BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God

Con, you claim to have knowledge that God cannot be proven. He proves Himself. You are the one being willfully ignorant, you are the one talking like a fool, you are the one in danger of being proven wrong in the most undesirable way which you do not want to imagine. You are making a mistake, and that is an understatement. The Bible statement of saying "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" is much more accurate for your attitude. You are the one who is going to lose if you finalize your death in your attitude.......and the time of your finalization of death is not in your hands.......and you think you are not a fool. For crying out loud, man, think again. I really would like to see you in heaven one day. I don't want you to be one of the many who will finalize their death insisting God does not have the right to punish them. Why is it so hard for you to see? Is it not because you love your pride and sin all the way to death and hell fire? It's not worth it, man. Give it up. Don't leave this world as the loser. Get saved before you are forever lost in the fire of hell. Isn't the first death enough for you? why force God to put the second death on you in the Lake of Fire? He does not want you to go there, that is why He came down from heaven to buy your pardon with His own blood on the cruel cross. He conquered death so you could have eternal life through Him. Call on Him to save you, believe on Him while you can, receive Him by faith as yoru Saviour. Your sin and pride is not worth the fire of hell, no matter how much you enjoy it now. Don't be a proud brave fool. Let the others vote agasint me. Get saved and you will know they are fools. More characters for typing will not convince you. If God can't convince you before your death is finalized, only the fire of hell will convince you and then it's too late.
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God

It's stunning that the man accusing people who think differently than him of being fools and claiming that they will burn in hell for all eternity is trying to accuse me of poor conduct.The problem is, I have to few characters to actually respond to his arguments. But notice the deception in what he is saying: he wants you think that the Bible isn't part of this debate, yet the basis for his argument is that a God exists: he says that wisdom takes on a different divine standard that we just need to accept. But this hinges on the validity of the Bible and the existence of God. He then makes a joke of an argument is saying that he "cannot prove God if a person refuses to believe He is there." So, basically, he can't prove God unless you already agree with him by way of groupthink. Note that he concedes the debate in noting that someone can be, by human standards, "wise." He has conceded this argument to me by admitting this. I pointed to top debaters on the website, and his response is that they are as intelligent as they appear, but because they don't meet this divine standard -- which he has yet to properly define -- they cannot be wise. But he never set this standard, nor can he clearly delineate it without circular logic: "God is real because the Bible says he is, so my definition is sound." So this debate is already over because I have already fulfilled my end of the BOP. But let me go further. Let's look at Stephen Hawking, who is widely known as one of the smartest, if not the smartest, person alive. He hasn't given us his IQ, but it's without question that he's well above 200 -- at least I would argue as much. Hawking is an atheist. He claims that heaven is for those who "are afraid of the dark."Is he right? I have no idea. But here's the difference between Pro and me: I don't claim to have knowledge of something that I can't prove. Because he can't prove the existence of God -- upon which his argument hinges -- he can't prove this arbitrary standard.
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God

For the umpteenth time, this debate is about nothing other than what is stated in the Bible as fact saying "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." I have explained why to say in one's heart that there is no God makes the person a fool. I have ignored referances to bigfoot and unicorns and earth age because those things are not the topic of the debate. If Con wants to insist that a person can be wise saying there is no God, contrary to what the Bible states to be one qualification for being a fool, Con is free to do so. The Bible says many profess themselves to be wise but have made themselves into fools, and the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. I'm sure atheists think they are wise and may be extremely well educated by man's standards, but it remains that the beginning of wisdom is to fear God, not to get a good education and win debates. You can't win a debate against God. God will win. You can't gamble against God and win. His dice are loaded, He knows the end from the beginning and the beginning from the end. No matter how wise a person portrays themselves to be, and no matter how much acclaim and applause he gets from other people, if he says in his heart that there is no God, he is a fool. He is going to eat his words one day, and they won't taste good like the fool thinks they have good taste now. Con has to prove that a person can be wise while denying the existence of his creator. Can cannot prove this because for most people, the proof will not come untill the end of their time under the current death sentance. I cannot prove the existence of God if a person refuses to believe He is there. That is why I required no more burden of proof for Con than for Pro. Con insits on trying to place excessive burden of proof on Pro. The burden of proof for this debate has always been equal from the start, and the repeated arguments of Con trying to place extra burden on Pro should be considered bad conduct.
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God

