BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Church is or isn"t good

Firstly, before talking about the theory of evolution, please, learn a bit more about it because, yes, we know where did those apes come from. Secondly, what does the Christian Church really control? It is not suposed to hold the political, military or judicial power of any country so, what is left, are the people"s minds. Is true that the Church still has influence over many people all over the world and, because of this, is true that the authorities many times need it to convince people. This might be something good for people who had the same beliefs as the Church but, for the ones who don"t have the same beliefs? As you"ve said, religion (not the Church), saves many people from depression and other problems, shouldn"t we be strong enough to "save" ourselves? Should we really need religion to "save" us? However, if people isn"t strong enough and need religion to "save" themselves, is their problem. Anyway, this doesn"t say anything about how beneficial is the Church. I agree with you in that every religion is based on the good, has good ethics and a discipline but, as the Church is ruled by people and not by machines, it could corrupt in any moment. You also have said that, when someone brakes the Church"s principles, he/she feels guilty. OK, but do really Christians need to follow the Church"s principles? Couldn"t they think by themselves and dictate their own principles? What if the Church has principles they don"t believe on? Terrorists are people with mental problems and, if they kill in name of The Church or God, is because the have to kill in name of something. The Church is against terrorism as everyone with mental health. About education: religion is something personal, something you believe or not and shouldn"t have nothing to do with education. The Church educates very young children, children who don"t think by themselves yet. So, what the Church basically does, is put ideas inside the children"s heads without giving them the oportunity to think what they really believe in. And, finally, about helping the poor: you are correct. More people more help and the Church is definately, doing a great job in that sense.
The Church is or isn"t good

the church is a place for worship to unseen powers. miracles happen there and is the backbone completing the mystery of the whereabouts of mankind. The theory of evolution got us back to the question "where did those apes come from?" In conclusion we all got to the point of believing in some unseen powers who are supreme over us. The point is the church controls over 50% of the world and because of that fact the authorities desperately need it. Anyone in the world needs a supreme being to rule over him or to confide in when things go wrong. Now the church provides that supreme being and it saves over a 5000 people per day from depression and thinking related problems. The fact that you have put your cares in someone's hands get it lifted from your head. Every religion is based on the good and whatever the church offers as its ethics and principles that is good. We don't need good ethics in church only but for an community to function properly the people must be under a certain discipline. The church offers a discipline that cannot be bailed out or dodged through corruption unlike the one offered by the law. There no lawyers included and if the principles are broken a person feels guilty and wrong which is way more worse punishment than fine or prison. With this punishment you learn and the community is safe making the church the best place. In the case of terrorist like osama who were did not abide by the law they were governed by their religion. The church is against terrorism and killing people and if anyone chooses to live out of the law as long as you are in the church you going to do nothing and what do have a good church. To answer your questions the helps the poor and educates people and yes they are not the only ones but they have a part and if it disappear a great percentage of donors will go also because many are driven by the preaching from the church. Every place or institution has scandals and it will remain like that but what is important is the church is still doing its main aims and objectives.
The Church is or isn"t good

Could we say the Church is really beneficial for people? What I mean is that, what does the Church really do? They help the poor but, do we really need the Church to help the poor? If people want to help the poor they don"t have to do it by the Church, in name of God. They can do it by other non-religious ONG"s. The Church also educates, have schools but they aren"t the only ones. We don"t need any religious school or ONG but I don"t care if there are. What I really care about are those news which talk about children who had been abuse by their priests or those other news which say that the Church does not pay taxes. After saying this, what do you really think about the Church? Does it really matters?
God is omnipotent

My on opinion is that you are required to support your position. As Con my position is that if the Christian God exists it could not be omnipotent based on a commonly referenced part of the Bible (Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.) I also would like to draw the readers to a commonly used problem called "problem of evil" 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 5.Evil exists. 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. 7.Therefore, God doesn't exist. I look forward to reading the support that the Christian God is omnipotent and all powerful.
Socialism and Atheism should not mix.

Definitions from the book mean nothing. When it comes to ideology, everyone has their own definitions. I shouldn't have to point that out. Now let us address what you were mentioning before. About morality and such. I agree, everyone has a sense of morality, but the way humans are naturally destroys that argument. People will always do what is best for them and their individual selves before they do things for others, this is why, for example, communist systems always fail.
Socialism and Atheism should not mix.

