BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

i note that con still hasn't shown an example, which was requested from the very beginning. to respond to con's request, here is something that looks miraculous from that link. 10) Delores Winder: Osteoporosis of the Complete Spine. "Mrs. Delores Winder presents us with an unusual case of severe, chronic, disabling pain secondary to Osteoporosis, which her physicians tried to relieve by five different spine operations. The patients symptoms had begun early in 1957. By 1962 she had worn a full body cast or brace of some sort...although at the time of her healing she was in a light weight full body plastic shell. Although she did not believe in instant miraculous healing she attended a lecture by Miss Kulhman in Dallas on August 30. 1975. She was miraculously healed beginning with a sensation of heat in both of her lower extremities.She has been resorted to full health, wears no brace or support, takes no medication and has completely normal sensations in the lower extremities. This is unusual because the spinathalamic in the spinal cord had been interrupted on both sides, and in such cases the resulting numbness is usually permanent."
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

i had a simple request. for the opponent to show something that would be called a miracle happening to atheist had it happend to a theist. con instead says i have the burden of proof. but, from the beginning i asked for the shift to go the other way, and burden can be shifted in the rules. besides, it shouldn't be hard, if there are these phenomenons happening to atheists. just give me an example or two, preferrably three, and id shut my mouth. sure, con did point out cancer remission. but cancer remissions are medically known. lastly, con asks about growing limbs. i might suppose that the mirical need have a bit of questionable nature to it, to retain an aspect of faith.
'the unlimited paradox' - unlimited does not exist

I don't disagree that the it wouldn't be unlimited once it limits itself. That is obvious. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was unlimited once. I'm not completely sure what you mean by "the unlimited as an ever present infinite in time possibility. " Whatever the case, we are arguing about the possibility of the unlimited in general, not a particular type of unlimited that can't stop being unlimited. That would indeed be impossible. The bottom line is that Pro never demonstrated why the unlimited can't stop being unlimited.
Free Will Exists

"The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. For many philosophers, to believe in free will is to believe that human beings can be the authors of their own actions and to reject the idea that human actions are determined by conditions or fate."I will argue that human actions are determined by conditions, and my opponent shall have to argue that human decisions are not bound by conditions. Debate Structure:R1 Rules and Acceptance by my opponentR2 Opening ArgsR3 Responses to Opening ArgsR4 Responses to Responses and Closing StatementsI would like it this way so my opponent can't have the last word anymore than I can.If any potential opponent would like to get more of a definition and grounds for debate, please ask for clarification in the comments before accepting.
Free Will Exists

"I would ask you were you free to get on this website and debate me?"Well, in the sense that I as an American am free to express my opinions, and therefore a site like this is able to exist, then yes, I was 'free' to. But if we are talking about whether or not this could have turned out differently, no, I was not 'free' to do or not do this. Various factors including: my need to prove myself right stemming from insecurities, my need to feel that I'm not letting my brain rot over the summer, and the aspects of the theory of determinism that appeal to me. Now these three factors are not all that's going on behind my actions, there are factors that created the factors, and on and on. Whether you struggle to create the comprehensive view, or simply look at the simplified version, we can see that my personality and the surrounding conditions led me to this point. "The fact that we have the ability to think and know that we can go down one road or the other road to me proves your theory wrong. Because if it was totally determined I don't believe the other road would even come into our minds."No, it proves us wrong. We think that we can go down one road or the other, but, despite the fact that we possess conscious, intelligent thought, if one was smart enough, one could know all of our actions in advance because they are determined by numerous conditions. The struggle your mind goes through when deciding something does not prove free will exists. All it does is prove that thought exists. If I was omniscient, I could look at all the factors and say, "Yep, he's gonna struggle this long and this hard over these two ideas but eventually he'll settle on this one, because these factors appeal to his personality more than the others.""If we were to believe what you are trying to convince us of , no one should be held accountable for their actions because they were not free to choose their actions!"Not necessarily. Under determinism, which is what I'm championing here, nobody is really in control of their actions, in the sense that there was nothing else they could have done given their circumstances. However, that does not mean that we should act as if nobody was accountable. If we did that, our crime rates would skyrocket, and our justice systems would be immobilized, prevented from dolling out any form of punishment, for the most part. Knowing that all of this would be the case, we can accept that determinism is true, but simply conduct our war on crime and application of justice as if it were not true, to make things as peaceful as possible.
Free Will Exists

