BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God loves you.

Are you really now telling me that I must acknowledge God is love and that loves me? The whole point of this debate is to argue that precise point yet you are now telling me I must accept it in order to discuss His attributes. Do you not feel any need to actually support your opinion with proof or at least outline where I can deduce the same conclusion myself? You tell me I cannot blame him for being angry but this is partly the problem because your argument is based on you telling me what God is and what God does. How can you possibly know that? Is it because the bible says so? Is it because you have a direct and personal relationship with him above and beyond anything anyone else has experienced? You can only 'know' yourself and even that is arguable, although I believe to argue against it is weak - ego cogito sum is adequate. Nevertheless, to 'know' what someone else is and does is not as easy as you think. You cannot know that of your own parents yet you can deduce knowing their existence because you know you were born. Thus you can deduce the existence of their parents, and theirs, and so on all the way back even though those people no longer exist physically but never can you argue for who they were in themselves or what they thought and how they acted. To suggest you can know God more clearly is arrogant but to insist someone else does because you say so is worse. Show me proof or show me how I can deduce the same conclusion as you and I will happily explore that path. However in your argument you state God loves you yet now you say he could say 'enough is enough' and get fed up with people, no longer wishing to tolerate defiance. If what you say is true I would suggest God is not love any where near as much as you suggest! Love exists in spite of defiance, in spite of those you direct it to not giving it back in return. Have you not considered that the onus may be on us to love God irrespective of whether he loves us and irrespective of His attributes? Perhaps if you accept sin is a natural part of our existence, as you say we all do it even in small ways, God reveals Himself in many ways even to those who do not believe in Him but if you choose to love Him despite what the bible says, despite what religions say, despite what science or atheism says, then you are displaying love in its truest sense. If He chooses to ignore you then perhaps it makes you stupid but nevertheless you still show love. If love is the root or all power then God himself could never get greater than love from that source, not love that people have been told by men they must display. You have still yet to respond to any element of this argument in terms of proof most especially in terms of your sources for reaching the attitude you have. If it is the bible please answer my comments on its source and validity. If it is elsewhere please show me that so I can deduce my own conclusions. Otherwise, to say I must accept God loves me to progress means you have to lose.
God loves you.

We can't agree on God's attributes in you will not believe that He is love and that He loves you. You can't blame Him for rejecing from life those of His creatures who insist on accusing Him of being bad or uncaring. You can't blame God for being angy with you if you keep saying He does not love you and you talk bad about Him. How long do you think He should put up with that stuff from His creatures? How long do you think it will be before God says something like "Enough is enough, away with you who reject my love, I'm tired of your accusations against me and I'm not going to take any more"?Do you think God owes anything to you that he should tolerate your defiance against Him? We have all sinned against God, we have all broken His law (the tiniest lie ro the tiniest theft of the tiniest thought of lust toward a woman you are not married to, is sin. All sin is unrighteousness, we are all unrighteous when we stand in front of God. God loves you and does not want to execute your punishment, for which justice would demand that you be cast away from God forever because you are a sinner and you will remain a sinner forever if God does not make you into a new creature who will not sin againt Him. Yes God acts in vengence againt His creatures who He tolearted while they acted in defiance of Him and added to the destructions caused by breaking the law He gave which was to preserve the beauty and harmony of His creation which He made to enjoy, to glorify Himself, to share with creatures like Himself everything He made for the pleasure of making it and them. He loves you so much that He took your death in the form of a man. He paid your price so you can be forgiven. This is the love of God, to die for His enemies so they can be spared from His wrath. God loves even His enemies, and He will always love them even if they suffer His wrath forever and they foreever insist He is evil and He is not love. God never changes and never will change. He loves you if you think He does or if you think He does not.Jesus is God the creator came down from heaven to die for your sins to be your Saviour. He paid with His blood to buy you back from the Hell you have earned by your sins agaisnt God. I cannot prove to you that He is the Son of God. I can say that if you have a son, your son is a man like you. God's Son is God. Only God can give you eternal life. If you do not have eternal life, you have eternal death. I cannot prove to you that Hell is real and eternal death. I cannot prove to you that you deserve to die for your sin. You say I must prove things like this to you. I say you must believe things like this or you are going to get the proof you say you must have when you wake up in the fire of Hell,There is nothing new about science supporting atheism. It's pseudo-science when you say science proves God is not there. You cannot prove by science what you cannot observe. True science is observation of facts, not fabrication of beliefs or history.
God loves you.

