BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Omniscience and omnipotence

Ah, I think I understand the gist of what you are arguing a bit better now. The argument is that, if a being is omnipotent, then that being possesses the ability to alter all outcomes (i.e. nothing is beyond the being's power). But if the being is omniscient, then the being also recognizes all outcomes (i.e. everything that can happen is already known). The paradox you suggest is that a being can not be aware of all outcomes if they are subject to change, and that if outcomes are not subject to change, allowing for omniscience, then there can not be omnipotence. I think this isn't so much a paradox as it would first appear. Consider this - you have some power (or so it appears, based upon our senses). You may know that talking to a person will result in a much different outcome than punching a person. You possess the power to do both. Yet, you may choose a fist or a word when engaging with such person. Your knowledge of the potentiality of the outcomes of the situation gives you a degree of scienter - you can reasonably predict outcomes based on your actions. If you should strike the person rather than speak to him, or speak to him rather than strike him, that does not negate your knowledge of both potential outcomes. Rather, you retain awareness of both the potential and the actualized reality that, through application of your potential to action, you have brought about. Now, imagine a being with the ability to comprehend the infinity of possibilities. Such a being, in applying its power, would prevent some possibilities from being actualized, but it would still retain its awareness of the outcomes it was bringing about and the outcomes it could have brought about. By accepting the existence of a being with infinite awareness of all probabilities, but which actualizes such abilities in a finite manner, it is possible to conceive of a being that is both simultaneously ominpotent and omniscient.The being is omniscient because it knows everything that *could be* or *has been*. The being is omnipotent because it determines everything that *is* and *will be*. Knowledge of all things does not preclude determination of some things, because one can know both what is and what is not or will not be. As regards faith, I think that is a doctrinal matter probably outside the scope of the current debate. I would suppose that the logic of the argument is that you need to trust in the cosmic over-mind because it is bigger and more important than you, and your limited knowledge would never approach that of it's. Which might be correct, though I agree that it is an odd way of going about things.
Omniscience and omnipotence

Sorry, but this sounds like Philosophical confusion to me, sort of along the lines of "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with "bulls--t". Forget about "Omni-benevolence" for the moment, that can wait. Consider the logic of what I stated, namely that no being could logically be Omniscient and Omnipotent at the same time. But, of course, if you consider your god to be beyond logic, then why bother with any debate. You have me outclassed. I surrender. But the Nuns taught me that god IS logical. So, what's a fellow to do? A logical god surely makes more sense to me than an illogical god, but history seems to favor the idea of illogical, capricious and largely malevolent gods who demanded obedience. Christianity added to this mix, the idea of Faith. Just read the new Testament. "Your faith has saved you." One needed to believe rather than just following a lot of rules, as other previous philosophies demanded.. Might that sort of suggest the idea of introducing logic and intelligence into the mix? Does not Omniscience demand that the omniscient entity has knowledge of all that will come to pass. It WILL happen, no matter what. No one, and nothing, and not even an omnipotent being could change that, or it renders the concept of omniscience meaningless. I merely summarize this idea into the statement that an Omniscient being could never change it's mind, and still claim to be Omniscient. So, so much for Omnipotence. Meanwhile, I suggest forget about onmibenevolence. It's irrelevant. Now, if you reject logic, then don't bother to reply. If you believe in an illogical god, what would be the point in debating? Anything would go. Otherwise I would be eager to hear your arguments.
Omniscience and omnipotence

I checked religion as the "category" here, but I think it ain't religion It's just plain old logic. And I think you are asking the wrong question if you wish to get any sensible answer. First of all, it would be logically impossible for any being to be both omniscient and omnipotent, if for no other reason, than to point out that an omniscient being could never change its mind and remain omniscient. What kind of omnipotence is it where one couldn't even change one's mind? And from a practical side, why then ought any of us bother praying? Think about it. And forget about benevolence. I doubt anyone could ever define benevolence in a sufficiently basic manner that would satisfy everyone, ergo, it's undefinable for practical purposes. And Omniscience and Omnipotence, even disregarding logic, would surely guarantee Predestination, which then makes all of us responsible for actions over which we have no control, no matter how it might appear to us. That would be merely an illusion. For a fun debate, try Justice along with Merciful. The nuns taught us the god was perfectly both. But these traits lie on opposite ends of the same spectrum, so for example, to be more "Just" means you likely would need to be less "Merciful". Sigh! No wonder some people say that to be religious, one must check one's intellect at the door before entering the church. But some argue that god being all powerful does not need to be logical. All I could say here is "OMG" we are a in the hands of a psychopath where logic may have no meaning. But seeing as we were created in the image and likeness of god, logic ought to have no meaning for us either. And when I read or hear the news, I find that idea not all that hard to accept. But to sound religious, why would god give us an intellect at all and then punish us if we used it? I never could figure that one out.
Having bad table manners makes you a less-liked person.