I believe that you are completely cofused about determinsim and free will. Yes there are reasons to do something , yes there are situations someone might find themselves that it will benefit them to make a specific decision but that doesn't mean you are determined to do it. I would ask you were you free to get on this website and debate me? The fact that we have the ability to think and know that we can go down one road or the other road to me proves your theory wrong. Because if it was totally determined I don't believe the other road would even come into our minds. If we were to believe what you are trying to convince us of , no one should be held accountable for their actions because they were not free to choose their actions!
Free Will Exists

"If I'm not mistaken Round 2 is opening arguements If not my apologies."You are correct there. "...you can make a choice that goes against what you would normally do."Yes, but, there would be reasons for doing what you would not 'normally' do. For instance, if I told you everything you do is controlled by things outside your control, you might think to yourself, "Oh yeah, this'll show him!" and do something totally 'out of place' to demonstrate that 'you're in control'. But really, all this would demonstrate is that the idea that you don't have free will is so repulsive to you that you are acting out to try to disprove it. You've just shown that you really are tied to a scenario's conditions. This is the only idea my opponent puts forth, he uses an example, but I've shown how the concept itself is harmful to his argument, so doing the same for his example would be needlessly redundant.Thanks for reading.
Free Will Exists

This is my first time on this site so my apologies if I broke a rule. If I'm not mistaken Round 2 is opening arguements If not my apologies. I believe free will does exist no matter what the conditions are and no matter what are personalites are like. The premis that my decisions are determined based on my surroundings or my conditions are true to a certain extent. No matter what your conditions or personality is lke your still making a choice you can make a choice that goes against what you would normally do. For example take someone who is in financial trouble and is a well known theif, he can choose to rob a bank and no one will be surprised because of his up bringing and his personality , but he can choose to do the right thing and not rob a bank and look for a job. There have been many people who have done this ,change their life around which goes against their conditions and there personality and their upbringing.
Women's safety

If we talk about women's safety..what is our society doing about it? The rapist just do their work anywhere anyhow and the society just watches them and walk away..! Is this is what our society care's of women's? Is this what we get by living and taking birth in an Indian society? Why we still can't say that womens are safe in India? Why there's no strict laws against the rapist? Wht society isn't cared about women's issues? Can we get any answers about these questions?
am do the for seven the

The fact that you have posted this alone means that you are claiming to understand the question, yet it has been proven to be unsolvable. It is question that can only be answered by a highly evolved species, and we are obviously not at that stage yet. We still need to evolve into a higher state of being and mind in order to fully grasp the meaning of the sentence. I cannot begin to describe the complexity and density of this sentence. There is so much going on in every single character, it's perplexing. You say that we will eventually find the meaning of the answer, and while that is true, we'd have to evolve at some point. Also, the fact that we are organic beings made of flesh shows how we are not yet evolved to the point of understanding this sentence. We'd have to evolve beyond flesh, and beyond bodies to become a somewhat spiritual species, comprised of the mind and all. That is why at this point, we can NEVER understand the meaning behind this sentence.
am do the for seven the

Cast your mind forward and regard the validity of the future event. Juxtaposed with ancient Egyptian theist approbations. You might find the similarities of our messages profoundly awakening. Any complex message takes time and endurance of thought, in order to accomplish total comprehension. Eventually with comprehension, there will be solution. Lies and homicide are no mystery. Just the pathetic floundering of benign masses, thrown up in that tenuous sea of organic chaff. Whether or not knowledge has purpose, is the great unanswerable question.
am do the for seven the