Thanks for the topic, Pro. I. Morality Exists Outside of Religion -Despite the diverse religious views and personal opinions of man, there exist common values and laws that must exist in a functioning society. II. Equality Is Morally Desirable -To suggest that the only reason that equality would be desirable is for rewards in some afterlife is incorrect. Equality is intrinsically desirable, to ensure quality of life during our existence on Earth.
Socialism and Atheism should not mix.

Only 500 words per argument. Socialism and Atheism should not mix. If nothing occurs after you die, then why do things for the 'greater good'? Its more about the individual if your Capitalist, more about living your life in the best way you can, more about doing things for yourself, because you only have one chance to. If your religious, it would make sense to be more giving and to work with Socialism, because when you die, everything is not over.
Socialism and Atheism should not mix.

I. I do not understand any logical implication that could come from my opponent's murder analogy. II. The fundamental flaw in my opponent's case stems from one key misunderstanding: the confusion of atheism and humanism. I am an atheist because I do not believe there is a god. This, however, does not effect my objective moral compass. Humanism is the egotistical desire to gain power at the expense of others- not atheism. As my opponent misrepresents atheism, his contention is invalid.
Socialism and Atheism should not mix.

Atheism gives incentive to do best you can before you die as after you die there is nothing left. Socialism is based more off the well being of the group then individual rights. Capitalism is based more off individual rights then the well being of the group. It is clear that a system which promotes the rights of the group would not promote Atheism as atheism gives incentive to care more about yourself. If I tried to kill someone, and got caught, would it not be a flawed attempt at murder?
Socialism and Atheism should not mix.

I. Again, past flaws are not indicative of a flaw in the ideal. They are simply lessons in flawed execution of said ideal. II. Individual rights are vastly important. However, equality is a major factor. It is more moral (for instance) that every individual has the equal right to survival and shelter than any particular individual gains the right to a comfortable life at the expense of others. Also, I still fail to see how you correlate atheism specifically to this.
Socialism and Atheism should not mix.

1. I disagree with you. Hitler (National Socialist German Workers Party), Mao Ze-Dong, USSR leaders, and North Korean Leaders have managed to kill millions either through starvation or murder, all in communist countries. Can you name the same number of capitalist leaders who have killed the same number of people? Communism and extreme left socialism are flawed. 2. Are you implying that individual rights are immoral? Are you implying that prioritizing the group instead of yourself is more moral?
Socialism and Atheism should not mix.

I. Previous Failure Does Not Indicate A Faulty System Or The Negativity Of An Ideal II. Despite Individual Interpretation Of Definition, Definition Is Necessary To Truly Debate (Argument goes both ways) III. With Objective Morality Conceded, We Now Have Our Goal Established (Whether or not it is contrary to what feels natural) -I wish this debate were a bit longer than 500 characters per round. An outline is the furthest I can go until then
Global warming is real

Here's a definition of something real: --- fire"crack"er G2;fī(ə)rG6;krakər/ noun a loud, explosive firework, typically wrapped in paper and lit with a fuse. --- If I start describing a firecracker by making wild claims about how it's doomsday, how it's gonna go off by itself, how it's gonna kill the polar bears and affect weather etc.... then your definition becomes unreal.
Global warming is real

My opponent says, "You are being slippery again. I would define 'real' as what the people think that say 'global warming' is 'real' think. They think it's doomsday." But remember, this is not a debate about whether global warming is "doomsday". In the very first round of this debate, I clearly said, "The definition that my opponent and I will use in this debate is 'the overall increase of the average temperature of the planet Earth', not 'the Earth getting warmer all the time, everywhere'." That's all that this debate is supposed to be about. I have already proven global warming by that definition, and my opponent has even acknowledged that global warming is real in some form. Whether global warming is "doomsday" is completely irrelevant to this debate. My opponent also says, "The world is warming slighty [sic]. That's a fact. Anything else you'd like to attribute to global warming is speculation. That makes your perceptions about it unreal and it's why you'd like to frame the debate the way you have." But I'm not attributing anything else to global warming in this debate, so I'm not making any speculations in this debate. I'm merely giving arguments to support the fact that global warming exists. I'm not arguing for anything else in this debate. The premise of this debate is that global warming is real, and I have already included a definition for global warming. I have proven the premise, if we use the definition of global warming that I gave in the first round. I wish my opponent luck in this final round. Remember to vote honestly and fairly, no matter who you vote for.
Global warming is real