On your last speech. "You are right in the fact that I don't know all the social happenings in my school, but my school is made up of around 200 students. .. therefore, I have a good chance of knowing what's going on in terms of parties, get-togethers, ect. " >>You admit to a small margin of error for one. Second point, even with 200 people you couldn't possibly know about every little social get together. It may have stopped your friend from hanging out with single select people or small groups of people at times. "From your previous argument. .. Maybe this person would be liked even more if he/she didn't have the bad eating habits, but there is no way of knowing this information. " >>The only way to know for sure in your own microcosm would be to test it out. However I'm not attacking your friend here I am attacking people who have bad table manners. I am using the point that some people will judge and that this will detriment the person with the bad table manners in the above stated three ways. All of which lead to that person being liked less than he/she could have been. You are defending your side of this argument with exactly one example and even with that one example you haven't yet offered me any conclusive evidence, or even any evidence that your friend is just as well liked because of his eating habits as he would be without them.
Having bad table manners makes you a less-liked person.

Round 3... here we go... You are right in the fact that I don't know all the social happenings in my school, but my school is made up of around 200 students... therefore, I have a good chance of knowing what's going on in terms of parties, get-togethers, ect. From your previous argument... Maybe this person would be liked even more if he/she didn't have the bad eating habits, but there is no way of knowing this information.
Having bad table manners makes you a less-liked person.

Alright, round 2. On your point. "I have heard people talk about his/her atrocious eating habits, but the word never got around that he/she had bad table manners, and that is why, as I said before, this person is always invited to parties, get-togethers, school dances, ect." >> You have a small contradiction in this excerpt being mainly that you say you have heard that people talking about his/her atrocious eating habits but it has never got around. First off I would like to point out that you can't possibly prove it has never got around. If you have heard people talk about about it then more than likely people have also talked about it when you have not heard. Secondly it has gotten around. To you at least, as you have heard people talking about it. The person might be invited to parties, get-togethers, school dances, etc... this does not change my points from my previous argument however that argue he/she would still me more-liked if he/she had good table manners. And once again you argue an unprovable point; it is more than possible that your friend has been denied being invited to get-togethers. You cannot not assume to have all knowledge of all social happenings at your school. Parties that you did not know about for instance. Or that you were also not invited to for some reason. Once again my case rests on the point that your friend could be potentially more liked if he/she had better table manners and therefor is potentially less liked because of the lack.
Having bad table manners makes you a less-liked person.

I understand your points, but he/she IS invited to parties, friend get-togethers to many places, and is very well liked. He/she has had these table manners since first grade,if my memory doesn't decieve me, but no one has ever spread a rumor about them. I have heard people talk about his/her atrocious eating habits, but the word never got around that he/she had bad table manners, and that is why, as I said before, this person is always invited to parties, get-togethers, school dances, ect.
Having bad table manners makes you a less-liked person.

I am against this topic of debate, because I have a friend who doesn't have the best table manners, but he/she is one of the more popular kids in school. He/she does many sports, has many friends, and is liked by his/her teachers as well as fellow classmates. Also, if a person has bad table manners, you cannot judge them; "don't judge a book by its cover". I believe that if someone doesn't have good table manners, that could be a result of not realizing what they are doing, or if their parents never told them how not to eat at the table. Many people might not like how the person is eating, but it certainly doesn't make them a bad person or less-liked person.
Having bad table manners makes you a less-liked person.

