BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
scientificially inexplicable things occur that appear supernatural, but not to atheists

you basically just asserted that atheists won't acknowledge that it's a miracle or something notable so it's never made a point of. you'd think you'd be able to find something that appeared supernatural, though. given I can find examples from theists etc. yet this simple request was not honored. if miracles do happen to nonchristian faiths, it's probably because they have faith to begin with, and are in good faith. upon my search, though, they don't appear to happen nearly as much as they do for Christians, search around and find some... they are not very credible even when they are found. but yea, faith is the common denominator. you agree miracles almost surely occur, so this is more just you playing devils advocate for atheists. still, you should be able to find the evidence requested, and haven't done it.
scientificially inexplicable things occur that appear supernatural, but not to atheists

Introduction: Supernatural- things that can not be explained. That is a great definition for that word because a miracle is a recovery or a "blessing" that cannot be explained by science. Many Christians and other theists believe that a miracle can only come from god himself, but a miracle is simply a recovery that is unexplained. Now it's no mystery that unexplained things happen because they do but in no way of any means do they have to come from god. I personally believe that SOME miracles come from god but not everything unexplained comes from god. Yes of course if a Christian thought a miracle happened he would document it to a church or a hospital but if An atheist experienced a miracle he wouldn't think it came from god he would think that he was just Lucky or that there was no miracle at all. Now I'm not going too say all those reported miracles are false but am going to stay neutral and say that no one knows for sure if that was an incurable disease. Unexplained events are as just as likely to happen to an atheist. Things in science don't always add up, like during natural selection there are mutations that occur some people believe this is caused by god, but mutations have been found in both atheists and theists. It is implied in your argument that atheists are the only group of people that don't get supernatural miracles happen to them. But what about all the other groups of people that don't believe in the Christian god? (Assuming the debates on the Christian god) just as many Islamists, Hindus, Taoists, etc have had reported supernatural miracles and unexplained blessings. So why do only atheists not receive miracles. :)
Political party manifestos should be legally binding

My opponent's main objection seems to be that I didn't go into enough detail, so in this round I will expand on what I've already said. KroneckerDelta will then get the last word if he has any new objections. This argument is in the context of a parliamentary system, although it is mostly applicable to other systems. By "action" I mean the attempt to pass a bill. Parties would agree to hold a "forced" vote on the issue, where they require all of their MPs to vote in favor of the bill. In the event that MPs defied party whips and voted against the bill, the manifesto would state what actions would be taken against those MPs. If the party took all of these actions, but the bill failed to pass, then they would not have breached their agreement. As for the judicial panel, the US and other Supreme Courts already hold much greater powers, such as being able to amend the Constitution. Rather than being contrary to democracy, ordering by-elections would actually increase it, as it would ultimately be the People who decided whether to keep offending parties in power. An "unforeseen circumstance" would be a major change in circumstances relevant to the bill. An example would be if the EU abandoned the Euro, before UKIP held a referendum on EU membership. This would be a reasonable justification for changing the policy. Naturally the exact definition would be decided by the judicial body. The above system would be effective because parties would risk loosing parliamentary seats if they broke their agreements, which obviously would be detrimental to them. Opposition parties would have an incentive to point out breaches because this would give them an opportunity to gain seats. As for parties agreeing with each other, while this may be the case with a few policies it rarely happens in real life. The reason the above system would be beneficial to democracy is because it would lead to less dishonesty and backpedaling, as explained above, and so would create a more honest political system.
Political party manifestos should be legally binding

My proposed system for ensuring politicians keep their promises is as follows. Party manifestos would be written not as loose promises, but instead as legal documents. Parties would agree to carry out certain actions by a set date, if elected. For example, the UK Independence Party might agree to hold a referendum on EU membership by 2016, if they won a parliamentary majority. It would be up to opposition parties to point out manifesto breaches. Of course, there might be legitimate reasons for changing policies, due to unforeseen circumstances. Alleged breaches would be examined by the Supreme Court or another judicial panel. This body would have the power to hand down punishments, such as banning senior party figures or holding by-elections in some of the offending parties constituencies. This would clearly provide politicians with an incentive to stick to their pre-election pledges, as there would be immediate repercussions for breaking them, and so would lead to a more democratic country.
Political party manifestos should be legally binding

