in God is illogical. The Christianic God is given so many titles it would be difficult to explain how God exists or might even be impossible. Premise 2:All arguments for God are flawed. Lets take the Kalam Cosmological Argument. P1: Whatever begins to exist has a causeP2: The universe began to existC: Therefore, The universe has a causeCause is not sufficient grounds to explain the existence of God. Premise 3:There is no evidence for the Christianic God. The Bible cannot be verified to be valid therefore it cannot be taken as evidence. The 3 main ways to verify evidence is: peer review (Christians, Someone from another faith, Scientist (preferably an atheist or agnostic), repeatable (Can we test someone else being born fatherless? ), should predict something (The Anti-Christ or whatever). Bible does predict but have not passed the other 2 criteria that I deem as evidence. Evidence definition: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. I used the Oxford living Dictionaries definition instead of the Merriam Webster one since they are not helpful in what I am trying to say. Source: https://en. Oxforddictionaries. Com/definition/evidence
Is God real, Is the bible real

You are better than the creationWe can see that people have been improving. Generation by generation people have been living longer lives and more prosperous. This is a blanket statement but I only needed to show one example to prove your absolute statement wrong. No body has "created anything"You created this debate therefore you are wrong. we can't calculate infinite numbers. I never said this. I said numbers are infinite not that we can calculate it. Nothing finite can create, Calculate, Contemplate anything infinite. Do not see how you explained this above so I will say we can know of infinities without needing to calculate it. The reason why God is logical is because he is infiniteThe difference between God and maths is that we can see maths we cannot see God (When written of course). If we cannot use our perception to perceive God how is it logical to believe God exists? I will answer it for you it is not. Laws of maths can be proved to be true (Answer is the same both sides of the equation). God cannot. Can infinite contemplate, Create, Calculate infinite, Absolutely! Contradiction. Look at the statement above and the one I also quoted which starts with Nothing. Because we can say infinite, Does not mean we can assess it, We don't come close to it. We can assess numbers are infinite but I don't see the point of writing numbers until the day we die. It is pointless. Jesus walking on blood on the street are not even in the same universe of ideals. Mis-characterizing me I guess. I don't know how you got this. I said: "If no evidence is found of someone being murdered on the street like blood we can assume the person's testimony was not valid. " and you somehow got that. Either there are thousands of insane people who were eyewitness to Jesus miracles, Or they were 100% insane. Maybe Jesus was lying and used illusions to fool humans. My theory is a theory like yours but you use an unverified, Non-repeatable religious book which is believed to be true. The best evidence is people seeing stuffDisagree. People can be deceived in the heat of a moment. Ask 3 people what caused the fire when they escaped a burning a building. Chances are they would all have 3 different stories because of the shock of the incident. Same can be possible with Jesus. So we believe what thousands of people say. Belief is not evidence therefore eye-witness is not valid proof the Bible is true or God exists. I proved to you God is realNo you did not and hope someone votes on this debate to make sure I am not getting the wrong idea. We might both be wrong if voter does vote for me but it is about the argument and your arguments do not proof God. thousand of the manuscripts, Not fair dumping this argument now but just thought about it. Hebrew has not been 100% translated therefore people are assuming what the text means. If the words are not a complete translation it cannot even be considered to be a true telling.
Is God real, Is the bible real

Have you seen an infinite number? I know I haven't. There is basic logic that all people know. When you create something, You are better than the creation. You can't create something better then your selves. You might say"buildings are better than us, We copy DNA and put in other kids". Did we create the resources to do those things, Wood comes from trees, All we do is cut them, No body has "created anything" people only use what is given. That is why we can't calculate infinite numbers. THERE IS NO ENDING. Do we end, Yes. So we did not create it. Does God end, No. Nothing finite can create, Calculate, Contemplate anything infinite. The reason why God is logical is because he is infinite, His creation is finite, Can infinite contemplate, Create, Calculate infinite, Absolutely! Because we can say infinite, Does not mean we can assess it, We don't come close to it. I Also, I gave you eyewitness testimonies of people seeing these things, Who are recorded in history (other books). You example is irrelevant to the main subject, Jesus walking on blood on the street are not even in the same universe of ideals. Either there are thousands of insane people who were eyewitness to Jesus miracles, Or they were 100% insane. I going with the first one. Also B. C is recorded to Jesus life, The turning point in history. I already gave you evidence, I cannot emphasize this enough. The best evidence is people seeing stuff, People saw everything I'm saying. We can't go back in time and go to the event itself, So we believe what thousands of people say. I proved to you God is real, Whether you believe that or not is your premise. The bible is real because of the thousand of the manuscripts, Dead see scrolls, Dating all the way to 3000 b. C, Dating back in the old testament. Also all these people were/are christian scientist who agree with what I'm saying, Https://www. Imj. Org. Il/en/wings/shrine-book/dead-sea-scrolls Also ICR is a big organization that is full of christian scientist. Thank you for the debate, Thankyou!
Is God real, Is the bible real