As my final speech in this debate I will simply rebut your points and offer a brief summary. "Let me rephrase my last statement... there are 200 students in my school; nursery-8th grade. In the upper school (grades 6-8) there are only 50 students, and my class doesn't socialize with the rest of the upper school. Therefore, in my class there are 15 students, so now I have a good chance of knowing the parties and social get-togethers." >>Still you admit to having a "good chance" this leaves the opportunity for small get togethers that go undetected by you. /also you act as if your friends only social happenings are those of the 15 students in your class however I am sure he/she has some kind of life outside of school and has talked to members of other classrooms at least a few times. "People may judge my friend, but that never made him/her a LESS-liked person; if this person was LESS-liked, they wouldn't be invited to anything." >>Once again I am contesting your opinion with my reasons from the last 3 rounds. 1. Your friend is invited to dinner parties less. 2. Your friend is judged by people who eat with him but do not have the opportunity to talk to him. (This could even be a person walking by in passing) 3. People who judge your friend have the opportunity to gossip to others. 4. This leads to a biased opinion by others against your friend. 5. All of these reasons stop your friend from being invited to do some things, even if only a small amount of things because deep down he/she has a killer personality, which in turn stops your friend from having the opportunity of meeting new people. 6. This opportunity stops your friend from being liked by those people which makes him/her a less-liked person in the long run. You say "they wouldn't be invited to anything" in your last paragraph but you have already proven that they would be because they have a good personality. I am simply arguing that there are some things your friend has not been invited to. Even if on a very minute scale. Thank you for your time. =)
Having bad table manners makes you a less-liked person.

Let me rephrase my last statement... there are 200 students in my school; nursery-8th grade. In the upper school (grades 6-8) there are only 50 students, and my class doesn't socialize with the rest of the upper school. Therefore, in my class there are 15 students, so now I have a good chance of knowing the parties and social get-togethers. People may judge my friend, but that never made him/her a LESS-liked person; if this person was LESS-liked, they wouldn't be invited to anything.
Blacks are the superior race

Round 1 Pro states argument Con challenges pro's argument Round 2 Pro disputes con's challenge Con challenges pro's dispute Round 3 Pro and con argues against any false claims. No new claims in round 3 Round 4 Conclusions Argument Blacks are genetically superior. Blacks are the most genetically diverse of all races. Blacks are the master race. All races come from blacks. Non-blacks' genes have been demodified as a result. What makes the white race 'white' is a gene defect in which is a lack of melanin. Therefore, the main trait that makes white people white is a defect. Better yet, blacks are the most human race. Better yet, blacks are the only race who are fully human. Every other race is part human aka part neanderthal. Blacks dominate everything we put our minds to including presidential elections. Gymnasts 'Simone biles' and 'Gabby Douglas' completely dominated gymnastics in which is traditionally a white sport taking first and second place. Tiger woods dominated golf in which is traditionally a white sport. The only sports that blacks don't dominate are sports that involve environments unnatural to humans such as water and snow.. Humans cannot naturally survive in water and snow. Humans cannot breathe underwater and humans are not born with fur to survive freezing weather.
Blacks are the superior race

Another example of African illiteracy lol. I made no mention of chimpanzees. I said ape, specifically the gorilla. With its thick lips and flaring nostrils the resemblance is uncanny. The majority of Africans live in shacks and huts with hardly any education and rely on others to feed them. If this is what you call a superior race then you need to complete the sentence. Superior to what? Rats?
Blacks are the superior race

Not even a shred of evidence shows humans interbred with chimpanzees . Chimpanzee DNA has NEVER been found in black people. On the other hand, Neanderthal DNA HAS been discovered in all non Africans. Unlike whites, blacks are not descendants of an animal who is half human. Neanderthals had sex with humans and white people are their children. Whites literally came from half'- humans. All non-blacks are descendants of hybrids. In other words, not fully human. The fact remains, blacks are the most human. Also, the only difference between blacks and whites is whites are part neanderthal and their dna has been demodified. Also, study shows Neanderthals' brains evolved like chimps so white peoples forefathers brains were more like chimps. Lol. Michael Jackson became white because of a skin disease. Yes, it takes a skin disease to look like white people. That alone speaks volumes. Blacks do not turn white unless there is a skin problem.
Blacks are the superior race

So some blacks invented some shyt. If I must list all the whites, Indians and Asians who invented shyt I will be here for a couple of weeks. If the top person in every field was black you might have a leg to stand on. But claiming intellectual superiority based on one or two examples is ludicrous. And yes you right, whites evolved from neanderthals as apposed to blacks who evolved from apes. The point is that whites lost their skin pigmentation because of working indoors as teachers, doctors and bookkeepers. Blacks are only suitable for outdoor work such as builders and fruit pickers, therefore their skin retained its pigmentation. Blacks who don't work in the sun eventually turn white. As happened to Micheal Jackson.
You can not win a war on "terrorism"