I accept this challenge and thank you for the debate. I expect Pro to do the following in Round 2: Present an enforcement mechanism to ensure politicians' promises are kept. Present evidence or reasonable arguments as to why the above enforcement system would work. Note that it would be impossible for Pro to make the claim that they actually could enforce this. Seeing as how this is not a philosophical debate, Pro must merely reasonably argue that their enforcement would be effective in deterring such behavior (not that it would completely prevent such behavior). Present arguments/evidence for why, assuming you could enforce this, that it would be beneficial to a democracy. Con asserts that Pro has the BoP to show the above, however Con reserves the right to present a counter-case that shows that this resolution could be detrimental. If Con chooses to present such a counter-case then they would have the BoP to show a) their counter-case is plausible and b) that it is indeed detrimental.
All "scientific evidence for God" can only argue that some creating thing exists, not that it's God

If a religion did have sufficient evidence, I'd belong to it ;) All evidence has to fall under this definition, if I'm not mistaken: Something which is more likely to exist if something is true than if it is false. If you know how much more likely, you can use Bayes' Theorem to calculate exactly how strong the evidence is. The woman's experience with finding love at church after a dream is evidence iff it is more likely to happen if her religion's god is real than if it isn't. I'll note that it might be difficult to say, but it might actually BE more likely for that kind of thing to happen if God is real. That would make it evidence. But is it enough? Those kinds of things happen all the time anyway. It's probably very weak or no evidence. And so it is with all of those examples. Now as for scientific evidence, that anyone can observe, I hope I've made my point sufficiently clearly. The arguments are false, I think. But even if they are true, they don't prove what theists would like them to prove. They don't prove a God. At best, they prove the existence of a or of some causes behind certain features of the universe, and nothing more. I suppose I'll wrap it up as it applies to the vast majority of believers as: There is no scientific evidence for God That leaves just philosophical arguments, and experiences. Maybe we could go over those in two more debates?
All "scientific evidence for God" can only argue that some creating thing exists, not that it's God

Ah, I finally see what you initially intended. Does any religion have any evidence to justify the qualities they ascribe to their God? I've thought about this question quite a lot. It all comes down to what one personally accepts as evidence. A young man joining ISIS probably considers their caliphate as evidence for a Muslim God. A woman who finds out her husband is cheating and then has a dream about going back to church and finding love in the arms of other believers could consider that evidence for a Christian God. A prospective Jainist, Sikh, Buddhist, or Catholic could determine evidence through thousands of different ways. Are you a philosophical materialist? If so, you'll want your evidence to be tangible. I can see that. I can respect that.
All "scientific evidence for God" can only argue that some creating thing exists, not that it's God

Your points A-E are fine, needing just one clarification. I'm not saying that our observations prove a creator. Other people say that. Then they say that proves their religion's god is real. I'm saying that even if we grant them the conclusion that something must have caused the universe, or must have caused its constants and order, our observations do not lead us to conclude anything ELSE about the cause. I'm totally cool with the quality of the cause that you mentioned. Whatever the creating cause did didn't make it impossible for universal constants and order to exist. Fine. I'll just say again that theists' evidential arguments do not fulfill their intended purpose. Even if they are correct, they don't support the idea that the creating thing, the constant-setting thing, and the order-making thing are one and the same, or that they're a conscious being, that it's supernatural, or omniscient, or loving, or answers prayers. Thus, there are no evidence-based arguments for theism or deism. That is, there is no evidence for the most important or most basic religious beliefs of the vast majority of the religious world.
All "scientific evidence for God" can only argue that some creating thing exists, not that it's God

Referring to a creator, you wrote that "we can't say what kind of thing or things" exist. Referring to our universe, you wrote that it has "constants and order." Allow me to lay out your argument simply. A. The qualities of universe creators are not able to be determined through evidence securing the existence of a creator. B. If complex universes with constants and apparent order exist, they need a creator. C. Our universe exists and is complex with constants and apparent order. D. Therefore, a creator exists. E. The existing creator does not have definable qualities through the avenue of evidence securing the existence of a creator. Your argument is invalid because: There is one thing that can be said about the creator. 1. The creator has creative qualities which allow order and constants to come into existence. In summary, you said that "we can't say what kind of thing or things" exist. However, we are able to "say what kind of thing or things exist." In a very limited manner, we are able to confidently assert that the creator has creative qualities which allow order and constants to come into existence.
All "scientific evidence for God" can only argue that some creating thing exists, not that it's God

