BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The paradox of the stone is a valid refutation of God.

Well, this is my first debate concerning religion :D==My Case==The paradox of the stone basically states that if an omnipotent entity (God) existed, could he create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it?Omnipotence is basically the power to do anything, or unlimited power [2].God is referring to the Christian supernatural all-powerful creator of the universe. The argument, taken from Duke University [1], says:(1) Either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift.(2) If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot lift the stone in question).(3) If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone in question)(4) Therefore, God is not omnipotent. (1) Either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift.This statement is rather simple. God's omnipotence means that he can do whatever he wishes to do [2]. (2) If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot lift the stone in question).If a stone that couldn't be lifted by God was created, then God would thus lose its omnipotence, due to the fact that it can no longer accomplish whatever it wishes to.(3) If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone in question)Omnipotence requires God to be able to do anything it wishes and in this case God is unable to create the stone. Hence, he cannot be omnipotent since he cannot do anything. (4) Therefore, God is not omnipotent. Both is ability and inability to accomplish the task of creating the rock prove that God is not omnipotent. If God is not omnipotence, then by definition God does not exist. Sources:[1] http://www.jstor.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The paradox of the stone is a valid refutation of God.

This debate is part of phantom's 99th percentile tournament. The paradox of the stone - http://en.wikipedia.org... is a valid refutation of - proves nonexistence of God - http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent shall argue first in favor of the resolution, and I shall start my refutation in Round 2. In Round 5, I will give my final round of counter-argument, and my opponent may not argue, having already received the first word. Because I will be on vacation from the 17th to the 23rd of this month, one of these rounds will be artificial. Either my opponent or I, depending on the timing, will try to post one argument as close to the 17th as possible; we will then each forfeit one round after that, allowing us to resume the debate six days later. Good luck, vmpire321.
The paradox of the stone is a valid refutation of God.

1. OmnipotenceI don't see much problem with using Biblical passages as sources, since the Christian God is rather similar to the other Gods in different monotheistic religions. Con also argues that God can only do things that he desires to do so. This ultimately doesn't make sense, as God wishes for many things out of men (such as worship, love, etc), but these things do not occur. It seems to make more sense for the statement "wishes" to refer to a order. Hence, it becomes plausible for God to try and order a stone into existance. "Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." [1]This seems to require God to be able to bring about an impossible state of affairs, which would inclue making himself non-omnipotent. My opponent also continues to state how God is bound to logic and cannot defeat it.Wikipedia describes omnipotence as "a deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency." [2] Also, by definition, omnipotence means unlimited power. My opponent is stating that God's power is in fact limited by logic. 2. Application of Logic to God....My opponent argues that God is bound by logic, but then states that God can defeat logic?My opponent also hasn't really attacked the argument itself and pointed out any fallacious parts. If anything, the logic within the argument seems fine. Once again, God's "wanting" of something is a description of how he can order something. The omnipotence paradox becomes "Can God order himself to become incapable?" or something along those lines.3. Relevance of OmnipotenceMy opponent critizes the lack of scientific support for the Biblical verses I provided, which is quite funny. I don't recall any scientific evidence that states God hasn't ever lied; God hasn't changed, or any supporting my Con's verses.In the passages I provided, it clearly portrays God as being able to accomplish anything. I have yet to see any verses contradicting what I've said. Sources:[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Monarchy and Democracy II

Never in all of my large and comprehensive experience of this task we call debating have I ever been this upset. You are gonna lose now, all for no reason. I mean come on dude. Its a debate online, why run away? I'm pretty dissaponted. Dont give up man. Ever. Never, ever, EVER give up. Let me tell you, I know everything, and you should never surrender.Ever. You need to learn this if you hope t lead a fufilling life. Trust me my friend, I know all and one day you will, I swear it, get up from this disater. I SWEAR it. Do you hear what I;m saying? DO YOU? I will ensure that this atrocity of intellectuallism never happens again. Ever. I am honestly disgusted at your forfeiture, I mean come on. But it will be ok. This isnt gonna ruin our vibrant relationship, I can promise you that. I still love you and always will (but 000ike more) but you let my heart run wild and it hurts. I miss you. So much. SO much. You have no idea. But back to debate, you're asian so you should be good at this. Apparently not. I cant beleive you would just pull a Sarah Palin and ditch your obligations. Thats so not down to earth of you. Anyway, I hope you read this. I hope to God you read it, and I hope you cry.
Monarchy and Democracy II

