BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity and its Validity

How can all religions be the same? If they where all created for the same purpose why are there all different ones? The that all religions are the same makes absolutely no sense, because not all religions believe even sort of the same things. For example... Christians believe that God is the only true God, and that Jesus, His son, is the only way to get to heaven, which is a place of eternal happiness. Buddhists, there is no god, and no heaven. Hindus, karma. Enough said. How can these be the same? Your first reason, how could they be created for a simple code for the commoners to live by when the different religions have different laws? How can you prove that heaven and hell do not exist? You can't. No one in the remotely recent past had come back from the dead so we can ask! Why would a king or ruler of some sort want to create a religion, it isn't as if word wouldn't get out and then the religion would evaporate. This has not happened. Why do you think people long for something to believe in? Honestly, why? It's because God put that longing in everyone so that they would look for Him, and look for Him, and look for Him, until they find him. Why do you think religion I'd so attractive? Can you see wind? No. Do you know it's there? Yes, you can feel it, you can see the effects of it, and you can here it as it flows through the trees. God is like that. Can you see Him himself? No, but you know He's there. You can feel His presence, you can SEE what He has created and know He's there, you can see the effect He has on the entire world. Because you know, without Him, we wouldn't be here. Is that not intriguing to think about? Imagine your brain not being here. Imagine not having a soul. See you can't imagine yourself out of things, your brain can't wrap itself around that. And do you know why? Because we won't have to. We will always be here, whether in heaven or hell, our even on this corrupt earth, we will always exist. What do you mean? What values you can see? Explain. I promise I am going to push for details in this debate, I didn't in the one with kasmic, and I should have. You are going to have to give me details down to the letter. And you shouldn't. You should not forsake your 'knowledge' and education, IF it's right. If it where me I would forsake any schooling I had had that does not go with God's word. Thank you for inviting me to participate in this debate.
Christianity and its Validity

I'm here from your argument "How can you be an atheist?". I'm interested in this topic and would like to debate it. I'm coming from a purely clinical point of view here, as I have never been religious, in any way, shape, or form. I was raised in an atheist household, but my exposure to religion has been quite adequate to debate this. I have read the Bible in its entirety, as well as several other religious texts (The Qur'an, the Tanakh), and have read the myths of Gilgamesh, the creation stories of ancient pagan religions, etc. I have compared the ideals listed in these tomes and have come to a simple and elegant conclusion: All religion is the same. I've lived my life based on this ideal, recognizing that religion was invented for one of two reasons under some name or another. The reasons are these: Firstly, religions were created for comfort, reassurance, and a simple code by which leaders could ensure that their laws were being followed (often enforced by threat of a "hell" or promise of a "heaven"). The secondary reason links to that and takes it a step further--Religion was invented as a form of mind-control. The reason it's so effective is that people by nature long for something to believe in, particularly if that something tells them that they have protection under the almighty hand of an omniscient being. I also support my own atheism with the typical argument of non-believers: Where is the proof? Why should I have faith in something I cannot see when the values associated with said imaginary deity are disproved by things I can see? Why should I disregard my own knowledge and education for the sake of "faith"? I hope you accept this argument. I think it could be, for lack of a better word, enlightening. My rules are simple. No fallacies of any kind, particularly Ad Hominem. It dulls a debate, and distracts from the topic at hand. Do not try to convert me, and I'll play nice too. I can easily tear your religion apart, but as long as we agree to a friendly debate, I promise I won't. I look forward to your reply. -Milo
Favorite movies

Now my second favorite movie the dark Knight and his why First of all, you need to know that it's dark. Very dark. Under your skin, makes you want to hide in a hole kind of dark. But in an extremely good way. It's like the Joker himself has pulled you into a twisted nightmare, where buzzers always electrocute the buzzed and pretend flowers spray acid. The directing is beautiful. It's motions pull you into the screen. The acting is beyond phenomenal, with Heath Ledger bringing the epitome of anarchy to life. But I think what really gets me is how they twisted the story to so mirror real life. That this could happen. That this will happen. Granted, not in one city, but that human kind is all about causes and effects. Equal exchange. Good and Evil Batman and the Joker.
Favorite movies

Im going to go ahead and say that I firmly believe the best movie ever is Forest Gump. It tells a great story of honor, commitment, and dedication to the very foundation of the home of the free and land of the brave. Forrest shows througout the movie that things can be done even if all of the odds are stacked against you. It is also a great love story. Jenny, the love of Forest's life, goes through a life coarse of ups and downs and still ends up with the one she was ment to be with. Forrest is a true American hero, never giving up and always fighting for his country and the love of his life, even if he is just a movie character. Lets not forget that he was also a great friend to Bubba. He even continued his fallen friends idea to go into the shrimpping business.. and business is booming. He and Liutenat Dan become very close and it shows the growth of their relationship. The story is compelling it keeps your attention and it has a happy ending.. AND THAT IS WHY ITS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER.......... Nigga.
Favorite movies