This is a debate on the validity of the Bible, and you have dropped the argument entirely. The only basis we have for the Christian God you're describing, from which this verse originates, is the Bible. The Bible is true, by your logic, because it says that it is true, and therefore you claim that we can know that there is a God. That's what your entire argument hinges on. You say that we will be judged by the one whose existence we deny. Can you prove that? What's that? Do you also hear crickets? You can't prove the Bible or the existence of God without circular logic: "The Bible is true because it says it is true." All atheists and agnostics are doing is saying that, without enough evidence, they cannot conclude whether there is a God or not. By your logic, that makes them a fool. How is that so when you cannot even prove to me that there is a God? All I see from you is unsubstantiated assertions. I want solid proof. What's that? More crickets. Then you go on to make more assertions: "God is here, always has been, etc." How can you prove it? Who created God? Why must the universe have a beginning, but God must not? Then he suggests that I'm trying to change the topic or the rules of the debate. That isn't true even in the slightest. The resolution is this: "Atheists and agnostics are fools." My chief argument is this: "No, because there is no evidence for God." You dropped several of my arguments: you refused to tell me whether 5,000+ people on DDO, including top debaters, are fools. You didn't answer my question as to a unicorn or BIg Foot. You haven't responded to the scientific inaccuracies in the Bible, or the fact that its writing predates modern science, or that it was written long after Jesus -- the historical figure -- passed. At this rate, Pro cannot possibly win this debate. His "arguments" are more of a fire-and-brimstone sermon than a coherent case. I feel like I'm back in Church listening to him.
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God

This debate is not about the validity of the Bible. It is about the fact that "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God". The reason these are the words of a fool is very simple. The fool will be judged by the One he in his heart denies, fooling himself into thinking he will not be judged by God. You can find many people who you might look up to thinking they are wise, but if they say in there heart that there is no God, they are a fool because they are willfully ignorant and insisting they will not believe God can judge them until they find themselves burning in the fire of hell. You can be a proud, brave, genius who can spell very good and say in your heart "there is no God" and you are making yourself a fool no matter how many people think you are wise. A fool says God cannot be proven, God says a fool says in his heart that there is no God. The evidence is there. God is there, has always been there, and will always be there. One day the tongue of every fool who propelled themselves into the fire of hell by insisting God could not judge them will give God the honor He is due from His creatures, even if it must be against their will as they are frying like eternal sausages where the worm never dies and the fire is never quenched. That is what it will take for most people in the world to accept the validity of the Bible....though again, validity of the Bible is not the debate here. The debate is "the fool has said in his heart that there is no God", and there is no burden of proof for the debate on pro or con though Con insists on trying to make burden of proof or validity of the Bible the topic of the debate. I am explaining why anybody who says in there heart that there is no God is a fool, and Con keeps trying to change the subject and the rules. Just stick to the topic of the debate please. And please don't finalize your death saying in your heart "there is no God" and have the proof you insist is not there forced upon you.
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God

Let me note that Pro's sharp rheotric is in no way appreciated. By no means what was "making rules favorable to myself," nor riggiding the parameters of this debate toward myself. The logic behind what I said was that any deviation from the status quo -- any positive statement to the tune of "those who don't believe in God are fools" -- is accompanied by a burden or proof. You're effectively calling over 5,000 people on DDO fools. If I could find even a single one who isn't a fool, this resolution falls apart. That is why I stated that you bear a higher burden: because there are many, many very intelligent atheists, even just on DDO. But, for the moment, I will allow the voters to make this determination. They know where I stand on this issue, and I would very much like to focus on the merits of this argument.He begins by stating that in fact I should bear the burden for claiming that I "know more than the Bible." First and foremost, it's a tad difficult to claim to know more than a book, but insofar as a book could possibly "know," yes, I would say that I know more than the Bible. Why? Because I live in a era of developed scientific inquiry. I know, for instance, that the Earth isn't flat. The Bible does not (see: Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it can never be shaken) [http://tinyurl.com...]. I know that the earth is not 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and that scientists have demonstrated that it is fact 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old, and we know this from radiometric dating [http://tinyurl.com...].Yet there's more. The Bible, however, doesn't know this because its writing predated the era of modern science [http://tinyurl.com...]. It was written over 1500 years by over 40 different authors [http://www.everystudent.com...].Basically, there is no evidence backing the validity of the Bible. It, like God cannot be prove, and Pro's arguments hinge on them being true.There's more to say, but I'm out of characters.
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God