For the purposes of this debate we agree that God exists but his attributes we have not agreed and they are open to argument. In the same way, you state he gave His Son to die in our place but that again is not agreed. So we are clear and can progress I agree God exists. You must prove to me that Christ is His Son because otherwise he could be simply a wise man who took a more loving and contrary attitude to those in power of his day. The bible is full of examples of how God acts with vengeance and anger. You know that so how can you still say without exception that God loves you and always will no matter what? If that is true, why would it not have been the case for those he smote at the time? All your assertions are based on the bible of course, which I appreciate. However that work must also be held in question for it is without doubt a collection of letters that have been left open to interpretation in translation and, whether anyone likes it or not, was deliberated over at the Councils of Nicaea and Carthage in the 4th and 5th centuries and by the end of the latter included the Book of Revelations to finally settle on current content. The point is that men, not God, decided what books would make up the bible and, more importantly, what books would be excluded. That power lay firmly in Man's hands so to say that from this book we can deduce that God loves us irrespective, that His Son died for our sins and that we must follow His way so that we can live in His eternal love is I am sorry to say entirely based on your own faith and the decisions of men, not of God. Please show me the proof, independent of the bible and your personal faith, that what you say about our status, our requirement to confess our sins through Christ and our knowledge that God loves us without condition is true beyond question. Love is a very powerful force and I do not disagree that it could lay at the heart of the purpose of our existence. I also do not disagree that God Himself exists. However you are relying on arguments based on material that is open widely to critique and worse, sticking to a well trodden path through His Son and our sins. You are in essence asserting that God cannot be known personally and independently of the bible but that we must all have faith and follow Christ without question, yet you have not proven that Christ is even God's actual son let alone that he died for us. Science has come a long way in the support of atheism and certainly in revealing weaknesses held within the framework of the bible yet ironically, it may well end up being the one thing that also reveals God Himself. That however is a far cry from it proving the bible and therefore what you assert in your argument, and I must remind you the bible was collated selectively by man, written by him over more than 1500 years and has helped the church throughout history wield enormous power. It does not show me that the only way to my salvation is to follow God through Christ.
Everyone is dying

I will not be rude like my opponent was as to rejecting my definitions even though you rejected my definitions i will reject nothing that you say and i will still read what you type and be respectful as (superior) as you believe yourself to be you are a human as well as i ok "copious corrections of callous claims and comments" CALLOUS- a : being hardened and thickened b : having calluses 2 a : feeling no emotion b : feeling or showing no sympathy for others : hard-hearted http://www.merriam-webster.com... what my opponent is saying here is that science is CALLOUS and that i am CALLOUS - i will leave this for the voters to decide on this one right off the bat of the baseball theory (small pun intended) my opponent is throwing out facts about the speed of light , speed limits , and distance this has nothing to do with the debate topic but lets give it awhile and continue reading Zeno of Elea yes you read this correctly Zeno of Elea alot of you have never heard of this man and that is to be understood Zeno lived from (430-490 BC ) Although many ancient writers refer to the writings of Zeno, none of his writings survive intact http://en.wikipedia.org... this is HUGE ! the man Zeno who my opponent is using in this debate does not have one original piece of documentation in existence today ! meaning that i cannot go back and read any of zenos findings simply because there is none to research because none of them have survived -i highly advise viewers to look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org... moving on ,its possible we are getting somewhere relevant to this debate topic more information about understanding the universe i find this very entertaining and good reading material buttttt still not relevant . last fact that the opponent gave me "An Understanding of the Universe Unto Us This means the Universe is, by definition, alive. Because Dark Energy will ensure that the Universe never stops expanding, the Universe will, in effect, live forever.[3][4] This proves that not everyone will die." he claims that because the universe will last forever,everyone will not die read it one more time THE UNIVERSE WILL LAST FOREVER-THIS PROVES THAT NOT EVERYONE WILL DIE . i hope my opponent understands that everyone who has EVER existed HAS DIED ! i have nothing left to say except since this is my last round my opponent has not used anything relevant to the debate topic we just get to hear about how smart he is with astrophysics congrats on working on your doctorate i hope you accomplish your goal now its pretty obvious you will use this last round to actually provide some relevant material i look forward to it
Everyone is dying