You are being slippery again. I would define "real" as what the people think that say "global warming" is "real" think. They think it's doomsday. They think Polar Bears are dying. They aren't. They think this is the "greatest threat mankind ever faced" Not even close. "Real" is when something is factually as you present it. The rhetoric around global warming doesn't meet the facts. You know it isn't real because nobody makes the case for it without exaggerating and/or telling bald faced lies (i.e. polar bears are dying, the Great Barrier reef is dying) . The world is warming slighty. That's a fact. Anything else you'd like to attribute to global warming is speculation. That makes your perceptions about it unreal and it's why you'd like to frame the debate the way you have.
Global warming is real

My opponent has even admitted that "the world is warming up", and has called me "slippery". Remember that this is not a debate about whether the actions that governments are taking to protect the environment are warranted, whether weather is "being affected in some predictable way", or whether global warming is "the greatest challenge mankind every [sic] faced", to quote my opponent directly. That's not what this debate is about at all. This debate is about whether global warming exists, which my opponent has even acknowledged. I welcome my opponent to respond to my arguments.
Global warming is real

You're just being slippery. Everybody thinks the world is warming up. That's real. Unreal is the religiosity of the cult leftists have built around it. Unwarranted is the actions governments are taking as the result of believing in the boogie man. What is not real? The idea that weather is being affected in some predictable way is not real. The idea that this is "the greatest challenge mankind every faced" and other exaggerations is not real. The idea that we should prioritize this over all other considerations is unwarranted.
Global warming is real

My opponent says, "Some of the new science on this tells us that instead of a 4.8 degree temperature increase by 2100 as a worst case scenario, the worst case is 1.8 degrees by 2100, which means it's within our ability to deal with it without doing anything much." Please note that I am not arguing about whether global warming will rapidly increase in the future. I am only arguing about whether it exists today. Now, let's go back to data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/, which I referenced earlier. If you look at the graph that says "Global Temperature (meteorological stations)", you can clearly see that the graph has a positive trend. It may not be increasing very rapidly, but remember that I am not arguing that global warming is increasing rapidly. I am merely arguing that it exists. My opponent also says, "We don't need to close perfectly good coal plants, lay off thousands of people, starve Africa of electric power or pay drastically higher energy bills." I am not arguing for any of those things. This is not a debate about possible solutions for global warming, but rather a debate about whether global warming exists. My opponent finally says, "The 'real' part of global warming is that it's not that big of a deal." Again, I'm not arguing that it's a major catastrophe or a big deal. I'm just arguing that it's real, which my opponent has even acknowledged. I welcome my opponent to respond to my arguments.
Global warming is real

Some of the new science on this tells us that instead of a 4.8 degree temperature increase by 2100 as a worst case scenario, the worst case is 1.8 degrees by 2100, which means it's within our ability to deal with it without doing anything much. We don't need to close perfectly good coal plants, lay off thousands of people, starve Africa of electric power or pay drastically higher energy bills. The "real" part of global warming is that it's not that big of a deal.
Global warming is real

My opponent says that global warming is real, but "a lot slower than the models predicted". If my opponent is acknowledging that global warming is real, which they seem to be doing, then it would appear that they are arguing for my side. Even if global warming is much slower than the models predicted and doesn't have consequences that are as bad as some people say, then that does nothing to advance my opponent's argument. Remember, this debate is solely about whether global warming is real - not about whether it will have terrible consequences or about how slow or fast it is. And now, to make my own argument. Global warming is a fact. The global mean land-ocean temperature is much higher than it was in 1880, and overall, the trend has been that it has been increasing since then. It does decrease at times, which is inevitable. Temperatures rise and fall. But overall, the trend is that the global mean land-ocean temperature is increasing. The same can be said for the global temperature. Both of these can be verified by going to data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/. I welcome my opponent to respond to my arguments.
Global warming is real