The burden of proof for this debate is equal. Con is starting by trying to make rules favorable to himself. This is typical of somebody who might think it wise to say there is no God. This is not meant as a personal attack, simply an appeal for con to not try to make his own rules as he goes along. This attempt to impose rules as well as any future attmept to impose rules not established in the debate challenge should be considered as bad conduct. I could have started the debate by placing the burden of proof on Con to show why he knows better than the Bible which states "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God", but I did not. Burden of proof generally gives advantage to the person who is not carrying the burden. There was no set burden of proof for pro or for con, and there is no burden of proof still. One of the reasons "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" is because if God is there, then He is the boss and He makes the rules. The fool tries to make his own rules to play by for his time in this world rather than submit to God's rules, the same as Con is trying to win this debate by making rules to suit himself as he goes along;. Con may win this debate because it is subject to judgement by people who in modern times trend more and more toward atheism. This debate will not change God. It is a foolish thing to say there is no God, because the person who says that is contending against God and the contender is going to lose. The Bible says "the fool has said in his heart there is no God" because a frightful revelation of God is sure for them soon whether they believe it now or not. There are many proud, brave, fools in the world. They don't like being called fools. The Bible calls them fools and I agree. They will lose, and if they don't admit it before it's too late, they will admit it after it's too late. Who is the fool? Is it the one who thinks He is wiser than God or the one who thinks God is wiser than all?
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God

Let me say from the onset that the burden of proof in this debate, though shared between us, is larger on Pro's side, for he must assert that anyone who would ever dare to question God's existence is a "fool. " That's an extraordinary statement, and the causation must flow coherently for him to win this debate. The first argument that I see fit to lay out is that someone who dares to say "there is no God" cannot possibly be a fool simply by virtue of such a proclamation; if that were the case, then in principle, all atheists would be fools. Pro has to be able to prove this in order to win this debate. It's a difficult case to make even when we look at the DDO leaderboard: Mikal, the top-rated debater, is an agnostic atheist. RoyLatham, now in second place, is an atheist. Kleptin, in third place, is an agnostic. 5,538 people on DDO as of this minute are atheists. Are they all fools? According to Pro, they are. The most glaring reason as to why atheists aren't fools, however, is that they are simply refusing to accept a proposition without evidence. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a God, and thus they have chosen not to believe. How exactly does that make them fools? If I asked you whether you believed in flying purple unicorns, or Bigfoot, you would likely respond with "Of course not, for I have never seen them. " That wouldn't make you a fool. If you responded that you do in fact believe in them, then one could make the case that your proposition is in fact reversed. You would probably call someone a fool for believing in unicorns, right? How, then, can you apply a double standard for God whose existence you cannot prove?
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God

Psalm 14:1 states that "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." I agree. You have to be a fool to say there is no God. If you say you cannot know if there is a God or not, it's the same thing........you won't know if you say you cannot know, it's the same thing as saying there is no God.......it's denying God. . The debate is not about the difference between being an atheist and agnostic....really there is no difference......The debate is for Con to say it is not foolish to say there is no God. The atheist agrees with the agnostic in saying you cannot know God. They are the same for this debate. Both are fools according to Pro. Con must show how he is not a fool for saying there is no God. The debate is not for Con to explain agnosticism, it is for Con to show why he is not a fool for saying there is no God. So I guess this is for an atheist and not an agnostic to take up the debate as Con, since an agnostic will probably want to veer off from the topic of the debate too much. The topic is "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God"
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God

I don't even know how to respond other than by saying that my BOP has been fulfilled. Pro admitted that it is possible to be wise by human standards -- which is all that we really have -- and has not responded to my claim that Mikal, RoyLatham, et al. are very intelligent, as is the great Stephen Hawking. Thus, my end is settled.As for conduct: Pro wants you to believe that I have displayed poor conduct simply by virtue of the fact that I pointed out that his standard and his positive statement bear a very high BOP, and that I pointed out that his argument hinges on the Bible. But of course it does. If there isn't a God, his divine standard -- which he still hasn't defined -- falls. I never claimed to have such knowledge, though. I'm simply saying that, because God cannot be proved, suggesting that a divine standard for wisdom exists simply does not obtain. Pro can make the argument all he would like that God "proves himself" -- which is the equivalent of saying, "there's a pink unicorn in this room because trust me" -- but I would love to know how this is possible. Has he come down to you and spoken? Did he appear to you in a burning bush? I want to know this stuff.So, to recap:1. He conceded the debate.2. He dropped my arguments on science and the validity of the Bible.3. His final argument is an attempt to proselytze, which really should be seen as a loss of conduct.4. He claimed that anyone who disagrees with him is a fool and is going to burn in hell.5. He has no proof or evidence for anything.6. He has not defined his "divine standard."That's basically all I have to say. I've been making arguments this entire time, whislt Pro has simply been making unsubstantiated assertions and trying to scare people into agreeing with him. People like him are the reason I left the Church, actually.And, mind you, I'm not attacking religion. I've meant very nice religious people, even on DDO, with whom I just disagree. But this guy is completely unreasonable.
The U.S having a 2 political party system