Numbers are infinite, We are not, Plus I have never seen a infinite number because I am not infinite. In reality, People cannot see a infinite number because we are finite, Unlike God who is infinite. So it is logical for there to be an infinite GodI said numbers are infinite. That is it. I never said a number is infinite and we are finite is besides the point. We are finite and we can assess the numbers are infinite. Meaning your logic does not work. If finite humans cannot see infinite then why do we call numbers infinite? You are redefining evidence, If eyewitnesses are not enough as evidence (you don't get much closer than that) then that argument is pointless. If you think everyone who saw Jesus do something supernatural things is a liar. Testimonies are used to paint a picture. Testimonies can lead to what happend, When it happend, Where. How and why. As we cannot see the evidence of Jesus walking on water then it is not proof if 500 people said he did. Testimonies by itself do not get someone jailed. They are used as I mentioned above to answer questions. The questions are then verified by evidence on the scene. If no evidence is found of someone being murdered on the street like blood we can assume the person's testimony was not valid. There are many people who saw Jesus resurrect and have written testimonies about it, Most of the new testament were witnesses of Jesus. Argumentum ad populum. A lot of people saying something is true does not make it true. Because God won't be born of a women again does not mean it is false. God is above all human nature. He does supernatural things that are not repeatable by humans. May I remind you the title of the debate? Is God real, Is the Bible real You have already assumed God's existence instead of giving me evidence for it to be the case. The more rational position would be to disbelieve then believe. I my goal was to convince you of the truth it would be different. The goal of a debate is to convince the reader through logic. So because of that I lost in your eyes, Because I use logic for the readers. Going by the title you have not proved God is real nor the Bible is real. I have rebutted your claims and saw the flaws in your evidence. I then asked you to point to current scientist that state the Bible to be the word of God. You did not as far as I saw in your Round 4. Next round hopefully you point to a current scientist who has written a scientific paper on the Bible.
Is God real, Is the bible real

Numbers are infinite, We are not, Plus I have never seen a infinite number because I am not infinite. In reality, People cannot see a infinite number because we are finite, Unlike God who is infinite. So it is logical for there to be an infinite God, Because finite beings cannot make infinite anything, Neither can nothing (big bang theory). In your third premise you were talking about the type of witnesses who saw Jesus. Because Jesus is the main point of religion and is God, It is very relevant, Proving that Christians were not biased seeing Jesus. You are redefining evidence, If eyewitnesses are not enough as evidence (you don't get much closer than that) then that argument is pointless. If you think everyone who saw Jesus do something supernatural things is a liar. There are many people who saw Jesus resurrect and have written testimonies about it, Most of the new testament were witnesses of Jesus. Here is the flaw in one of your premises, A repeatable miracle. Because God won't be born of a women again does not mean it is false. God is above all human nature. He does supernatural things that are not repeatable by humans. Because God did something he can only do, And we can't repeat, Does not make the deed fales. You have your criteria, But that is not the real standard, That is your standard. I my goal was to convince you of the truth it would be different. The goal of a debate is to convince the reader through logic. So because of that I lost in your eyes, Because I use logic for the readers.
The United States Is a Faltering Nation.