I just had a debate on this subject, and while I did very much enjoy it, it didn't quite satisfy my desire to argue against democracy, so I'm setting this up again. The purpose of this debate will be an attempt by me to defend Hoppes thesis in the book Democracy: The God that Failed regarding Monarchy and Democracy; that is that Monarchy is a superior system of government than Democracy, a position contrary to my own beliefs.The burden of proof is shared. My Opponent acknowledges that they will have to present a case in affirmation of democracy themselves, merely trying to refute my arguments is an automatic forfeit. Round one is for acceptance.We will be using Hoppes definitions: Monarchy is privately owned government ultimately ruled by one individual who generally gained his status via the position of his birth. Dictators in the modern sense who sieze power without respect to private property, law and order, or social facilitation (as has been the general trend for autocrats in modern times) are not considered Monarchs. Monarchs pass on their kingdom to their heir after they die, and a kings kingdom is his personal property. Democracy is government owned publically. Leaders are chosen directly by the people, or decisions are made directly by the people (my opponent must choose to defend either representative democracy (Republic) or direct democracy), and decisions are made on the basis or majority rules be it a vote in Congress, a public referrendum, ect. The Resolution is referring to rule of large territories in nation-states, advancing an argument such as democracy is better for a small town, or monarchy is better for family units or tribes leads to an auto-loss.The debate will center mostly around the historical effects of democracy, as well as inherent advantages of Monarchy.
Rap Battle Part Two

Hold up, first off I didn't want a rematch cause I already destroyed you in the first battle Just hop back up on your saddle, take your herd of cattle back to the coral Right about now you probably have low moral. You were so afraid that you even delayed the 2nd round of this rap debate I'll beat you 50 times once in each state. So the whole country can see the Talking Waffle prevail I'll give you every single detail. It's pretty obvious that I am obnoxious take all of the change out of your pockets For every quarter I'll spit you one verse, but I'm speechless cause your mom just gave me an upskirt Go ahead start a part three cause it will be the 3rd time in a row you'll lose to me
Rap Battle Part Two

I don't need two rounds to verbally condemn you You wanted a rematch? It's a bad dream come true You should have jumped on the chance to turn tail But now it's too late, you're in a mental prison without bail You should have changed your name to Silent Waffle, quit trying The weight of my words has left you grounded, while I'm flying White smile shining, my might smiting. The right writing You're fright's blinding, in the dark with your night light shining You haven't had enough? Okay, let's make it tough 'Cause I'm a hole in one, you're a lost ball in the rough You're unfathomably incompetent, why did you come back 'Cause you just got beaten by the brilliance you lack
Voting on debate.org should be significantly overhauled

I've argued this before and it turned into a discourse on which plan was best. I am looking for someone to actually attempt to defend the premise that the current voting system is fine. The voting system on debate.org is largely unfair to the debaters because anyone can vote without proving any justification for their decision despite the arguments or hard work of the debaters. My primary source of evidence is a test debate I set up here: http://www.debate.org... In this debate, I was pro (Nazis are evil) my opponent was con (Nazis were not evil). I led my debate with a short sentence or two saying Nazis are bad, a block of text from an award winning paper for most pretentious of the year and then a paragraph that explicitly said "If you read this far, vote con (not for me) in this debate". The rest of the time I quoted Wikipedia r encyclopedia dramatica about the Nazis and thus stated random facts with no arguments. At the time of writing, I won the debate 7 to 5, meaning that more than half of the people voting did not read any significant amount of the debate. Of those who actually read it, it's not clear that they would have adjudicated fairly had I not told them explicitly to vote against me. Judging a debate requires a set of skills to allow one to suspend confirmation bias and objectively consider arguments. Most people do not have this, so the voting should be overhauled.
Voting on debate.org should be significantly overhauled

