BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
miracles occur, but not to atheists

what are thought of as miraculous events are heavily documented and readily available. someone can see with no retinas even though this seems scientifically impossible etc, just to use an example. the common objection of atheists and skeptics is that things just happen to occur by probability, that a genetic deviance, or random chance etc has caused it to happen to them. (that's how evolusion occurs, someone with a genetic deviance getting their genes prominent in the population) but I don't see these things happening to atheists. I see plenty of evidence from chrisitans and to a lesser extent other religious folks. but I don't see it from atheists etc, why is that? they might claim that it's just not as newsworthy or interpreted that way given the lack of religious context etc. but you'd think there's at least be noteworthy evidence, or something, at least, that shows it happens to atheists etc
miracles occur, but not to atheists

The percent of atheists in america does matter because that shows atheists have less of a chance of miracles occuring to them then raligous people. And you never gave me a deffinition of a miracle so I found one that worked with my cause but you completely ignored it. Also the title is "Miracles occur but not to atheists", so all I have to do is give one example of an miracle occuring to an atheist; and than I win, which I did. Then you respond with your own criteria for a miracle, after I gave one????? And with that no-body can heal inexplicable cures unless we go back to biblical times, and in the bible it states that Jesus cured prostitutes and non-beleivers, so atheists did have miracles occur to them; just way back in biblical times when everyone did myrh.
miracles occur, but not to atheists

the percent of atheists doesn't really have much to do with anything. you need to show hard evidence, and by far much better than you have shown itd be a semantic argument for you to call this a miracle: "For example my friend who's an atheist is great at math and science, so great that he got invited to the high school worldwide youth science and engineering club or wyse. Soo that is by deffinition a miracle. first, n0 we should all acknowledge warm fuzzies, coincidences and mere good things happening to people, are not miracles. second, even if it meets some random definition, we all know miracles are things that are scientifically inexplicable, things that appear supernatural, even if we all conceded it may not be. being invited to the youth club isn't that. inexplicable cures, seeing with no retinas, that sort of thing. where's the evidence?
miracles occur, but not to atheists

The citation was the list of celebrities that are atheists. Also only 20% of Americans have no religion or are atheists, so that means they would have less of a chance to have miracles occur to them. And Mark Twain is one of the better writers of the 19th century, so its a miracle that he became so famous through his writings. The google deffinition for a miracle is a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment. So with that deffinition countless miracles can happen to atheists. For example my friend who's an atheist is great at math and science, so great that he got invited to the high school worldwide youth science and engineering club or wyse. Soo that is by deffinition a miracle. Percent of atheists in america link is below. http://www.alternet.org...
It is impossible for there to exist a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

Most people who look at my resolution will recognize it as the famous problem of evil. The problem of there existing a being(god) who is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving allowing evil to flourish and people to suffer. This being knows when and where all evil, past and present, has and will occur(omniscience). It also has the ability to stop at any time any evil that has ever ocurred(omnipotence). This being as being "all loving" would want to do anything to stop evil from happening(omnibenevolence). As evil continues to flourish in the world(rape, cold blooded murder) one must concludes that an all powerful, omniscient, all loving being either does not exist, is not all loving, or is not all powerful.
It is impossible for there to exist a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

I will be taking the pro position so con will take the position that a being can exist with the above attributes. Round 1- acceptance of debate, definitions Rounds 2 and 3- Arguments and rebuttals Definitions: Omniscient: One having total Natural knowledge within this universe [1] Omnipotent: almighty or Maximally supreme in Natural power within this universe [2] Omnibenevolent: All-loving, or infinitely good within this universes context[3] Impossible: not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc. [4] [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.wordnik.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The US Fed Gvt. should substantially increase public health assistance to sub-suharan Africa.

The US Fed Govt should in fact increase public health assistance for many reasons. One of of which I believe is most important: The water purity in sub-saharan africa is poor, as they cannot afford water sanitation devices such as filters or pumps. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year from water-bourne diseases. We should help them install pumps in every country that filter and purify water, and store it in a storrage tank. This way, the water will be disease free and they'll have some place to store it. It's the perfect plan.
The US Fed Gvt. should substantially increase public health assistance to sub-suharan Africa.