thank you con for accepting my challenge im excited on what information and facts you have for me i hope to learn something new 1. every second that goes by is another second closer to death for everyone whos heart is beating (alive) i say this simply because every life has a death the moment your life begins you are ultimately destined to die and that is a fact that nobody can disprove and the burden of proof would be yours to prove that once a life begins it is not in fact dying at all. 2. scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined "moment of conception." This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos http://bdfund.org... science says that this in when a humans life starts 3. Inside the nucleus of a cell, our genes are arranged along twisted, double-stranded molecules of DNA called chromosomes. At the ends of the chromosomes are stretches of DNA called telomeres, which protect our genetic data, make it possible for cells to divide, and hold some secrets to how we age and get cancer. Telomeres have been compared with the plastic tips on shoelaces, because they keep chromosome ends from fraying and sticking to each other, which would destroy or scramble an organism's genetic information. Yet, each time a cell divides, the telomeres get shorter. When they get too short, the cell can no longer divide; it becomes inactive or "senescent", or it dies. This shortening process is associated with aging, cancer, and a higher risk of death. So telomeres also have been compared with a fuse. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu... this is a key point stating that you as of right now your body is currently dying or coming to an end of life
Flag Desecration should always be legal

I would never burn a flag. I feel like it is completely disrespectful and immoral. If you want to burn a flag, I would respect you that much less. If I saw you burn a flag before you interview for a job with me, your chances of getting the job are very slim. However, should the government outlaw flag desecration, I don't care if you were the president, you are not getting that job! There are three points here that I think are central to my stance. They are the first amendment, Morality v. Legality (Oppression), and the overall ludicrousness of it all. I will attack one point per argument, respectively. This argument I will be discussing the first amendment. The first amendment gives us basic rights, citing specifically the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. I generally consider it to be my favorite amendment, even though it means we can't outlaw Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I like it because it is the basis of basic personal freedoms (say that ten times fast). It means we are constantly censored (in theory). Tell that to the FCC and they'll find you some loophole, but the theory is the same. It keeps the government out of your personal life. If Rick Warren wants me to go to church every Sunday morning and then kick me out when I drop the F bomb and then doesn't publish my complaint in the church newspaper because we assembled and petitioned to kick him out, so be it. If it's Barack Obama doing that, it's illegal. Burning a flag is a form of speech. It is illegal for it to be illegal. Pure and simple. Go ahead and tell me that it isn't speech. Much like songs and American Sign Language, censor it freely. I'm sure my deaf friend Betsy would be absolutely giddy to learn that she can no longer sign anything that insults the government. I'm looking forward to your response (as long as it doesn't insult the government, of course)!
Argument "from nature" should be dropped from both sides of the debate on homosexuality

I accept the challenge and will be arguing on the side for using the nature of sexuality as point to promote gay rights. I will not argue that we know exactly what the cause of homosexuality is. We are still unable to pinpoint what exactly creates it. For me to use that as my foundation would be intellectually dishonest. Science has been able to demonstrate however that sexuality is something that is embedded at a very young age and is not possible to be change. Many who oppose it will often use arguments of it being unnatural and often times will even go so far as to promote gay reparative therapy. Science understand now that any method of conversion is destructive to the individuals involved, often emotionally but sometimes physically. By understanding the nature of sexuality and that people have a sexual orientation that can not be altered, we can promote growth for acceptance. Until individuals on the opposing end of homosexuality are able to understand our scientific understand, it is essentially to use the nature of sexuality as grounds of defense.
Argument "from nature" should be dropped from both sides of the debate on homosexuality