Personally, your argument is invalid. Humanity itself cannot comprehend the power of this message. Ancient Egyptians theorized that it was spawned from the heavens, created as a message from the gods. This message is beyond human comprehension, so the fact that you even CLAIM to understand the intensity and complexity of this sentence makes you a complete liar. Personally, I admit that I and no other human being cannot even begin to comprehend this sentence. It is the problem. The problem that so many have tried to solve, but have all failed. Perhaps it is the secret meaning of life, perhaps it is the reason why humans are so driven to kill each other. This is a mystery that may never be solved, but the real question is- do we even want it to be? Perhaps, could the meaning behind it be so terrible that we'd be better off NOT understanding it? The world may never know.
The Republicans are generally bad people.

Sorry about being a bit late posting my argument. Again, the mechanism says all people who agree totally with Mitt Romney are morally wrong (bad people). The propositions argument is based on 3 main points. Mitt Romney is very Homophobic. Mitt Romney is very Sexist. Mitt Romney would run America like a company and give all the power to the rich man. I don't think I need to go into details. The opposition cannot argue that he is not homophobic or sexist, or that he is a conservative maniac. For the record I am British, not American so forgive me if I cannot analyse the election, I didn't really follow it.
The Republicans are generally bad people.

Ok, so how he is homophobic: 1, Mitt Romney, all through high school he was a homophobic bully. There's been lots of debate over whether Mitt Romney's teenager years as a bully are fair game, but what I find interesting is that it shows a pattern of homophobia over many years. So it's documented that in the 60s Romney was an avowed homophobe; in 2006, Governor Romney threatened to end funding for a commission that battled suicides in gay and lesbian teenagers; in 2008, Romney secretly donated to Proposition 8; and, in 2012, the resignation of Richard Grenell. Even Romney's apologies over Grenell and his bullying days have been tepid and noncommittal. 2: 29 states in the USA currently allow people to be fired from jobs simply because of their sexual orientation. Coincidentally, those states, on large, are the states that voted for the Republican party. 30 states currently with hold the right to deny people housing based on their sexual orientation. Again, on large, these states voted for Mitt Romney. 3: I am sure you will use the argument that he only pretends to be homophobic to gain the Homo-phobic vote. Personally I don't think this is true, but take this analogy. It does not matter if somebody punches you in the nose because they really hate you, or they punch you in the nose to impress the people who really hate you, either way, you still have a broken nose. So the point is that even if he is pretending, I think that a non-bigot who credits from homo-phobia and uses it to help himself gain control of the world's most powerful nation, is slightly worse than a real ignorant bigot. 4: This is a genuine quote "Some gays are actually having children born to them,' he declared. "It's not right on paper. It's not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and father.' Ok so now the sexism thing(gy) 1: Romney is firmly Pro-life, now I'm not saying all pro-lifers are sexist, homophobic, selfish, view changing republicans like Romney, but under the policies he would introduce, even women who were raped and impregnated cannot have abortions, to "protect the sanctity of life" of a rape born, in-animate, embryonic extension of the mother. Now I am not going to debate about abortion here, but these policies are extremely sexist. 2: Mitt Romney would not sign the Equal Pay Legislation. Mitt Romney would run the country like a business. 1: I can't support this one as strongly because, like I say, I did not watch the election ( I'm British) but take this example. Mitt Romney once criticized Hillary Clinton because she had no experience running a business, so could not run the country. Any of the voters who did watch the election will know what I am talking about. VOTE PROP! Sources http://current.com... http://www.delawareliberal.net... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.therightsphere.com... http://www.usnews.com...
I Will Lose This Debate