Hey, welcome trying2think. It's a pleasure. Let me think about how I would characterize my points... This is all in context of the ACTUAL evidence-based arguments people go around making for their religions. I might phrase it more like this: Three parts, one idea Existence Universal Constants Order Proof that the universe couldn't exist by itself proves something outside/beyond/"before" the universe must have caused it to exist. But that could be not God. Proof that the universe's constants must have been caused proves something must have affected the constants. But that could be not God. Proof that the order in the universe must have been caused by a causing thing proves there must have been an order-causing thing at some time. But that could be not God. Then I point out that there could even be a separate cause for each of the three things. And that none of the things is necessarily a person. The basic point being: I'll grant you all the arguments based on evidence, and you'll still not have proven theism, or even deism. Even if the arguments are TRUE, they only manage to prove something else, not God. Now if you want to call the cause or causes "God," use whatever word you want, though you'll probably confuse people, and maybe yourself. But the point is, grant all the arguments, and nobody still has any reason to believe in a supernatural being of any kind. Not one that is conscious, or omnipotent, or loving, or that answers prayers. So as far as wording goes, I'd be satisfied if we come to the conclusion that: IF the evidential arguments used by theists were true THEN we would have no reason to believe in a supernatural being who knows we exist. But "God" does exist, since it's a word that just refers to whatever caused the universe to exist with its constants and order. And for clarity's sake, it'd be better to just say: IF the evidential arguments theists use are true: THEN we know that some thing or things caused the universe to exist with its constants and order. This is all we know; we can't say what kind of thing or things they were. I hope this is clear :)
All "scientific evidence for God" can only argue that some creating thing exists, not that it's God

After reading your text, I believe that you are claiming that all the actual evidence mankind has does not point to a specific religion, or theism, or even deism. Then, you go on to write about a theory that all the evidence points to an intelligent designer. From that unsupported theory, you claim that still would not point to a specific religion's God, or theism, or even deism. Also, in your opening statement, you write about "some creating thing." You claim that even if evidence pointed to some creating thing, that wouldn't mean it is a God. Therefore, you make three assertions: 1. Actual evidence DOESN'T prove a specific God. 2. Theoretical evidence pointing to a creator WOULDN'T prove a specific God. 3. Evidence for some creating thing IS NOT evidence for a specific God. Let's start with assertion number one. It is easy for many religious people to claim that actual evidence (that is evidence we do have) does point to their specific God. For instance, a Christian could argue that because in Genesis it says that man was created from dust, then evolution proves that statement is true because non-living matter existed before living matter. From that point, it would be easy for a Christian to say science proves their God because Christians believe that God is the same thing as their Holy Book. Answer 1: Essentially, a Christian would be asserting actual evidence is proving their specific God. On to assertion number two, any theoretical evidence that pointed to a creator could very well prove a specific God. If the evidence is theoretical, then it could also be theorized that the evidence proves a specific God. Answer 2: Essentially, this doesn't matter to the debate of evidence proving a specific God. Finally, if mankind held sufficient and perfect evidence to prove that everything exists because of a creator. That creator would then become "God" for all reasonable purposes. Other Gods that do not align with the new and perfectly proven God would be done away with. Perhaps, and this is only a theory, the new God would hold the attributes of the laws of our universe and we would worship God on the basis of his laws which grant our existence. Answer 3: Essentially, a theorized universe creator, if realized, would become a new, specific God.
All "scientific evidence for God" can only argue that some creating thing exists, not that it's God

Suppose we grant all the arguments that the universe could not exist at all, and could not exist with order, without some creating thing behind it all. Suppose the evidence shows that such a thing must have been responsible for the universe. How go from there to any religion on earth? The religions of earth all go beyond the evidence. They tack on extra information that there's no evidence for. Maybe the complexity of genes suggests an ordering thing, but it tells you nothing about whether the ordering thing is conscious, or nice, or still exists, or is omnipotent, or supernatural. Maybe the universal constants prove something outside the universe must have acted upon the universe. So what? That doesn't tell you anything about whether the outside action is blue or green or knows about us or heals diseases or has angels or is a person or anything! And nothing about these arguments suggests that the causes behind the existence and order in the universe are the same thing. Maybe one created the universe (a being), another set the constants (some weird force we don't understand), and another caused the order in the universe (aliens). Does the evidence suggest this is less likely than that it's all the result of a single causing thing? Or maybe some blind idiot being coughs out universes at random, without caring or knowing anything about them. Then there are so many universes with different constants that one just happens to have the constants we have in our universe. In short, grant it all, the evidence never takes you to theism. Not even to deism, since deism makes the jump of assuming that the creating or ordering thing must be some person or being. What evidence leads to that conclusion?
Prosthetic Use in Sports