1. The United States does have serious global competitors. We have China, which is growing at an incredibly fast pace economically and militarily. We have India, which is growing also. We have Russia, which is on the rebound and is also turning into a competitor. I agree that if a nation lacks a competitor it will be on the decline. But I disagree with your assertion that terrorism is not a competitor that unites Americans. While they may be disorganized, decentralized, and not very damaging to the American homeland, Americans are afraid of terrorism. While Americans do not agree on the best way to fight terror, we know that they are the enemy. And even those who wish to pull out of Iraq are for the most part not isolationists. It's only the Ron Paul whackos that want to return to isolationism. Most anti-war people want America to play a major role in world affairs. 2. Might I remind you that most people in the world respect America, just not it's current leaders. Even Hugo Chavez says he loves America - the America of Abraham Lincoln and Dr. King. Once this President's term is over, this blemish on American foreign relations called the Bush administration will just be history. So yes, we are bullies right now in Iraq, but were we not friends to most of the world, why would the entire world have come to our side (including Iran) after 9/11? 3. What you're saying is more a potential threat than an actual threat. Terrorists, so far, have not done much to harm America. It is interesting, and this goes back to point number one, that the percieved danger of terrorism is much greater than the actual danger of terrorism. In terms of the Latin Americans, the illegals are looking for jobs, not to take back the Mexican Cession. But get back to me in 40 years, because I do worry that might change. 4. The dependence on foreign oil is a problem. But it is on the road to being solved. How do I know? When all major presidential candidates, including far-right wingers like Mitt Romney, advocate getting us off foreign oil, that's in response to an electorate that wants alternative energy. If the people and the leaders want it to happen, it will. 5. I don't think you can cite one article and say that the United States is on a road of consistent, steady economic decline. 6. Our policing policy is not working as well as it could be, but that doesn't mean it is failing. And even if it were, it doesn't mean that America is on the decline. 7. So here you agree with me that Russia and China are growing and making alliances. This is a danger to American hegemony, but mind you that the United States still has NATO and a whole host of non-NATO allies to back her up. The United States is still powerful and in a fair fight would probably be able to destroy China and Russia simultaneously. It would cost a lot.
The United States Is a Faltering Nation.

Well, I'd be more than happy to get further in depth after my opponent brings up his points, but here are mine: The United States is on the decline. This is because of several reasons, not all of which are necessary for a downfall, but just contribute. 1. Lack of serious global competition, power-wise. 2. Severe Lack of Soft Power, and Hard Power that may be faltering. 3. Enemies that are transboundary and practically invisible. 4. Dependence on Foreign Oil and Oil in general. 5. Economic stagnation. 6. Policing policy failing. 7. Usurpers, surpassing us in areas we used to excel at. I'll explain them. 1. Lack of serious global competition, power-wise. Competition is the universal reason that empires stay empires. Let me clear this up a little bit. I don't mean terrorists or barbarian tribes or any such mall group. I mean a Persia to our Greece. Something to unite us under one. Isolationism, when recuperating, is fine and dandy. However, when faced with long bouts of Isolationism, well it is empirically proven that a empire will become weaker and more divided. A threat is needed to prolong any empire, specifically one that is united behind a single facet (unlike terrorists). I can go into how it is empirically proven if you disagree 2. Severe Lack of Soft Power, and Hard Power that may be faltering: I'll just define Soft Power and Hard Power real quick. This one is pretty self-explanatory. Soft Power: Soft power is a term used in international relations theory to describe the ability of a political body, such as a state, to indirectly influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies through cultural or ideological means. Hard Power: Hard Power is a term describing power obtained from the utilization of military and/or economic power to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. The influences of Hard Power and Soft Power are kind of parallel to the influences of a Bully and a Friend (respectively), if that helps at all. 3. Enemies that are transboundary and practically invisible Terrorists hate us the most out of any other country. Kind of self-explanatory. I'd like to mention also, the Latin Americas. The Monroe Doctrine is failing, and the rise of the Anti-American left seeming eminent, the Latin Americas need to be watched. 4. Dependence on Foreign Oil and Oil in general. Again, not much to explain. 5. Economic Stagnation. http://www.nytimes.com... 6. Policing policy failing I guess this goes back to Iraq and all the other messes. I'd love to see a link or evidence that is contradictory. 7. Usurpers, surpassing us in areas we used to excel at. This ties in a little bit with Hard/Soft Power, but basically this point is about Russia and China being on the rise while the U.S. is falling. Specifically because those two countries are economically skyrocketing (at least China) and making alliances with other countries.
Video games do not cause violence`

