BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Proof of God Via Observation

Real sorry. I didn't even know how I did that. Debate.org fix your site. I broke it. Sorry, I meant to write methodological naturalism rather than philosophical. But anyway, science follows the principle of methodological naturalism, not considering supernatural causes for events. Why do you think this is the case if the scientific method should involve God, or whatever you believe.To clarify my prior point, 95% of the American public believes in God/universal spirit while only 41% of AAAS members believe. Statistically speaking, there are more nonbelievers in God in the lab than believers. Why do you think this is the case if "atheists are too stupid to engage in science"?Only 1 religion could be 100% true, if any. If I say that Trump is Washington, while others say he is in Singapore, Las Vegas or Paris, one of us must be wrong. He can't be in multiple places at once. All of them can't be right, but they can all be wrong. The same principle applies to religion. I never said that you were part of a religion, and even if you were, the argument would still stand. If during an investigation, a detective finds that all the witnesses who can't even agree on basic facts, you have to ask how reliable they are.And I know that my opponent will finish this off in the comments if you wish to see those. Anyway thanks for the debate.http://www.pewforum.org...
Proof of God Via Observation

Someone wrote and uploaded (twice): "If there is no such thing as an atheist, why do you bother even arguing?" I am a lover of the truth, and I also have an attraction for pugilism (martial arts, debate, politics, kicking ignorant trolls like you in the figurative nuts, and so forth). Also, all human beings LOVE to talk about God -- even believers in atheist Dogma love to talk about God, so I am helping everyone on the site to engage in what is basically everybody on the planet's favorite activity -- talking about God. Thanks for asking! =) " why does science follow philosophical naturalism?" I have no idea what that is supposed to mean: You need to re-phrase the question if you want an answer. " And why are there so much more non-believers in science than the general public? " That's because you believers in atheist Dogma, just like animals, are too stupid to engage in science. "You did, in fact, use argumentum ad populum, a multitude of times." No I didn't. " You be specific, you mention the innumerable amount of theists (p1 s1), and many people observing him (p3 s1), saying that this is proof that he exists. " I never said that, no, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "You again ignore many of my arguments," No I didn't. " including those of the contradictory revelations and doctrines of world religions." I don't have a religion, so that had nothing to do with my actual position in this debate. In other words, it was nothing but another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "you still have to realize at max only one could be right if any." That is a false statement. Also, I am not arguing in favor of religion in this debate, so that is also another straw man logical fallacy on your part anyway. You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Proof of God Via Observation

If there is no such thing as an atheist, why do you bother even arguing?If you are defending the scientific method, why does science follow philosophical naturalism? And why are there so much more non-believers in science than the general public? You did, in fact, use argumentum ad populum, a multitude of times. You be specific, you mention the innumerable amount of theists (p1 s1), and many people observing him (p3 s1), saying that this is proof that he exists. You again ignore many of my arguments, including those of the contradictory revelations and doctrines of world religions. I must reiterate this. Let's take Christianity, the religion you are most likely to be familiar with. Even in the first couple centuries of Christianity, you have arguments about if Jesus died for our sins, or whether he was even a real person. Even if you only focus on major sects, and ignore cults like Heaven's Gate. Branch Davidians, and the Manson Family, you still have to realize at max only one could be right if any.
Proof of God Via Observation

Someone wrote: "If there is no such thing as an atheist, why do you bother even arguing?" I am a lover of the truth, and I also have an attraction for pugilism (martial arts, debate, politics, kicking ignorant trolls like you in the figurative nuts, and so forth). Also, all human beings LOVE to talk about God -- even believers in atheist Dogma love to talk about God, so I am helping everyone on the site to engage in what is basically everybody on the planet's favorite activity -- talking about God. Thanks for asking! =) " why does science follow philosophical naturalism?" I have no idea what that is supposed to mean: You need to re-phrase the question if you want an answer. " And why are there so much more non-believers in science than the general public? " That's because you believers in atheist Dogma, just like animals, are too stupid to engage in science. "You did, in fact, use argumentum ad populum, a multitude of times." No I didn't. " You be specific, you mention the innumerable amount of theists (p1 s1), and many people observing him (p3 s1), saying that this is proof that he exists. " I never said that, no, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "You again ignore many of my arguments," No I didn't. " including those of the contradictory revelations and doctrines of world religions." I don't have a religion, so that had nothing to do with my actual position in this debate. In other words, it was nothing but another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "you still have to realize at max only one could be right if any." That is a false statement. Also, I am not arguing in favor of religion in this debate, so that is also another straw man logical fallacy on your part anyway. You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Proof of God Via Observation