Clearly, Pro's post is very unpleasant. I mean, look at it, with all that cursing and lack of conduct.Which can only mean ONE THING.WE'RE ALL DELUSIONAL TOO! We have no choice but to take the reasonable assumption that we're delusional enough to think that Pro would ever say such horrid things! It's impossible that Pro would claim such a sacrilegious behavior, and once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.[1]Being that we, too, are delusional, this makes us as delusional as my opponent, who, in the insanity afflicted, claims to be even capable of losing this debate! My opponent will obviously win, for now Pro has the backing of fellow delusional people!We're all in a state of a dream at this point! I mean, it's so obvious. Look at this non sequitir: "...actually, this is 'murica where ppl hate evryone diffrnt and if ur cray-cray then u gonna hav haters." That makes no sense. When things make no sense, you're obviously dreaming. My opponent has such an enticing personality that you dream of my opponent constantly! It's hard to blame you. Good ol' Pro, making us delusional.And to say that Voldemort and gang are all fictional!? Lying!? I told you. DELUSIONAL. So, we can only conclude that Pro will win this debate for Pro losing is also a delusional concept!Furthermore, observe this. "Happiness? Only if you enjoy watching others getting ripped into shreds by a woodchopper." Ugh. How did Pro know!? Only someone capable of winning this debate would be skillful enough to know what I want and the way to my heart so easily. Clearly, Pro is going to win this debate.[1] http://www.brainyquote.com...
I Will Lose This Debate

:D jkMy rebuttals to all Con's points? Welp, here I go. .. .I have a terrible personality, contrary to what Con may think. In fact, I cuss people out all the time and threaten to rip out their throats then stick it up their a$$ if they don't shut up. .. . that in itself is rude and NOT rainbow and unicorn material. (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DOCK OFF POINTS HERE FROM LACK OF PROPER CONDUCT. .. . hello? I just cussed and made violent threats. .. . )As to Con calling me beautiful? Thanks, but I am ugly as f*ck. .. . (I cussed again! !! !) which is one of the reasons why I ave been single since the day I was born; the other is because I have terrible personality. (not to mention my parents won't let me date anyway)Another point that my opponent makes is that interaction with me will "result in the random spawning of rainbows and unicorns due to sheer happiness from interacting with" me. Lol yeah right, the only thing you'd spawn from interacting with me is blood, guts, and a taste for DEATH. Happiness? Only if you enjoy watching others getting ripped into shreds by a woodchopper. I believe this means my opponent's sources are either invalid or made up, which, according to his next argument, means that he should automatically get points for his "failure" which makes him automatically lovable. Unicorns also, I believe, do not have a good source of potassium, due to the fact that no one has ever eaten or even SEEN an ACTUAL UNICORN BEFORE. .. Except Voldemort and all the Hogwarts kids who took Hagrid's Wild Beasts class, all of whom are FICTIONAL CHARACTERS. YES THEY ARE, J. K. ROWLING MADE THEM UP. YES, I DID JUST BURST YOUR HAPPY LITTLE BUBBLE. IT'S CUZ IM A B*TCH LIKE THAT. Guess what? this isnt the media. this is SPARTAAAAAAAA! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! lol jk (do i get less points for straying off topic and improper grammar and spelling? ) actually, this is 'murica where ppl hate evryone diffrnt and if ur cray-cray then u gonna hav haters. (#AsianGoingGhetto lol im weirddddddd)Sources:ummmm. .. . if i giv invalid sources i can lose right? so here ya go. .. .me, a harvard grad with doctorate (im 14 btw)yo mama, whos just really fatjesus, even tho im half agnostic, half atheistsome random hobo off the streetI believe if i forfeit the nxt round, i could possibly get points docked for lak of propr conduct. .. . but since im sayin this now, if i dont forfeit, id be lying, which is nvr proper conduct. .. . ^_^ i know, MIND F*CKKKKK
I Will Lose This Debate