Hello, This round is dedicated to my rebuttals. Your first argument was supported with a link regarding an article published in 2010. Given the little knowledge know around the topic, there could have easily been a change in 6 or so years. The American Psychological Association released their information in 2015, meaning it is more recent, credible and therefore valid. Multiple times throughout this debate you have mentioned personal experience and opinion. While you said that you "didn't feel aggressive" after playing a violent video game, you do not represent the average across a whole board of people. This applies to my experience as well. Neither of us accurately represent, psychologically, the average person in this topic. Therefore, none of these points hold true. "If video games actually DID cause violence, then wouldn't we be seeing more crime on the news?" Isn't there already enough crime? This topic is not specifically talking about robberies and shootings. The violence could be as simple as a fight in the school playground, r out on the streets. The violence can be reflected in many ways, and is not always on the news. As for your point about television and comics, I have answered that. I said that when playing video games you are playing as yourself in the game and controlling it. You have the added simulation that it is you playing, not just a character in a television show or book. On top of this, it has no relevance to the topic, which centers on video games. When you suggested that I was only addressing children, that is not true. These statements can apply to most people. As well as this, if it only has relevance to children, then that is still part of the topic. In a whole, you have to address all parts, and as children are the most affected, it is perfectly reasonable to base some arguments on that. I can't argue with your next point. Sometimes video games are used for therapy, but this is not true for everyone. For a lot of people, video games wouldn't be a successful form of therapy, as for some there would be quite a few negative reactions. My first argument is proved directly on the American Psychological Association website. A small amount of searching would have you find it, and the hyperlink still works on my computer. This being said, my first argument remains completely valid. There is an article saying that the FBI found that some, and I stress the word some, perpetrators of mass shootings played video games regularly. Once again, I am not saying that they performed the acts they did solely because of video games, just remarking on that information. The information you presented for the average age of a games was published in 2012, so the age group may have changed, considering there was a 7 year age drop in the time span of 1 year. That being said, it is of no particular importance to this topic anyway. Thank you.
Video games do not cause violence`

Hello once more, Before getting on to rebutting the points stated previously, I would like to add my arguments to the mix. In this instance, I am often addressing more violent video games, as they are included in the topic and pose the greatest threat and significance to my debate. First, let's look at some actual, hard evidence. There has been a task force report released by the American Psychological Association on August the 13th, 2015, stating that there is a "definite link to increases aggression in children who play violent video games." This statement clearly speaks volumes for itself. Not much else has been concluded, but there is a lot more research to be done and knowledge to be gained. Source: http://www.apa.org... Another argument to the negative affects of video games is that they cause desensitization to individuals. Multiple studies have proved that those who regularly play violent video games experience a reduction in emotion-related physiological reactivity to real violence. They come to accept violence rather than be overly repulsed or reactive to it. Surely, this highlights the negative and violent affects of certain video games. Even if you choose not to accept violent video games are the sole cause of violent behavior, it is clear that it is a large factor. Along with the increased aggression produced in people who play video games, players often watch their character perform violent acts with little or no punishment for them. If anything, violent video games could easily be considered something that nurtures violent and possibly harmful impulses. It has actually been shown by the FBI that many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games often. Is it a mere coincidence, or could violent video games have induced those horrible acts of violence? Would all of those offender's behaviors been affected by symptoms shown in some of the arguments above? Another point is that violent video games are more harmful than television shows, comics and other things of the like as they depict you; or a virtual version of you, performing those violent acts. It makes it all too easy to picture oneself doing violent things is if one has already done them in an alternate reality, with no punishment (referring to earlier argument mentioned). Yet one more argument to point out is that video games often promote violence as a suitable resolution to various conflicts. Rather than simulating talking problems out in a civilized manner, the cause and effect flow on from an altercation is usually violence or warfare of some sort. What is this teaching the players, if not violence? I will further these points in the later rounds, as well as rebut the opposing arguments. To my opponent, good luck in your rebuttals and the rest of the debate. Thank you.