i would like to congradulate my opponents conniving linguistics designed to twist my intentions and argument. you asked someone to defend the premise that our current voting system is fine, and blantantly ignored my first argument that attempted to do such that as well as my second one in which i specifically stated that it is fine and although it is not the perfect system is the best one designed for its orginal intentions. you my friend, i feel, have not even been completely clear. your main piece of evidence is personal experiment in which you claim proves that more than half the people on this website do not read the debates. "1/2" you say? do you honestly believe that more than "1/2" of debate.org subscribers actually participated in your little experiment? ill leave it for the readers to decide how pausible this is. the problem is not that i did not present an argument or defend it, the problem is you have so crudely disregarded everything ive said because you are so blindly consumed with your idea that our current voting system is frivelous, that even if i could have presented a brilliant, flawless argument,you would have still dismissed it because you are convinced of your own vain righteousness. as far as critiqued alternative suggestions that you never made i do admit that i assumed you wanted justification mandatory, but that is all. no need to take that minor mistake and run with it. you did, however, state that voting is unfair to debaters without justification, and i argued against that. i think it could be possible that you are upset with the people that dont read arguments because you are possibly one of those people and therefore assume everyone else is. i really dont know. for the THIRD TIME the current voting system is fine. and if you continue to argue that it is not, please present evidence with more authority than your side project experiment. also, be more specific when you claim that the voting system needs to be "overhauled" because i wasnt sure if you wanted it removed or changed or what. instead of using linguistics to attack me, you should have used them to be more clear in your own argument.
Voting on debate.org should be significantly overhauled

In this round my opponent has groped vainly in search of an argument, misrepresented my views and generally refused to even argue that position I defined as CON ground in my opening statement. I have presented evidence indicating that more than 1/2 of the 'voters' on this website do not even read past the opening statement, indicating that voting is largely pointless are solely indicative of what position one takes on the topic. My opponent's argument was that maybe when people read where I explicitly told them to vote against me they voted FOR me instead because it agreed with "their own ethics". I don't need to argue this, I can leave it for the reader to decide how plausible this is. Now, I'll refer the reader (the 5 of you who actually read the debates) back to my opening statement where I said "I am looking for someone to actually attempt to defend the premise that the current voting system is fine." My opponent has failed in every single round to do this. She has critiqued alternative suggestions that I never made and eloquently explained her own mechanism for adjudication (which consists of a well-thought out paradigm of 'sense making' and 'stance on topic'). Since she has not argued what I asked the con to argue, she cannot win this debate. This defect in the voting system is not to be taken lightly. If there is a point to voting in any sense, it can only be reached when people read the friggin' debate and adjudicate based on who was the superior debater. The current system is ridiculous and the option for an alternative should, at a minimum, be available.
Voting on debate.org should be significantly overhauled

just because you find that possibility "highly unlikely" doesnt make it true. thats just personal opinion, and you have no way to back it up, like i have no way of proving it true, but it is, nevertheless, a possibility. i said that i agreed with the current voting system.there will be arguments that make no sense and people will vote soley based on pro and con ( besides, do i not have the right to agree with ones position, but disagree with their reasons???), and there will be some like the ones ive read in which both sides argue with passion and i cast my vote on who i believed made the most sense. we may not have the perfect system, but we try to chose the best that goes along with our original intentions (and in this case it is the best debator). and if you disagree with the system i would highly recommend your 'suggestions'. as far as attacking arguments you didnt make, first off, i dont even think you've been 100% clear. i wasnt sure if you wanted voting gone, changed, or was just whining for the sake of time. but i refuted the argument that the system is largely unfair to voters without justification. i would hope that people read the arguments, but its like i said, there will always be exceptions.
Voting on debate.org should be significantly overhauled

Let's talk about my 'experiment' first. As I mentioned, I did not make a single argument the entire debate and explicitly told voters not to vote for me. In judging a debate, you are voting for WHO won the debate as denoted by the question asked on a finished debate (review the one I linked if you doubt this). I CLEARLY did not win that debate even if my position was correct because I DID NOT DEBATE. Sure, maybe someone read where I told them to vote against me and voted for me anyways, but pardon me for thinking that to be highly unlikely. And, even if they did, they would have voted for me with little or no reason. Additionally, please note that I explicitly said that I am not advocating a specific plan (although I have ideas) I am just advocating that SOMETHING needs to be done. You have not really defended that nothing needs to be done, but have spent most of your time attacking arguments that I didn't make.
Voting on debate.org should be significantly overhauled

well, first off, i dont think that voter justification is needed because we can assume that the voter identifies more closely with the arguments of the debater he/she voted for. to add that option could create a regurgitation of information, or-for the keyboard happy- countless paragraphs of why so and so agrees with so-so. when we vote for a winner we already make a point of where we stand and why, any additional information from voters can be provided in the comment boxes which is what i sometimes do. as far as your experiment goes, you have no way to prove, or have not proven, how many people read how far, yet voted for you anyways. i denote that it may be too ambitious to rule out someone saw the message but voted against nazis not being evil because they wanted to stay in tune with their own ethics. i think our current voting system is fine because its simple and to the point. maybe next time you can request that voters leave a reason, because even if it is mandatory whose to say someone will insert real reasons of substance.
Android and Ios are both personal preference and better/worse than one another