Each person will pick their five favorite movies and pick one out of the five favorite movies every round and explain why its their favorite movie and then the people who vote will vote on which movies they like more I'll start with saying my favorite movie is back in the future because of this main reason Doc Brown Doctor Emmett L. Brown must be one of the most beloved characters in film " I"ve said it before: but who hasn"t attempted a lame Doc impression at some point? Be honest" Christopher Lloyd saved most of his best performances for playing eccentrics but no one was quite as magnificently eccentric as Doc " The Einstein-esque hair, the larger than life mannerisms and of course his endless line of failed inventions. Yet underneath his dedication to science, Doc had a touching friendship with Marty and even if his head wasn"t always in the right place (stealing from terrorists), his heart always was. And let"s not forget, this is the man that invented a DeLorean that could travel through time!
Their is evidence for Creation.

Because of the vague nature of this debate, and my opponent's inability to define what he means by "creation", I will do so myself. Creation will be defined as... "The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence." Divine will be defined as.. "Of or pertaining to a god, especially the Supreme Being." World will be defined as... "Everything that exists; the universe; the macrocosm." Evidence will be defined as... "Proof. Something that makes plain or clear" My opponent's goal is to present evidence that the world was created by a divine being. (All definitions from Dictionary.com)
Their is evidence for Creation.

As I stated in my last argument, I agree that DNA can not be formed randomly. I went a step further by stating that I doubt anything is truly random. Random is merely an illusion caused by our own limited ability to perceive all the variables that go into any event. Even if we take it as fact that nothing is truly random, this is not evidence for creation. My opponent clearly has a poor understanding of natural selection. He made the claim that there was much evidence, but by his own admission failed to present any evidence whatsoever. He has absolutely no case. I trust that those who take part in the voting process will show proper discernment when making their judgments.
Their is evidence for Creation.

Well, you failed to give me an answer. I didn't say DNA is proof of creation, I merely noted DNA cannot be formed randomly. You could not come up with an example when it is. Also, if a person evoluted missing one vital organ, he would die. So it would have to happen all over again with all the right vital organs. Even then, if their wasn't a human of the opposite sex, with all their bodily functions, they would die childless. Evolutionists disagree with other evolutionists. Most of your dating methods are screwy, or open to extreme interpretation. I rest my case.
Their is evidence for Creation.

You are saying that there is evidence for creation. The burden is on you to present the evidence. If you can not present evidence, your argument is little more than a baseless assertion. If you do present what you consider to be evidence, it would be my job to point out how the evidence you present does not necessarily imply a supreme being. Random is defined as "Proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern". One could argue that nothing is truly random, and random is an illusion created by our own inability to account for all variables. Aim is defined as "To intend or direct for a particular effect or purpose". If there is an aim, we are not aware of it. Reason is defined as "A basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc". Matter seems to be consistent in that it operates under cause and effect. You could call that reason. Pattern is defined as "A combination of qualities, acts, tendencies, etc., forming a consistent or characteristic arrangement". Patterns are apparent in just about everything once enough information is gathered. Things that once appeared to be random are shown to work under the same cause and effect laws as everything else. If something appears to be random, it is due to ignorance of these variables unaccounted for. I doubt anything is truly random. It would be a bit of a stretch to say that DNA is proof of creation. (All definitions once again pulled from Dictionary.com)
Are today's people "spoiled?"

I agree with the "sense of entitlement." The U.S. has long had the best of everything; however, the newest generations (Generation X, etc.) seem to have this notion that "Who cares? I can live off my parents/friends/other for life." That is not true. Parents and friends, unfortunately, don't last forever; even if that was possible, who says that they would be that generous? I know for a fact that my friends and family have enough to worry about without thinking about me all the time. "Oh _______ needs food and clothes," etc. I personally believe that these newer generations are choosing to be that way, and that is not the way to be. At some point, whoever you rely on is not going to be there when you need something. At that point, you would have two choices: 1. Either procrastinate and hope that your "reliable" person comes back; or 2. You can get up, go out, and do it yourself.Here's the problem -- with a child, you can't expect them to everything, so you have to provide for them. What about chores? The hatred of chores doesn't exist in every country. Even in racist Scandinavia, people believe in their responsibilities, they're just arrogant people who feel that based on their skin color, they can get whatever they want. Which is what I meant by spoiled. The hatred of chores is not common everywhere. It's only in America. You said people today are spoiled. But that's a generalization. Because different cultures have different values. And that attitude you mentioned is only prevelant in American society. But spoiled has different meanings too. It can take on racial meanings, like mentioned about the lowlands Scotland and northern England plus Scandinavia, in which a sense of entitlement attitude exist.
Are today's people "spoiled?"