K, pull all my arguments through. Vote on any of them you'd like. I would personally vote on Inherency and the: "You say a play pump can reach 3 million people? Prove it. If I stick a play pump in the middle of a random desert will people be able to access it? Also if there are 3 million people at a pump and each person takes perhaps 20 seconds to get a bucket of water that means it will take each person 694.444444 days before they can get a bucket of water. ((3 mil * 20 secs) / 60 secs / 60 mins / 24 hours) Even if it only takes 1 person 1 second to get water from the pump (which sounds like it might be a long process of hand pumping) that is still 34.72222 days between water buckets." Thanks.
Everything is debatable

Refutations that will just be covering why they are debatable: "Black is exactly the same as white." What if I have eyes that don't see as regular human eyes do and Black as you say is exactly the same as white just as we have a name for those things, ISOMERS. "The Sun is the closest star to Earth." How do you know that there is an undiscovered star closer than the sun? A day is longer than one second." What if I was trapped in a time vortex and no time existed, then that is not applicable. "A table is a table." Again what if I has genetically mutated eyes or was from long ago or was from somewhere else and that was not a table? If all cars are automobiles, and all automobiles are vehicles, all cars are vehicles" How do you know all cars are automobiles? "It is an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist" What about if someone states a statement, that is absolute truth. "People can drown." What if we lived underwater then can people drown? I am interested in your refutations,
Everything is debatable

Greetings. It is my duty, and my honor, to present to you several things about which there is no debate. That is what my opponent has asked me to do. "Black is exactly the same as white." There is no debate on this issue, since the very fact that we make some distinction between them, labeling them two separate things, necessarily means they are not exactly the same. "The Sun is the closest star to Earth." Along with many other undisputed scientific facts, there is no debate on this issue. "A day is longer than one second." Note that this does not mean it always 'seems' longer, but that it actually _is_ longer. "A table is a table." This is true by definition, and is not debated. "If all cars are automobiles, and all automobiles are vehicles, all cars are vehicles" This is a simple logical syllogism, the truth of which there is no debate over. "It is an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist" This is false by definition. "People can drown." Proven fact. etc. Show me that these statements are all debatable, and perhaps I shall concede.
judicial system needs reform

1. Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts. My opponent's claim that people are able to legally commit immoral acts was refuted when I showed that lying was considered fraud no matter where you go in the American judicial system. My opponent responded to this with: //"In other words, it does happen regardless of perception of legal. "// My opponent's claim was refuted. He did not claim that the law was not effective enough, but that lying in the American judicial system was legal. 2. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another. //"If our declaration of independence, the basis of our entire government system, is so bold as to mention the creator, why is it that our court system is not willing to even consider the creator, or the morals and values instilled by him/her, in the writings that they have given us? "// Here my opponent brings a new point in the last round. I think it should not be used as it is abuse, however I will respond anyways. The DOI was a document in which our founding fathers told the country of England that they had been wronged and that they would be legally separating from that government. The DOI was not used to set up the American government. It was set up by our Constitution and the subsequent ammendments. If you would look at one of the ammendments to the constitution it reads: //"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"// This clearly shows that the founding fathers wanted to keep religion and government separate. 3. If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing's maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge. My opponent's last claim is that all men are equal and thus a judge has no more of a right to pass legal decisions than anyone else. This is the weirdest of all my opponent's contentions. By his own claim, drug lords ahould have the same rights as police officers. What right to police officers have to try and arrest drug lords if all men were created equal? My opponent ends by showing numerous cases of people who were wrongfully convicted of crimes and later released. This does not help my opponent's case though in that he did not show why administering general religious law would have resulted in a different outcome for any of these people.
judicial system needs reform

As my opponent is instigator in this debate, he shall have the burden of proof and it shall be his responsibility to uphold his contentions. My opponent has brough three contentions and to win he must uphold all three. His contentions are as follows: A)Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts. B)All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another. C)If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing's maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge. If my opponent cannot uphold all three of these contentions and prove that implementing these policies will result in a more just judicial system the he will lose this debate. American Judicial System: The branch of government that is endowed with the authority to interpret and apply the law, adjudicate legal disputes, and otherwise administer justice. The U.S. judiciary comprises a system of state and federal courts, tribunals, and administrative bodies, as well as the judges and other judicial officials who preside over them.[1] Reform: a: to put or change into an improved form or condition. b: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses.[2] I will now pass the debate on to my opponent as to allow him to defend his contentions. [1]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
judicial system needs reform