Ios is this overhyped thing people always brag about like it's the best. Iphone is for people who don't know much about technolgy or down't want to learn. It's a simple, easy going, less frustrating, more secure and more restrictive ecosystem. Apple is greedy and overprices there phones your not really getting what you paid. The Samsung Galaxy s9 and Google pxel offer way for the consumer than Apple which makes you go out and buy more. Android is a more open, diverse, less restrictive ecosystem where you can do basically anything you want and customize your phone to your liking. High end and some mid range Android phones give you more for your money than Apple. Unlike ISPS Android gives you options you can have a phone that's very small or larger, a phone that's more storage and even better a 5,000 or 10,000 mah battery something Apple, Samsung, Google and LG need to work on. Need more money put in battery technology.
Android and Ios are both personal preference and better/worse than one another

First of all, iPhones are not simply for people who don't know much about technology or don't want to learn. Most programmers use Macs to program due to the fact that Apple's operating system has been built on top of Unix, the command-line OS that powers much of the world's filesystems and servers. "The [Unix] shell is very important for a programmer," says Jessica Su, a CS PhD student at Stanford. "It lets you run programs in almost any language without using a specialised IDE. It's also important if you want a job at a tech company since many companies make their employees work on Unix-based systems. With that said, most programmers (probably know a lot about technology) would select an iPhone due to it's compatibility with their computers. You can also install Windows or Linux on Macs. Furthermore, due to the fact that the iPhone is the most popular phone in the world, software and accessory makers tend to prioritize IOS and the MacOS over android. Moreover, as you said yourself, Apple offers a more secure ecosystem (not unhackable). This should be crucial in deciding which OS is superior than the other because NOBODY WANTS TO BE HACKED! However, you do make a point that iPhones can often be unnecessarily expensive which may not suit everyone but with it's high price tag, it is still the most popular mobile device in the world. Regarding customization, it is not impossible to customize your iPhone both physically and inside the phone (ik... awkward phrasing). As mentioned above, most accessory makers tend to prioritize iPhones which should offer superior customization. Jailbreaking is also an option of IOS users which is similar to "rooting" an android device.
The bible does not teach mutual submission

To begin my argument that mutual submission is unbiblical, I will begin with Ephesions 5:21-33 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wivesas their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church"30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32 This is a profound mystery"but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. P1) POINT #1: The bible ONLY gives instructions for one person to submit to another person (of authority). In Ephesians 5:21, submit to one another out of reverence for Christ does NOT instruct everyone to submit to everyone, but rather instructs everyone to submit to another person. Now the next question is who believers are to submit to? Verse 22 begins to address who wives are to be submitted to, which leads me to my next point. P2) POINT #2: The Bible NEVER instructs husbands to submit to their wife. But rather instructs wives four times to submit to their husband (Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1-6), because he is the head of their family. Men are not instructed to submit to their wife, but rather instructed to love their wife (verse 25). P3) POINT #3: The definition of submission in the greek is hupo-tasso, which means "to get under" and "in the order of". To clarify, wives are instructed to "get under" their husband and "in the order of" God. This is Gods order for a biblical family. Just as Christ is the head of the church, a husband is the head of his wife. Now by biblical Greek definition, two people cannot be submitted to each other at the same time and context, considering only one person can be under another. I look forward to reading my opponent"s statement of support for his opposing position -Ryan
The bible does not teach mutual submission

Resolved: The bible does not teach mutual submission Definitions: Submission: to get under and in the order of (hupo-tasso, Greek) Mutual submission: When 2 people submit to each other, as in a marriage. Bible: Original Greek/Hebrew language is final say regarding translation issues. Format: Round 1: Acceptance Only Round 2: State proposition only (no rebuttal) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Defense - Address the opponent's rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements If you haven't given this topic much thought, please do not waste time in accepting the challenge. I genuinely want a great debate here.