BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The God of the Bible is not triune in nature.

This debate will be centered around whether or not the God of the Bible has a triune nature. For this debate, the only source that should be used to prove your point is the Bible. There may be certain situations where lexicons, dictionaries, concordances, or creeds are permissible, which will ultimately be up to the voters to decide. However, the end goal is to prove that the Bible supports the position of a triune nature for God, not an outside source. Important Rules:- Forfeiting a round will result in an automatic victory for the opponent- No images may be used in the debate (provide a link if necessary)- No insulting the opponent- Accepting this debate without my permission will result in an automatic victory for Pro- Round format (see below) should not be broken at any point during the debateDefinitions:triune - three in one ("one God in three persons"); specifically in regards to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [or "Ghost"]Bible - protestant Bible (66 books)Round Format:Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Initial Argument(s) Round 3 - Rebuttal(s)Round 4 - Rebuttal(s) in regards to Round 3Round 5 - Closing Statement(s) If you have any questions or concerns, please use the comments to voice them before accepting the debate. If you would like to accept the debate, please let me know in the comments. I will accept whoever I believe will provide the best debate for the readers.
The God of the Bible is not triune in nature.

In voting on this debate, please consider that while I did not have enough space to address all of Pro's points in detail, the ones I did address in full were surely supported with Scripture and reliable references to back up what I said. One of the crusts of my argument throughout this debate was the monotheism of Scripture. Pro contradicted this by contending that Monotheistic Jews like Moses and John who were raised in a society where people were killed for claiming to be, or worshiping any other gods, were at the same time proclaiming human judges and even Jesus to be additional gods to Jehovah. I maintained that if there is only ONE true God, that all other gods must be false. I don't believe Pro was able to escape this predicament, and I don't believe he was able to provide any example of anyone else called or claiming to be a god that was parallel to the case of Jesus Christ. When dealing with Greek, I believe I provided adequate proof from the Bible and the scholars concerning John 1:1 (the "a god" claim), as well as the Granville Sharp construction. Yes, there were unanswered questions on both sides. But please examine carefully the things that we both did address, and ask yourself how adequately and thoroughly they were addressed.
The God of the Bible is not triune in nature.

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for a very fun and intriguing debate. However, by the end of this I was getting rather tired of addressing the same points. He stuck to his guns on the points I had already refuted, which allowed for me to simply reference him to what I had previously stated. Let's review what my goals were. I was trying to prove:1) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [or “Spirit”] are not equal2) the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [or “Spirit”] are not coeternal or coequal3) Jesus is not both God and manUltimately it is up to the judges to decide on how well I did in regards to achieving my goals, but I feel very confident. At the very least we can agree that I proved Con wrong when he stated that he would "conclusively prove that the Bible from Genesis to Revelation teaches the Trinity, and there are no good arguments against it from the Bible." Once again, thank you Con for the fun debate and thank you viewer for taking the time to carefully examine what was said on both sides. I speak for both myself and my opponent when I say that not all the evidence was presented. Some more research will need to be done to come to a conclusion and I welcome anyone on debate.org to add me as a friend and message me with any questions they may have in regards to anything in the Bible. Vote Pro! **Reminder**This round is for closing statements, not rebuttals!
Half the planets in this solar systems have planetary rings.

Now, down to business. Since my opponent has failed to provide definitions, I shall provide some. Ring - a typically circular band of metal or other durable material, esp. one of gold or other precious metal, often set with gems, for wearing on the finger as an ornament, a token of betrothal or marriage, etc. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Planet - Also called major planet. Any of the nine large heavenly bodies revolving about the sun and shining by reflected light: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto in the order of their proximity to the sun. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Finger - One of the five digits of the hand, especially one other than the thumb. . http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent's resolution is as follows, "Half the planets have rings. " This is false, as only one of the planets, Earth, has rings. . http://www.capitolviewconsulting.com... . http://www.theargonath.cc... . http://3.bp.blogspot.com... As the previous pictures clearly show, the human hand is a necessity if rings are to be had. And being that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, the planets my opponent sites, clearly do not sustain human life, they cannot, in turn, sustain rings. With all this said, there is only one planet that has rings: Earth. Half the planets do not have rings. Only one does.
I'm going to win. 2+2=4 I'm the best

No comment? Oh dear. I had a few other instances where two units added to two further units actually resulted in a total other than four. I could have used instances like:Squares - Take two squares and place them side by side. Now add two additional squares above these existing ones. The result should look like this: How many squares do you see? PRO's maths teacher assured me there would be only four, but in fact I can see five. Numbers - Using a Mod function we can add two units to two existing units and have the result be 0, 1 or 2. Or 3 if you REALLY want to. This is because we set the modulo to a value below four. By doing this, we guarantee that regardless of how many units we add to our existing ones, we will NEVER reach four. Words - If I take two words, SOME and ONE and add them to two additional words, FACE and PALMS, I get a result of "SOMEONE FACEPALMS". Which is probably what will happen when PRO's maths teacher reads this debate. Unfortunately, I won't get to use any of those instances now. The challenge was to show that in certain instances, two units added to two other units do not result in four units. I was able to show this in the second round by exploiting specific characteristics of the units in question. PRO failed to rebut this example, and therefore it must stand unopposed. In failing to oppose this example, PRO has also lost the debate, thus failing to meet his second burden of "I will Win."It wasn't strictly mentioned to date, but safe to say this debate has served to also negate his final statement, that he is the best.Vote CON. Despite the fact that this whole thing has been typed in such an ugly font, it was my first debate here and I didn't even ask anyone how to embed a picture.
I'm going to win. 2+2=4 I'm the best