A two party system being consented by the U.S. citizens is a consent to tyranny not democracy. What is being stated by the two parties is limited and other issues that can have other interpretations do not come out. If the U.S. had a multiparty system than a wide variety of viewpoints can come into play and allow citizens to engage in a democracy. Minor parties in the U.S. do not get any leeway and voice. Without that voice it limits voters. A democracy is the people to consent to the government. The U.S. democracy is consenting to a tyranny of the two party system. For example: The voice of the Democratic Socialist of the U.S. is not heard at all unless an individual keeps their ear to the ground and listens to the message. That message is a shallow whisper thanks to the totalitarianism of the two party system. By having a multiparty system similar to France not one group can take the reigns of power of office. The polarization of these two large parties creates huge legions that do not allow smaller voices to be heard. There are over three million people in the U.S. How can three million people just be bracketed to one party or the other? The republican debates going on right now are joke. There is no real issues being brought up but, how much taxes do you pay? The Republican Party's debates are circumventing around larger issues that are not being addressed. Hey where's your birth certificate? That is not politics but B.S. The Democratic Party does the same thing. They promise and make their promises but not one promise has helped me individually in the broad aspect. What is being presented by the two parties is the face of tyranny of utter lies to gain power. Patriotism allows for whatever the president states to be backed up by America. It is always funny that the U.S. considers themselves Americans. Is not a Canadan an American? Or an individual in Columbia an American? They in fact both reside in North and South America. What makes the U.S. to be so high and intuned to stating that a U.S. citizen is an American? The parties present their lies and come into the community with their b.s. knowing that an active democratic citizen will vote. The voter sees R. and D. and that's it perhaps an independent. The smaller voices and the moderate voices if heard can progress U.S. society in the benefit of the individual. Other parties can expand new ideas and bring harmony rather than tyranny to the U.S. allowing the active participant to actively select a candidate that suits them.
The U.S having a 2 political party system

The U.S. having a two political party system is bad for the U.S. and the progression of the U.S. The republicans and democrats only posses their limited ideology and each candidate and political individual is almost a robot to its individual's higher political ideologies whether republican or democrat. On gun laws most republicans are extremely open to it and pro as democrats want to limit gun laws hence con. Abortion, republicans are against it and democrats are pro-choice. These are two examples of topics specifically the abortion subject being on flames in current debate. Each party monopolizes the system singular and assures that no other party can become a contender. A contender of course being a threat to their lifestyles when it comes to laws, rights, institutions that back up their laws and rights and so forth. What I am proposing is for the U.S. to open its political door so to speak to other political parties. What I am proposing is that the U.S. should have a more French style of running government and election. A democracy is a government ran by the people those who actively engage in it. A two party system is pathetic not tragic and the U.S needs and I emphasize needs more parties that can represent the ones that consent to be governed. Its only a tragedy if the two party system stays in place and not one individual who is the consented rallies and fails at its objective of creating a more multi party system. In The Poetics written by Aristotle a tragedy is when someone has a choice and does nothing to help them self where as the term pathetic is utilized when someone has no choice over the matter and must accept the outcome. For example Newspapers/media in general constantly get the two words mixed up. The proper use of the term can go like this: The 9/11 victims who were aboard a flight that crashed into one of the towers had a pathetic ending where as the hijackers had a tragic ending. By having a two political party system the people of the U.S. are engaging in a tragedy because we have the choice to market more ideologies to be consented by possibly having a better lifestyle in general. It is disheartening that the U.S. only has only two contenders that I can put my vote to the ballot. Frankly I do not want to even put my vote in for the 2012 election though I will but, to state the least for now the people of the U.S. need more parties.