There is a high risk in sports of getting hurt, so adding prosthetic will just ad a bigger risk. The fact of the matter is everyone will have to go out of their way to make sure no one gets hurt because of people with prosthetic. If prosthetic help the economy then they can have sport etc. just for people with prosthetics which will help the economy more than them playing sports with non-crippled people. Giving business more advertizement and people will have more jobs.
Prosthetic Use in Sports

Not all prosthesis are made of those substances. Rules can be put in place to monitor and protect others from getting hurt. But the fact is that there is always going to be risks in sports, but for prosthesis, they are outweighed by all of the positive outcomes. Getting back onto the topic of the economy, prosthesis can create more jobs. When a company is successful, they hope to expand and hire more workers. So, now more people are finding jobs because crippled athletes are advertising products and making companies more successful while also lowering the unemployment rate.
Prosthetic Use in Sports

This my be the case but the prosthetic limb can fall off, hit some else who is in the race and injure them badly causing them to break a leg etc. or not be able to do the sport again. Players are not allowed to wear anything that may be dangerous to other players. Any casts or braces made of fiberglass, plaster, metal, or any other nonpliable substances are not allowed. Projection of metal or other hard substance from a player"s person or clothing are also not allowed. The person wearing a prosthetic is putting others in danger its a safety hazard.
Prosthetic Use in Sports

But this is also only one man. Not many other crippled runners can run to his abilities. He is not fast just because of prosthesis, he is just a good runner, just like many other crippled runners. With all of these new crippled players will come many new advertisements featuring these athletes and their prosthetic brands. Then, consumption of those products will increase and taxes can be added to those purchases to enhance the economy, helping all of us.
Prosthetic Use in Sports

But even with that "advantage" he is still using only his thighs to generate running power when normal people have many different muscles to contribute. And, with his disability, he not only had to work against his lack of muscles, he had to work against the implications and doubt generated by other people. When athletes with prosthetics are allowed to participate in sports, more media will be focused on those athletes. With that extra attention, other people with prosthesis of their own will not feel so alone and will lessen discrimination. These will experience far less bullying and discrimination.
Prosthetic Use in Sports

According to Los Angeles Times Scientist determined that the prosthetic did give Pistorius an certain advantage. The Scientist looked at three things how much energy Pistorius expended during running, how resistant he was to fatigue, and his sprinting mechanics.His results were compared with competitive male runners with intact limbs., Pistorius uses 17% less energy than sprinters. he said. "He has 20% less limb musculature. Other athletes use their calf muscles to generate force, but he doesn't have that." Giving him and obvious advantage.
Prosthetic Use in Sports

Better prosthesis work like better shoes, anyone would be able to run better with them. Besides, since he only had 1/3 of his leg, he had to over compensate for the missing muscles. So he was actually working 3 times harder than other runners. Also, with prosthetic use in sports, more people will want to buy their own prosthesis and be more willing to flaunt them. With the recent increase in consumption, companies will not have to charge as much for prosthesis and they will be easier accessible to other people.
Prosthetic Use in Sports

Point 1 Oscar PIstorius Unfair Advantage of using prosthetics in sports, according to Marquette Sport law Review Oscar Pistorius had an unfair advantage his from his prosthetic legs due to spring in them that allowed him to push of the ground more efficiently than a normal human ankle. Oscar doesn"t lose energy like other runner with legs do he uses 1/3 of the energy compared to an Olympian who gives it his all. The runner clearly has an advantage the runner Oscar used Cheetah Blades. They are the best of the best of prosthetics not everyone can afford them they legs where specifically made for him. He was not as efficient at running before he got Cheetah Blades.
Prosthetic Use in Sports

Contrary to popular belief, prosthetic limbs do not provide any advantages or disadvantages in sports. The controversy came up after a man with prosthetic feet was able to run at Olympic and World Record standards. An article by thegaurdian explained how prosthesis confer "no speed advantage". It is proven that these runners have to run in a different way due to a lack of muscles in their legs. The fact is that prosthesis don"t affect your running abilities. The success of a crippled runner completely depends on the skill they have, according to livescience. Prosthesis compensate for missing limbs, it doesn"t surpass them.
I am a noob.

I am challenging ReganFan to prove that I, studentathletechristian8, am a noob. He has created two forum threads in which he has personally attacked me as being a noob: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... For this debate, a noob shall be defined as a a newbie to online debating on this website. I contend that I am not a noob because I have been a member of this website for half a year and have participated in over forty debates. I am an active poster on the forums and leave valid RFD's for several debates. It is now up to ReganFan to affirm his Burden of Proof and attempt to prove why I am a noob. Thank you.