The "anti-gay" version of the "natural" argument is that homosexuality is unnatural, and, therefore, immoral. I have heard this point argued by well-meaning, articulate folks. The "pro-gay" side of the homosexuality debate often counters this argument (often quite eloquently) by pointing out that there are many natural things that are bad and many unnatural things that are good...that we cannot use "nature", per se, to condemn homosexuality. I believe the pro-gay side is correct in this critique. Nevertheless, the pro-gay side often turns right around and presents its own brand of the argument from nature: that there are natural instances of homosexuality in the animal and human world, and that many (if not all) homosexuals are born that way...and that, therefore, homosexuality is totally acceptable. My position is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander: I don't believe the moral acceptability or condemnation of homosexuality can be bolstered by either version of this kind of argument "from nature", and each side would be better off dropping this line of reasoning from the larger debate. I figure my opponent likely will agree with my initial premise that both anti-gay and pro-gay contingents commonly utilize this sort of argument...otherwise s/he likely would not accept this debate challenge...but I am open to debating even that part of my initial premise. Nevertheless, if my opponent agrees with the initial premise, then we should be able to easily proceed with the topic at hand: that the argument(s) "from nature" are flawed and should be dropped from the larger debate on homosexuality.
My DDO username is NiamC

To be honest, I didn't read all of your rebuttal because it is irrelevent. Your resolution stated in R1: The resolution is that my username on this website (debate.org), is "NiamC".If one looks at where the comma is placed, the sentence itself suggests that your username is, is NiamC. You argued for the name NiamC, however, that is not your burden of proof. Your burden of proof is showing that your name is, is NiamC (including the second, "is."). To clarify, you used the comma as a vocative case, because there is no other grammer rules that allows you to place a comma in that sentence. Precending the comma, you state what your username is. Following the comma is the modifer of your preceding statement, which is your name, is NiamC. To put it in perspective, here is an example of a vocative case (http://www.grammar-monster.com...):I know your sister, Jason.One will notice that the name addressed is Jason and is after the comma. Likewise, The resolution is that my username on this website (debate.org), is "NiamC" follows the same example as above. Thus, you need to prove that your name is, is NiamC. You have not yet done so.Lastly, the quotation marks in your statement makes it read such that your name is actually, is "NiamC' due to where you placed that comma.
Should sex education be banned in middle schools

im terribly sorry but there might be a slight confusion ... you see con means that i am against it being banned and your comment seemed to be con... but otherwise: sex education shouldnt be banned in middle schools and for a lot of reasons, one of them being sexual awareness. If we can start making people aware at the appropriate age of contraception, STD's and so on, the risk of teenage pregnancy and ofcourse the spreading of STD's would be reduced by quite a big amount, due to the knowledge of the different ways of protecting against them. But some sort of minimum age must definitely be in place but stil the sooner the better. Since sex education isn't only just plain old sex, I would like to stress the importance of the different types of sexual orientations, such as bisexual, homosexual and so on. This alone would make people understand that this is not something bad and hopefully in the future, the homophobic percentege would decrease.
Root bear floats soda before the ice cream

I love root bears do you love them too? Root bears are of a very wonderful nature. They come in many shapes and forms... Usually that of a root as seen here: http://webjunk.info...Most amiable with our species indeed!and as they urinate into the urinal with their magical soda they never do it before those lovely urinal deodorizers are in there: http://www.webstaurantstore.com...Similarly Root bear floats soda AFTER the ice cream because let's face it, ice cream is too fvcking awesome to leave until after the silly SODA is in the motherfvcking container you know???????????Put the ice cream in and put the soda on... It magically floats to top, like a root bear floats to heaven :) http://l7world.com...THEY ARE SO CUTE LIKE ICE CREAM!!!! OMGGGG I LOVE BEARS :D
Root bear floats soda before the ice cream

So this is kind of a different debate. There is only one round. It is just to see which side wins so I can show my friend she is weird. I believe that you pour the soda into the glass first because, if you put the ice cream first then it over flows, and you have to slurp it down first, and then refill it, and you basically just stand there waiting and re pouring 100 times. This is just want I think but when we poured the soda first, it worked out much better and we were able to actually sit down to enjoy the drinks.
All things were created by God and Human wisdom cannot explain everything

Thank you for laughing very hard. When you are in a race don't rejoice that you are ahead with the others because the race is not yet finish. Our race is the end of our life. God will judge us of what we have done. Go back to our topic. I have read your arguments that we are not evolve from monkey but you said that we came from "COMMON" ancestor. And I also introduce what is the meaning of the word "common" with an example. You have given me a link to wikipedia about Darwin's theory. One thing you have not noticed, that the we "came from only one progenitor of all living organisms on earth". You have to answer my questions: 1) Do you understand the statement "only one progenitor of all life forms"? 2) What particular name of species we originate as the theory states?