I am doing an argumentative report for college, I need someone to debate me on these statements. 1. Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts. 2. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another. 3. If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing's maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge.
One plus One is equal to Two ( 1 + 1 = 2 )

Perhaps my proof was slightly unclear. Your rebuttal suggests that my numbers do not "add up," yet you have misinterpretated the foundations for each implication. As 0.999... is an infinite geometric sum, it can be expressed by its sum expansion: (9/10) + (9/10^2) + (9/10^3) +. . . In order to prove that 0.999... = 1, you must solve a limit by substituting this value within an established equation. If x = (1/10) + (1/10^2) + (1/10^3) +... Thus, 9x = 9 · [(1/10) + (1/10^2) + (1/10^3) +...] = (9/10) + (9/10^2) + (9/10^3) +... = 0.999... If one were to multiply x by 10, 10x = 10 · [(1/10) + (1/10^2) + (1/10^3) +...] = 1 + (1/10) + (1/10^2) + (1/10^3) +... Thus, by subtracting [(1/10) + (1/10^2) + (1/10^3) +...], you are subtracting x, resulting in: 10x - x = 1. Granted that 9/9 = 1, this equation implies that x = 1/9. By substituting 1/9 as x in the original equation, 9x = 0.999..., you get: 0.999... = 9 · 1/9 = 9/9 = 1. Thus, 0.999... = 1. Substituting 0.999... as 1 in the equation 1 + 1 = 2 does not result with 2, it equals 1.999...8.However, this may unclarified and misleading, due to paradoxal conundrum when expressed as an infinite geometric sum. So, to provide a different mathematical perspective: 0.999... = lim[n→∞] (0.99...9) = lim[n→∞] (Σ[n, k=1] (9/10^k) ) = lim[n→∞] (1 - (1/10^n)) = 1 - lim[n→∞] (1/10^n) = 1 | n | This simplification of limits is justified by the Archimedean property of the real numbers. Yet, this does not explain how the sum of an infinite geometric series, 0.999..., can equal two things at once. It is a calculus technicality that 0.999... = 1, as proved, yet it is numerically less than 1. Thus, the calculus says that 0.999... + 0.999... = 1 + 1 = 2, yet numerically it cannot be equal to 2 because 0.999... is not signified as 1. The actual number, 1, has two simulataneous values, which when applied to 1 + 1 can both equal 2 and not equal 2. This disproves the validity of 1 + 1 solely equalling 2 because reasonable doubt has been offered to subject it (this may be the area in which my opponent misunderstood my proposition).
One plus One is equal to Two ( 1 + 1 = 2 )

These numbers don't add up! "Given that 9/10 = 0.9, 9x = 0.999... Given that 10/10 = 1, 10x = 1 + (1/10) + (1/10^2) +..., thus, 10x - x = 1" "9x = 0.999..." "thus, 10x - x = 1" "9x = 0.999..." "thus, 10x - x = 1" "9x = 0.999..." "thus, 10x - x = 1" "9x = 0.999..." "thus, 10x - x = 1" "9x = 0.999..." "thus, 10x - x = 1"
One plus One is equal to Two ( 1 + 1 = 2 )

Unfortunately, it has become apparent that my opponent made an accidental typo; to conserve debating space, I will begin the argument.1 + 1 = 2 is commonly percieved as an axiom of arithmetic and mathematics; proving to be a foundation of mathematical advancement and progression. However, mathematics itself is an incomplete theory. Fallacy and argumentum verbosium have dictated some of the unjust paths of mathematics, and are subject to reasonable doubt. I propose that this equation, disregarding its apparent simplicity, is subject to reasonable doubt. 1 + 1 = 2 relies on the numerical value of '1' to be stagnant and unquestionably fundamental. Yet, 1 can have two equivelants: one of which being 0.999...First, one must address 0.999... as an infinite sum, like such:0.999... = Σ[+∞, n=1] (9/10^n) = (9/10) + (9/10^2) + (9/10^3) +...To find the limit of this geometric sum:Let,x = (1/10) + (1/10^2) + (1/10^3)+...Given that 9/10 = 0.9,9x = 0.999...Given that 10/10 = 1,10x = 1 + (1/10) + (1/10^2) +..., thus, 10x - x = 1This implies x = 1/9Hence,0.999... = 9 · 1/9 = 1Q.E.D. This proof can be reiterated in numerous ways, involving concepts ranging from modular fractions to abstract summation. With 0.999... = 1 established, one can formally conclude that:1 + 1 = 0.999... + 0.999... = 1.999...8
The United States is in fact, the greatest nation in the world.