The world is getting warmer, but it isn't getting exponentially warmer like most of the climate models predict. Tuvalu is not sinking. There are more polar bears than there ever were. The Canadian moose die out is caused by wolves. The Australian Barrier Reef is fine. Pacific Islands like Tuvalu aren't sinking. There is no giant doomsday hot spot forming over North America. There is absolutely no way to know what effect, if any, global temperature increase has on any particular weather event or weather trend. Global warming is real, a lot slower than the models predicted, and the consequences of the world being a little warmer fall clearly into examining navel lint for guided insight by 75 billion dollars worth of scientists trying to justify their research grants. I'm really getting sick of every nature show having some speculative goop of how anything bad that happens in the environment is "global warming" I know I will smoke a blunt in Fresno for all eternity because of my blasphemy.
Global warming is real

This is a debate about whether or not global warming is real. The premise is that global warming is real, and I am taking the Pro position - that is, I am arguing that global warming is real. I, as Pro, will have the burden of proof in this debate. Since my opponent will be taking the Con position, it is not up to my opponent to prove that global warming is not real. Rather, it is up to me to prove that it is real. I will have the responsibility of making the arguments. My opponent will not have any responsibility or obligation to make arguments. However, if my opponent chooses to make arguments, that's OK. The only obligation that my opponent has is to debunk my arguments. I can debunk my opponent's arguments if they choose to make any, but my primary goal will to be to make my own arguments. The burden of proof is on me. Also, this is not a debate about whether anthropogenic global warming is real. It's a debate about whether global warming is real. If I prove that global warming is real and that it is primarily or totally anthropogenic, then I will have succeeded. If I prove that it is real but also prove that it is not anthropogenic, then I will have also succeeded. If I prove that it is real but I don't prove what causes it, then I will have also succeeded. Keep this in mind if you accept the debate. Now, let's define global warming. The definition that my opponent and I will use in this debate is "the overall increase of the average temperature of the planet Earth", not "the Earth getting warmer all the time, everywhere".
The divinity of Jesus is a false doctrine that goes against the teachings of the Bible.

If Jesus is a created being and not the eternal God then you end up with a conflict when you run into the fact that ALL things were created by Him. So the question is, is Jesus the creator or the created? The bible gives the answer that HE is the Eternal creator. In John 1:1 Jesus doesn't contradict himself its actually clear that no one has ever seen God in Its whole supernatural state. You find the instance where Jacob "wrestles with God", is that a contradiction? Not at all because it wasn't the Fullness of God. John 5:18 "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because HE not only had broken the sabbath, but (HE) said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." This wasn't just some random accusation against Jesus but they were his actual words. This clearly shows Jesus claiming divinity. John 8:24 You first need to understand the significance of Him quoting Daniel there. In Daniel that prophecy is referring to God returning to redeem HIs people. John 8:58 Im curious as to why you would assume he was interrupted, because nowhere in the bible does it imply Jesus was trying say more cause when you let the bible speak for itself youll find Jesus was quoting exodus just as it was. The point is not that I AM should be translated into God but that the "I AM" is a reference to divinity. If Jesus was just a man in the strictest sense than he couldn't have existed before Abraham but He claims to be the "I AM' which in turn Jesus is claiming to be God. John 10:34-38 In the verses i showed Jesus made clear that He is one with the Father. The verses you bring up only shows that Jesus isn't referring to divinity because He refers to them as gods only according to their Law which was handed down by the ONE TRUE GOD. Read what the verses say, it says Jesus does "The Fathers" work not "Gods" if you read the bible through a unitarian lens verses will become distorted. Col 2:9 Read very carefully what the verse says "In Him ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily." All is the key word as well as the "Godhead" the only reference in the Old and New Testament of God dwelling in us is His Spirit Psalms 51:11and John 14:26. Not the "fullness" of God being The Son and the Father. Phil 2:6 Again Looking at the bible through unitarian lenses will distort scripture. it actually states "Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped," (NIV Phil 2:9) other versions use robbery. This verse is in no way in your favor because what Paul is saying Jesus didn't think it was blasphemous or grasping or taking away from God to be equal with God. Heb 1:8 So what human has a throne forever? What human gets praise and honor only due to God? None does but God In the debate "Did jesus claim to be God" I've noticed that the Unitarian always demands that the Bible must have Jesus say "I am God" but they don't hold the same standard of Jesus saying "I am not God" if you look at the divinity claims Jesus makes whether it be from Old Testament prophecy or demanding worship only due to God.