Someone wrote: "I must ask, what evidence do you have that it is an atheist's method is inferior?" There is no such thing as an atheist. "The theistic method...." I am not defending the Theistic method -- I am defending the scientific method. "saying that something is true merely since many believe in it, is simply fallacious." I didn't claim that, so you just committed straw man logical fallacy. BrettBoelkens provides no evidence for his positions besides mere assertion, whereas I provided evidence for my position. Therefore Brett lost the debate.
Proof of God Via Observation

Okay, lets get straight into it. My opponent provides no evidence for his positions besides mere assertion.I must ask, what evidence do you have that it is an atheist's method is inferior? The theistic method has produced mutually exclusive, contradictory results. If everyone is reliably recording facts of the divine, why is that religion can't agree on hardly anything? Even in a religion itself, believers can't agree, often willing to kill for their beliefs, whether it be with Protestants and Catholics or Shia and Sunni. What is more likely; that one revelation is true in contrast to all others, or that mammals half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee imagine things that aren't real? Delusion is common worldwide, and saying that something is true merely since many believe in it, is simply fallacious.And if you believe as Pascal that we are so made that we can not believe, one must ask the reasonableness of this. If the ability to choose one's belief wasn't there, and your belief in atheism or theism was ordained by God, there would be no choice in the matter. Your free will in regards to the proposition would be equivalent to your "decision" on the color of your hair at birth. Add to this divine punishment for beliefs we had no choice in choosing.
Proof of God Via Observation

The fact that the believer in atheist Dogma is unable to observe God at this particular moment in time proves nothing about God's factual existence or about His factual characteristics -- it only proves that the believer in atheist Dogma's chosen method for observing God is inferior to that of the innumerable Theists, who have indeed observed God and His factual characteristics. Your inability to observe any particular person does not prove that the other person somehow does not exist, and your personal inability to observe God also does not prove that He somehow doesn't exist. Their actions show that they indeed do exist, and God's written media (the scriptures) and His activities also show that He does indeed exist. The fact that many people have observed Him in person and taken careful note of His factual characteristics and activities is further proof that He does indeed exist, along with His factual characteristics and activities, and these proofs are superior to any proofs that we could have about most people"s' existence. It is only the believer in atheist Dogma's stubborn obsession with his premature and unscientific conclusion that God somehow doesn't exist that prevents him from apprehending the scientific fact that God does indeed exist, while he readily accepts the existence of billions of human beings on the planet with inferior evidence for their existence. In fact, having failed to observe God and His factual characteristics disqualifies the believer in atheist Dogma from producing any scientifically factual statements about Him, whether the believer in atheist Dogma's statements are positive or negative. The scientific method requires observation, and the believer in atheist Dogma has failed in this, the first step in the scientific method. Therefore he is unable to produce valid hypotheses about God, unable to produce valid scientific conclusions about God, and his unscientific beliefs about God must be absolutely discounted as just that by any truly scientific party in the entire circle of discussion centered on God. Those who have actually observed God have a superior scientific position in regards to making scientifically factual statements about Him, and all of those who have actually observed Him state that He is a person with observable characteristics. Anyone who has not observed Him directly must necessarily accept the statements of those who have observed Him directly, if they are to gain any valid facts about Him at all. Their only other option is to make something up, such as "He somehow doesn't exist," which is exactly what the believer in atheist Dogma does, which is not scientifically or logically sound at all, and which is also untrue. The Theists' factual statements about God, coupled with God's own factual statements about Himself, are all based on observation, and are therefore scientifically sound, and further, they are conclusive scientific evidence that God is a real person with real, observable characteristics. That is the only scientific conclusion, whereas the believer in atheist Dogma's conclusion is incorrect, premature, and 100% unscientific.
downloading music helps artists

After looking at this again I honestly do not know what we are debating.I am believe at this point, from the wording of the author, that the act of downloading helps artists get discovered.Which is a misconception. I do not believe that the act of downloading helps an artist become discovered. It is perserverence, talent, luck and a proper outlet for their medium. Along with a financial plan, such as digital distribution deal with people willing to download said media. The act of downloading itself does not help any artist. You have to be very specific about your argument. If you can prove that downloading is the reason behind the discovery of artist that I will concede. Remember, you said downloading, not digital distribution. Downloading is an action and the fact you left it unspecified as to what is being downloaded leaves it open to interpretation. It can be arbitrary in nature, coupled with the fact, it's still an action. If Pro can provide proof that the act of downloading helps artist become discovered I will concede the victory.
downloading music helps artists