I extend all of my arguments, as I have nothing to new to debate. The self locking tape measure could possibly the greatest American invention ever. Above electricity, automobiles, soil tills, tractors, aviation, computers, telephone, baseball, basketball, football, internet, bi focal glasses, refrigerator, coffee pot, grain harvester machine, oil well, toilet paper, blue jeans, light bulb, telephone, assembly line, zipper, air conditioning, tea bags, band aid, masking tape, bread slicer, bubble gum, frozen food, chocolate chip cookies, photo copier, defibilator, aersol spray can, microwave, cell phone, disposable diaper, polio vaccine, optical fiber, calculator, space shuttle, cervical cancer vaccine, JUST TO NAME A FEW!! Oh,.. and great food. I mean real food, not fast food junk. I mean smoked pork chops, BBQ ribs, juicy sirloins from a well marbled american raised corn fed beef!!! Garlic mashed potatos side of brown gravy, buttered toast, buttered and peppered sweet corn on the cob, cole slaw, cold coco cola with just a shot of southern comfort whiskey, and a slice of apple pie under a scoop of vannila ice cream!!!
The United States is in fact, the greatest nation in the world.

The United States of America, rich in natural beauty, history of incredible overcomings, and freedoms given to individual citizens of this great nation are just the tip of the scale as to what makes up the bulk of truths proving the United States is the greatest nation. I hope to touch on several facts, facts the prove my point that the United States is the greatest nation in the world. -Industry -Technology -Military -Agriculture -Entertainment -Culture -Sports -Education These are just a few talking points that I will address, giving specifics to each point and providing valid resources facts, and figures, proving my case. The United States, one of the youngest nations in the world, has risen to top quickly and remains the greatest nation in the world. Thank you and good luck to whom ever takes this debate.
The 'new' bibles recently created, belong to Satan.

In the spring of 2003, I personally experienced Numbers 12:6. I also experienced much more. The following took place; 1) I went to God in very serious prayer. Later in the day, I was spoken to in God's own voice. I was given the answer to my prayer. 2) About a month later, I was mentally debating the Mormon belief, that we were in heaven before coming to earth and being born. I received a vision, in which I 're-lived' my own carnal birth. 3) A further two months later, I had a vision followed by a dream in riddles. It took nine years of research on the internet, talking to various ministers of all 'one-god' faiths, attending many different Christian churches, discussions on Christian forums, prayer, and so on, before I understood what God was teaching me. When I was reading scriptures, God would 'insert' missing scriptures, and after I read them, they would 'disappear' again. God showed me that I am an Israelite from the lost tribes of Israel (my father was from Norway, and my mother was from Scotland), and the throne of England, is an Israelite throne. God had me compare the KJV Bible to the NIV study bible, and showed me several errors in the NIV. He also showed me the contradictions found in the KJV Bible. The Holy Ghost only accepts the KJV Bible. This is the only Bible authorized by God. When I went for coffee, I would sit in my truck at the coffee shop. As I sat there, God would 'give me answers' to questions I never even asked. They had to do with the lost Word of God. God asked me to do what I am now doing. All of my posted debates are part of it. In the dream, I volunteered to do this work. God asked, "Do you think you can handle it?" I answered "Yes." I have been banned from many forums, asked to leave one church, called a 'heretic', called a false prophet, and most of my emails to Christian ministers go unanswered. The scriptures tell us, that if they threw the master out, they will surely throw you out. Which minister do you know of, that has been thrown out of his church when asked by God to teach something 'different'? Which minister do you know of, that has experienced John 14:21-23? I have heard of NONE. I wrote a small book called 'Black Lights & Burnt Candles', published by WestBow Press, in February, 2013, in which I try to explain part of the many things that God has taught me. I basically 'lived for God' during the past 10 years, and I continue to do so. I am a self-employed accountant, and can therefore arrange my accounting work to fit my work for God.