I agree with the "sense of entitlement." The U.S. has long had the best of everything; however, the newest generations (Generation X, etc.) seem to have this notion that "Who cares? I can live off my parents/friends/other for life." That is not true. Parents and friends, unfortunately, don't last forever; even if that was possible, who says that they would be that generous? I know for a fact that my friends and family have enough to worry about without thinking about me all the time. "Oh _______ needs food and clothes," etc. I personally believe that these newer generations are choosing to be that way, and that is not the way to be. At some point, whoever you rely on is not going to be there when you need something. At that point, you would have two choices: 1. Either procrastinate and hope that your "reliable" person comes back; or 2. You can get up, go out, and do it yourself.
Are today's people "spoiled?"

Spoiled can mean that, but it also has other meanings. Perhaps the operative meaning behind all of this is "sense of entitlement" which exists in other cultures. In Scandinavia and southern Scotland/northern England exists this kinda Ku Klux Klan mentality, in which, many, by virtue of being white, feel they're entitled to better jobs, homes, farms and land than other races, and better cars too. But in other cultures such as India, people have a sense of fairness and are devoted to their friends and families. Same case in Italy and Germany. Asian countries are very communal, too. So it's mostly North America and Northern Europe that has this kind of sense of entitlement, and it's usually racist in nature.
Life On Earth Was Created By God

Thanks Pro. Pro says: "We may not need a god" My response: I agree. If we may not need a god, then how can one be sure that god created earthly life? Pro says: "Yes, other planets have atmospheres." My response: Pro had originally said, "If the atmosphere was created before life, this doesn't make much sense to me." Well all of the extraterrestrial planets with atmospheres don't have life, so having an atmosphere before life should make the most sense. That's nearly all we've found are atmospheres that have originated without life. Pro mentioned my lack of a link for the creation of the atmosphere. Yep, it's irrelevant to the debate, so I don't need to do that. Near as I can figure, the earth's atmosphere became what it is today after the moon-forming impact. According to the NCBI article called "Earth's Earliest Atmosphere," The "moon-forming impact...made Earth for a short time absolutely uninhabitable...one interesting consequence of the moon-forming impact is that the mantle is devolatized, so that the volatiles subsequently fell out in a kind of condensation sequence...[this] atmosphere generated by impact degassing would tend to have a composition reflective of the impacting bodies (rather than the mantle), and these are almost without exception strongly reducing and volatile-rich." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... So there's proof that the atmosphere was generated pre-biotically; no life was needed for the atmosphere. So Pro's claim that "God also let life onto Earth via abiogenesis, which created the atmosphere" is refuted by me using science, because science shows an earth's atmosphere UNINHABITABLE to life; this negates "life...which created the atmosphere." Pro said "If Con can refute this using science...I may concede" My response: Well I did that...you concedin' Pro?
Life On Earth Was Created By God

We may not need a god, but if the chances were slim, then we'd need the help of a god to place the planet in the correct area and bring the proper elements into our planet. Con reveals a problem with his assertions. Yes, other planets have atmospheres, but we're the only ones with life. Why's this? If Con could at least make a guess on the probability that we'd be the only planet with water that could sustain life, that would be great. Pro is unable to post a link for the creation of the atmosphere. I agree earth's atmosphere is quite complex. All I need is an estimated probability so we can see how slim the chances are. Now for my theory on the creation of life: God first gathers different components required to make the planets. With knowledge of abiogenesis (who said he didn't?), he brings the needed elements to create life after drawing rock near the location of earth. The Sun came before earth, though. Life needs good temperature to survive, and Earth just *happens* to be here, the perfect spot. What are the chances? Slim, I bet. God also let life onto Earth via abiogenesis, which created the atmosphere. Firstly some bacteria arose which only needed Carbon Dioxide to survive (which Earth had plenty of at the time). Then they slowly evolved into more complex beings. Eventually becoming the dinosaurs, and this is the course of life. If Con can refute this using science (no just saying "I still refuse to believe God made the universe"), I may concede. But until then, my theory stands. God didn't 'poof' life onto Earth, but rather played a key step in abiogenesis, and the creation of earth.
Life On Earth Was Created By God