Yes, they won't make much money off of it whether free or played, but it will help them get bigger and they will make more money. Money is not the case. Being heard is the case. So downloading music does help them. It gives then a start. I knew it's not the best start but hey it's getting them somewhere. They are able to play their own music and if people like it the will download it. The pay version might be better but I think the free version will give then a better start. That's just my opinion.
downloading music helps artists

I am firm believer in freedom of media and info. I support artists when they deserve my money and I do that through a number of differing means. For the sake of being a proper Devil's Advocate I will refrain from speaking of my pro-dl stance from here on out. While I agree that downloading music can help the artist be discovered and boost them up there are some fallacies in this train of thought. First of all, if we are talking about free downloads then that might not always be the case. What would happen if everyone just stopped buying music altogether? Is the question I pose to you, Pro.In the other perspective, whereas the person pays for the media, then it can help the artist. Once you give the song(s) to a friend you honestly contradicts the whole "pay" concept and the artist is once again losing finance and proverbial help. With that aside, realize unless that artist is on a mom-pop label they are probably not seeing much of that initial cash flow from your digi pay download. But, that is another debate altogether. I am just trying to establish how messed up the industry is so my point gets across more clearly. Basically, downloading whether for free or money, doesn't help the artist as much as you think it might. At least from a financial sense. That is not a flaw with the peer2peer distribution but rather the subversive claws of the major record labels sinking into yet another facet of art.
Vaccines are 100% effective and 100% safe.

I've heard that vaccines are 100% safe on the news and everywhere else! Vaccines are one of the greatest success stories in public health. Through use of vaccines, we have eradicated smallpox and nearly eliminated wild polio virus. The number of people who experience the devastating effects of preventable infectious diseases like measles, diphtheria, and whooping cough is at an all-time low. To ensure the continued success of vaccines in the United States, it’s crucial to make sure that vaccines are safe. Before vaccines are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), they are tested extensively by scientists to ensure they are effective and safe. Vaccines are the best defense we have against infectious diseases; however, no vaccine is actually 100% safe or effective for everyone because each person’s body reacts to vaccines differently.As infectious diseases become less common, we hear less about the serious consequences of preventable illnesses like diphtheria and tetanus and more about the risks associated with vaccines. It’s good to be informed about health choices, but the reality is that Americans have never been healthier than we are today and vaccines have never been safer than they are today. The benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks. As science continues to advance, we strive to develop safer vaccines and improve delivery to protect ourselves against disease more effectively. This overview focuses on vaccine research, how vaccines are licensed, and how we make sure vaccines are safe.
Vaccines are 100% effective and 100% safe.

"Serious side effects following vaccination, such as severe allergic reaction, are very rare and doctors and clinic staff are trained to deal with them. " [1] "The measles vaccine, for example, is one of the most effective at 93% (for those who have had only one dose of the vaccine) and 97% (for those who have had two doses, which is the recommended amount). Why? "[2] I conclude that vaccines are not 100% effective nor 100% safe. . http://www.cdc.gov... . http://www.usatoday.com...
The Book of Genesis is literal and accurate

First. We do not know how much time expands Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2. And since I have not seen man having any problem populating anything.8 people could easily produce the population we have today over 5000 years.If they just doubled every 15 years the number would be artronomical.Just do the checker board test. Put 2 on the 1st square and double every one after that. Do the math. There was an water/ice canopy around this planet before the flood. That kept everything an even temperature Like a greenhouse. When the fountains of the deep exploded, that brought that canopy down and flooded the earth. And as the rotation of the earth pulled this water to the caps and froze, then appeared dry land.All Noah had to do was bring one of each species on the ark. And that did not have to be full grown animals. It could have been eggs. There have been found trees through several layers of sediment. How could that be but a massive flood. Now remember, we are dealing with our creator. It was he that rounded up the animals. And each species had all the DNA for all the differences we see today. Science has finally come to the conclusion that "LIGHT" ( not illumination) is the basic building block of all matter." LET THERE BE LIGHT" God was further ahead technologically then than we are today.He has a craft that travels light speed. All your conjectures about what happened are just that nothing you have said proves it did not happen just like Geneses said it did.And another thing. You and evolutionists believe we came from lower to higher. I contend and so does geneses that we started at the top. Man was in full capacity of his mental state. Nothing was impossible for him. And when that got twisted by sin, great destruction was also available. As it is today. You are making great assumptions about things that happened 6000 years ago. When it doesn't take but a couple of generations to completely obscure what actually happens in history. And you make conclusions about what you say happened millions of years ago with dead animal bones.How accurate is carbon dating really. Has anyone done research over a couple thousand years to see what actually is accurate. No. You and I are in the same boat. We have to take by faith to believe what we think happened respectively.Since neither of us have been around when these things occurred.
The Book of Genesis is literal and accurate