Pro thinks that Pro will lose this debate. Now, usuallly, I don't debate with delusional opponents, but Pro is so arousing and enticing in personality and charm that I had no choice. In fact, how can someone with such a magnitude of attraction possibly lose anything akin to a debate, such as a debate, which I will refer to as a debate?Pro has such a beautiful and striking aesthetic that even through all the rainbows and unicorns, I can see it. Wait, what? What rainbows and unicorns? What's going on? Perhaps I'll make that the first part of my debate.Rainbows and UnicornsThe fact that interaction with Pro is creating instances of what most would consider rainbows and unicorns to the point of them becoming abundant entities should, through the sheer connotation of rainbows and unicorns, have you, the audience, understand the pure scalar quantity to which my opponent's charm resides.You're seeing it too, right? Of course, you are. That is an axiom. A law of the universe. When God or quantum fluctuations or whatever you think made this universe made this universe, it was decreed the following: F=ma. E=m(c^2). Interaction with AngelofDeath will result in the random spawning of rainbows and unicorns due to sheer happiness from interacting with AngelofDeath.Fortuity of FailureWhen people like someone, they are inclined to be more fond of them [citation needed], so invoking rainbows and unicorns comes to an extent that forces each Voter's hand to cause Pro to win! There is no Fortuity of Failure[1] here! Let there be no doubt that Pro will, in fact, WIN this debate!THE UNICORNS ARE ALSO A GOOD SOURCE OF POTASSIUM! HOW COULD YOU VOTE AGAINST SOMEONE WHO GIVES YOU A HAPPY SOURCE OF POTASSIUM!? YOU HYPOTHETICAL, RHETORICAL MONSTER! OH MAN, VOLDEMORT WAS THE SH*T!Furthermore, there are certain perks to my opponent's condition.The Media's Makings of Medical Madness!A Beautiful Mind is on IMDB's Top 250 Films list. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. Fight Club is in the Top 10.[2] What do all these feature in common very heavily? Clinical insanity! People LOVE crazy in the media! And my opponent is CRAZY! DELUSIONAL! Pro, and I'm serious here, THINKS THAT THE PRO SIDE WILL LOSE! No, seriously! I know, I know, clearly a few screws loose. But just think of what that means! People will love Pro! How could Pro possibly lose!? This is so evidently an open-and-shut case that despite the brevity and concision of it, I will conclude my debate here, hastily and, strangely, wisely.Sources http://tvtropes.org... http://www.imdb.com...
I Will Lose This Debate

THIS IS A TROLL DEBATE DESIGNED WITH A WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR ME....In this debate, I will argue that I shall lose or tie in this debate (through votes, nothing else). Position Con will argue that I will somehow win this debate. Again, this is a troll debate, so if I win through votes, then I technically win the debate, but am wrong about the topic. If my opponent wins through votes, then I shall be right, and I get to feel good about myself (lol I know I'm weird), but my opponent technically wins. Anyone who can outsmart this type of crazy logic, I bow down to you (figuratively speaking):D ------------First round is acceptance, but I'm also giving my opponent the option of starting argumentation on the first round, because I really have no argument in mind right now, and I'm hoping my opponent will give me some ideas (see? I'm losing already, due to lack of preparation and invalid argumentation).If anyone accepts, please try not to forfeit any rounds because I want to make this fun for both parties, but also funny to readers, and not just a whole bunch of forfeiting. Thanks!!!
I Will Lose This Debate

My opponent concedes at being semi-nice, so I suppose I won't need to argue what happened in Round 4.Round 3 has some precious gems. Pro can make sources from the top of the head. Improvising the TRUTH OF THE UNIVERSE. In this sense, Pro is actually an intervening GOD! VOTE PRO or BE SMITED! Pro will most definitely win this debate, now! How can my sources be reliable at this point!?Look at that grammar, too. You can totally make out what he's saying, can't you? Isn't it strange? That's because his charm is like a worm, working its way into your consciousness and making you know exactly what he means. That level of charm mustn't be unrewarded. Give that God a cookie!Furthermore, liars ought not to be punished! In fact, they ought to be rewarded! This is the reasoning we've used for millennia! Why else would we make games like "Bible Study (BS)," "Mafia," and "A Game I Made Up, I'm Totally Lying About The Existence Of It Anyway Though?" Exactly! We want people to be rewarded! The Cheater High of lying is just so absolutely needed in all our lives that it's encouraged! Encourage Pro! Thank you for lying to us![1]1. http://healthland.time.com...