Thanks for your response Pro. In response to abiogenesis, Pro asks: "What is the chance of all this happening, though? It's rather complicated, it seems. I would like to know the probability." My response: I'm not a mathematics guy...I'm a science guy, so the probability is somewhat out of my realm, and, I argue, irrelevant to this debate if we're trying to show plausibility of life's natural origins. By showing that we don't need a god for life, we really don't need probability. What's the probability that there's a magical being that manipulates everything? How would one go about calculating that? Pro has one contention with my long-winded abiogenesis explanation: "If the atmosphere was created before life, this doesn't make much sense to me, as it composes of the gases required for both plant and animal life." My response: Do a quick google search for planets with atmospheres, and see what comes up. Now do a search for planets with life, and see what comes up. Notice that there are many planets with atmospheres, but only one planet, we know of, with life. So it would seem that atmospheres are way more common without life, from what we've observed. So Pro asks: "How did the atmosphere form?" My response: The pre-biotic atmosphere of earth was likely highly inorganic and tumultuous from volcanic activity and the cooling of the earth's crust. How did any of the planets' atmospheres form? When planets form, they emit lots of dust and gas, so I imagine from this emission, comes an atmosphere of some sort. All-in-all, Pro seems to accept that earthly life arose naturally, which negates the need for a deity or god to have created life on earth. I maintain my rejection of the resolution.
Life On Earth Was Created By God

I see how life can be naturally produced. Now we'll have to see if God exists or not. What is the chance of all this happening, though? It's rather complicated, it seems. I would like to know the probability. Also, the atmosphere keeps in the Carbon Dioxide needed for the plants to create Oxygen for the animals. If the atmosphere was created before life, this doesn't make much sense to me, as it composes of the gases required for both plant and animal life. http://www.space.com... So how did the atmosphere form?
Life On Earth Was Created By God

I argue that some deity created the universe. This may or may not to Christ. Do you suppose that cells just *happened* to come together, and became dinosaurs? These cells couldn't have just *joined together* on their own. I am aware of how Earth formed, as I researched this: . http://www.space.com... But as for life on Earth during this time. .. Firstly, (on the core accretion side), the core is made by many metallic and rock joining each other in a gravity field. Then the mantle forms, but it would be difficult to live here, as it is probably warm even then. Then comets crashed, making water, and then the crust. Where would life come from, let alone Tyrannosaurus, Ankylosaurus, and much other dinosaurs. What are your thoughts? (PS My strategy for this debate will be refuting Con's arguments, as a deity is hard to prove without disproving science itself)
Life On Earth Was Created By God

*You are Pro**I am Con**NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND**No round rules*ResolutionLife on earth was created by god.ProHas the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that life on earth was created by god and refute Con.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute Pro.*Definitions can be changed in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as Pro and Con both agree.Otherwise...*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.Definitions (from Google definitions)life - the condition that distinguishes plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria from inorganic matter.earth - the planet on which we live; the world.created - brought something into existence.god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
There is evidence for God

Perhaps you did not look at my source. It provided real evidence. Also, the existence of God can coincide with science. If you do not believe that, then you are welcome to challenge me to a separate debate about it. God hasn't given the amputee a new arm because that would confuse him, even if he did believe in Him. As for he hungry 1. As for the amputee's arm, atheist or not, it would confuse him to see his arm back on his body. 2. Children in Africa? It is either punishment of their sins or intended to strengthen their faith because that is what God does. My source also said that Muslims have been having dreams of Jesus. 3. Claiming to have seen heaven, Jesus, or angels is not the same thing as claiming to see Bigfoot as you absolutely have to be awake to see Bigfoot. Bigfoot is physical, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), so you cannot have your literal eyes open and see them. 4. "There is no evidence that people have seen heaven," yes there is, people have said they saw heaven, and there is no real reason for lying that you saw heaven. I would not lie about seeing heaven. 5. "There is no scientific proof that God has answered a prayer," sorry, but there is. God answered one of my prayers once that I can remember. One day, a family member of mine was working hard, and her back started hurting. She asked me to ask God to make her back stop hurting. I did, and shortly afterward, she was still working, and all of a sudden, her back stopped hurting, Key words: "She was still working." I asked God to heal her back, so which made the pain stop? Her posture or God?
There is evidence for God

"People have seen heaven" People have also claimed to see Bigfoot. There is no evidence that proves that a person has seen heaven. There are even conflicts on how we define heaven. "People encounter Jesus and angels" I will point to my last comment once more. " He has answered prayers" There is no scientific proof that God has answered a prayer. If you have a head-ache and you took an Advil, and prayed for your pain to go away, which one relived your head-ache? And why hasn't god given an amputee a new arm? Or food for the hungry children in Africa? Please give more evidence. Real evidence.