In this debate i will be defending the position that the biblical book of genesis is not literal and/or accurate. I am doing this debate because a lot of people still disregard science just because the bible says something contradictory. Good luck to whoever i might be debating against. The BoP is shared. First round is acceptance.Definitions:accurate: correct in all details; exact literal: taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
is ketchup a fruit smoothie

*Face Palms harder than i did your mom last night* (I broke my skull ;)Does cucumber have seeds???????A watermelon smoothie bruh. Just watermelon in a blender.Bannana smoothie bruh. Bannana in a blender.Blueberry smoothie bruh. Bloobs in a blenderMrMcDebateMan smoothie bruh. You in a blender ;)Alright dewd, Ketchup, or catsup, is a table sauce. Traditionally, different recipes featured ketchup made of mushrooms, oysters, mussels, walnuts, or other foods, but in modern times the term without modification usually refers to tomato ketchup, often called tomato sauce, or, occasionally, red sauce. It is a sweet and tangy sauce, typically made from tomatoes, a sweetener, vinegar, and assorted seasonings and spices. Seasonings vary by recipe, but commonly include onions, allspice, colves, cinnamon, garlic, and sometimes celery. Ketchup is a saaaaaaauuuuce. So. mushroom ketchup is a smoothie too? There are tooooooons of different kinds ofketchups. I could name and show so many more than these.
is ketchup a fruit smoothie

The thing is a cucumber is not a fruit so mayonnaise cannot be the same thing as a fruit smoothy. plus obviously you need more ingredients in a fruit smoothy then just fruit plus this that is a traditional smoothie I can make my own smoothie and have people recognize that it is a fruit smoothie. so you can make ketchup and have people use it as a smoothie. SO A FRUIT SMOOTHIE CAN HAVE MORE THAN JUST FRUIT AND OTHER ORIGINS OF INGREDIENTS. Like a taco if you have a taco and change the type of meat it is still a type of taco if you change a few ingredients but still have a main base (A FRUIT) then you have a fruit smoothie. and the thing on friends on Facebook or twitter I do not have a twitter of a Facebook account so how can I have fake friends online if I have no way to have fake friends online. NOT VERY GOOD AT GRAMMAR, SPELLING, OR WRITING IN PARAGRAPHS
is ketchup a fruit smoothie

A smoothie (alternatively spelled Smoothi, smoothee or smoothy, the name comes from the smooth property of the emulsion) is a blended, and sometimes sweetened bevarage made from fresh fruit (fruit smoothie), vegetables and in special cases can contain chocolate or peanut butter. In addition to fruit, many smoothies include crushed ice, frozen fruit, honey or contain syrup and ice ingredients. They have a milkshake-like consistency that is thicker than slush drinks. They can also contain milk, yogurt or ice cream. (From Wikipedia) Plus, you take a tomato, put it in a blender. You blend it..... It doesn't turn into ketchup. It takes much more contents to make the ketchup all lets say... smooth. So good job using Twitter or whatever you use. So then what is Mayonase? You can't blend a cucumber to get mayonayse. (Plus mayonayse isnt an instrument) So go tell all of your fake online friends
I can write better nonsensical poetry than you

Diarrhea of post pardum depression sleeps affirmatively in the safety pin; catching inferno upon the crusty saxophone. Lessening turbulence inferring weakness to the elaborate jaw bone of hate. Vaporizing hideous matter of time cakes and space French fries. Who is more nonsensical? No my child of warts. Who is better... The question is how can the the pajamas of giants sniff the cocaine rails of the kangaroos? The coat hanger abortion types who weasel their way into the train station, always take flight. While the remote controls of the Fossil watch take a rubberband flight!
I can write better nonsensical poetry than you

The cow's deck of cards colored the deceit of the lampshade. Sour Patch Kids run to the airplane hangar to dance with wolves calculating measurements, as camel's sell leather to the peasants of the ear drop lands. Coins of speakers speak loudly to sandwiches, listening to the heartbeats of black holes in the desert. Utopia visits the cowards who step on the deodorant, slipping into the cigarette pack. Interestingly enough, my travels lead me to soda pop machines of bliss where vampires kill time by digesting wheat mixed with lighter fluid. Integrating national policy into strips of scotch tape will only cause missions which entail destruction of the block of ice. My hat sings to the blanket. Twirling thumbs of intense boredom, entail my office being ruined by the beaver. For some reason, my liberation causes electromagnetism of gravitational proportions. The pain of the piano never leaves. The soul of the knuckles lick the eye balls of the toes. The mind of the TV always sleeps. The body of the phone forever grows.