My opponent did not even come close to expressing the slightest opinion as to why you can win a war on terrorism. You did not attack my argument of why the war is from a metaphorical standpoint, illogical thus making the ability to achieve victory in the war possible. Knowing this, I feel I won this debate due to the lack of attack against my arguments or any form of the slightest plausible reasoning as to why a war on terror can be won. In conclusion, a war on terror can not be won because you can not kill an idea or defeat a military tactic... If my opponent suggests an eye for an eye argument, all I have to say is " An eye for an eye will make the world go blind."-Mohandas Ghandi ... but thats a different argument
You can not win a war on "terrorism"

War : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations. Terrorism : the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 1. A war on terrorism can not be won because you simply can not kill, defeat, etc an idea. "You can kill a man but you can't kill an idea."-Medgar Evers. 2. There has been no immediate exit strategy, making the supposing judgment that there is no end in sight and will be a never ending conflict. http://www.cbsnews.com... This link is Bush himself stating the U.S. can't win the war on terror. my opponent claims instead of a war, its a "fighting fire with fire situation"
You can not win a war on "terrorism"

terï¿½rorï¿½ism : the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. Sense 9/11, the United States had begun a full fledged war on "terrorism". The tittle of "War on terror" intrigues me. Because if I'm not mistaken Terrorism isn't a group of people, but rather a military tactic bred from an idea. My question is how can such a war be won? Is it possible? If American Forces were to capture Osama and the heads of Al-Qaeda would the war on terror be over? I see this to be impossible because you simply cannot win a war on terrorism as you simply cannot "defeat an idea". From a philosophical standpoint, I see this war to be kind of (Hold your ears right wingers..) a joke.
The bible clearly states that gay marriage is wrong

Define marriage: "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife"[4] Part 1: Common sense: I will first criticize the title of this part for the reason that "common sense" just doesn't work in a debate specifically which is supposed to be about the fact that the bible "clearly states" X. Common sense is someone making in inference, not the bible clearly stating anything. Here my opponent just tells us how God made Adam and Eve but provides no verses or anything to suggest that the Bible, in Genesis, CLEARLY STATES that Gay marriage is wrong. Cross Examination: In Genesis does it ever mention marriage? Part two: First off let me say that Genesis 1:24 is NOT the verse he claims it is. Genesis 1:24 literally says this: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."[1] I ask Pro, where in there does it even remotely mention marriage? Regarding the Leviticus verse, this is merely talking about sodomy as my opponent conceded, not marriage. One cannot equate sodomy with marriage because they are two entirely different entities. Conclusion: My opponent's first contention doesn't fit the standard he set upon the debate's beginning which was that the Bible must CLEARLY STATE. Also, let me define "clearly" and "state". Clearly: "Without doubt; obviously"[2] State: "Express something definitely or clearly in speech or writing"[3] My argument: The word marriage in the Bible is mentioned roughly 20+ times and whenever it is it is either talking about Noah or the role of a women or a psalm thus we can see that the Bible takes no stand on gay marriage. It only takes a stand on BEING gay. Also, same sex marriages only occurred past the 1970's, before then people would sometimes go into contracts with the same sex but no marriage, just informal and sometimes ritualistic partnerships.[5] [1] http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://www.google.com... [4] http://www.google.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The bible clearly states that gay marriage is wrong

Before we begin I must add that this debate will make no sense to you if you do not believe what the bible says is true (taking into consideration the 2000 year time gap and translation from ancient Hebrew into English). Let’s begin Point 1; Common Sense; Genesis 1 In this chapter God creates man, and he said he was good. Now God created everything inside of Adam and eve also, including their reproductive organs. And those organs are to produce offspring. God did not make the organs for man's enjoyment. He made them for man’s survival. There is no way that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can produce offspring together. That is the way God made them. Point 2; Gods approval of heterosexual marriage and disapproval of sodomy; Genesis 1: 24, Deuteronomy 18:10 In Genesis God instructs Adam and Eve in the way marriage works; "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." God set up marriage as a way for man to reproduce. He set it up and that's the way it should be. In Deuteronomy God lists homosexuals under abominable practices, right between child sacrifices and sorcery. In Leviticus 20 it actually says "It is an abomination, they shall surly be put to death."
Scientists Never Falsify Data

I have been very sick for the past few days, and have been overloaded with school work as well. I haven't had time to even think about this topic, much less write a full round of debate. I am really sorry to waste your time this round, but I hope to be able to make up for it in the next. Please don't feel like you have to hold back or anything. If you have any arguments or points you want to make, I don't want to restrict you just because I am bad at time management :) Sincere Thanks to Wylted, both for the fun debate, and for being understanding of my situation. I wish more people were like him, especially on the internet! :D Sorry again; I really do feel terrible for this.