Thanks PRO for opening this debate. I tested PROs assertion by placing two drops of water into a glass, I then added a further two drops of water. According to PROs maths teacher, there should have been four drops of water in the glass, however in counting, I was only able to find one drop of water in the glass. It appears that in the case of drops of water, two and two actually equal one.
I'm going to win. 2+2=4 I'm the best

I accept. Since PRO has not defined the resolution at all, I will be arguing that two units with the addition of two further units does NOT equal four units. It will be my contention that while 2+2 SOMETIMES equals 4, this is not always the case. This makes PRO's resolution incomplete or incorrect. It is my further contention that PRO will NOT win. If they do then I will graciously admit defeat. If they lose or tie then THEY must admit defeat. Let us rock.
The earth is flat

The earth must be a sphere because of the Coriolis Effect. The Coriolis effect is based upon the rotation of the earth. How is it rotating in a way that it satisfies the theorem and is still flat? It is impossible! The Earth must be a sphere rotating along its axis for the Coriolis effect to work. So the earth cannot be flat. There is also something called momentum. If you were traveling on this flat earth, you would be going 9.8 meters per second in a direction. If you jumped then that would be adding to that speed, therefore, making you travel faster than the flat earth and float away from this earth. That is not the case. Also, if you jumped on this earth or even walked or ran (assuming you don't float off) You would be pushing the earth in the opposite direction it was heading. The force applied would not be a lot but I'm pretty sure that there were a lot of people jumped, ran, and or walked since the beginning of time. That would greatly slow the falling rate of you. You might say that the earth had a faster velocity a long time ago but that is not true because then the landscape that we have today would not be possible due to the pressure and other factors.
The earth is flat

The earth is not flat. Let us say that it is. Then, we would be attracted to the center of mass which would be the middle of the flat earth. Then, as we walked further away from the center, we would feel as though walking up a hill, getting steeper and steeper as we reached the edge. That is obviously not the case. So that contradicts our previous assumption that the earth is flat. Also, gravity naturally pulls matter into a shape with equally distributed forces, or in a nutshell, into a sphere shape. So the earth is not flat.
The US needs to do much more to combat climate change

You can't just "invest" in Wind and Solar. You have to choose specific technologies and specific firms that make those technologies to invest in, and we all know how the government picks its investments.https://en.wikipedia.org... The connected will get the money, rather than who has the best idea. In the private sector, if your company can make more money, you'll find investors. So I say stop subsidizing oil, let a few more years go by, alternative energy will already be cheaper without Uncle Sam spending any of his money, and climate change will effectively resolve itself.
The US needs to do much more to combat climate change

I like your point. However I think the Government should encourage wind and solar and invest in wind and solar when possible. I am not advocating for the government to get as involved as they are in oil or other forms of energy. But think about how much gov't is involved at the local levels with regards to our power. Their hands are all in it. The reforms cannot take place without the gov't getting out and letting the renewable take its course. Perhaps I was a bit wrong when i said they were already cheaper, i think my point is that if gov't was involved and invested in them the same way as oil they would be much cheaper and we would be economically stronger without having to pollute our enviroment to harness the energy. Any thoughts sir?
The US needs to do much more to combat climate change

Interesting point. I will assume it as true for the purpose of argument. Wind and Solar are already cheaper.Well, then the only intervention for the government would be stop subsidizing the oil industry (which I am in fully in favor of). With no subsidies, the oil industry crumbles, wind and solar become dominant, and all using the capital of the private sector rather than the government, and no inefficiency derived therefrom! That would be the simplest and cheapest solution, not to mention it would appeal to both right and left!
The US needs to do much more to combat climate change

Thanks to my opponent for his response. The united states needs to move toward renewables and not try to revert back toward reliance on fossil fuels. The current administration has been very vocal on doing this. Solar and Wind are already cheaper, its just their not getting there a ss wiped by the governments like the oil companies do. Right now if another energy crisis happened the US consumer would be hurt and our economy would grind to a halt. If we invest in renewables now and get off dependenct we can better look after ourselves without relying on the saudis to wipe our as ses. I look forward to my opponents response.
The US needs to do much more to combat climate change

Since my opponent gave a short blurb to define the debate, I will too in order to maintain parity.Basically, the fundamental issue is this: "Is drastic government intervention on behalf of the environment worth the cost?" Because solar and wind are expected to be cheaper than fossil fuels by at most 2030 (likely a lot sooner)http://www.businessinsider.com...The question becomes "Is it worth the tremendous cost to slightly reduce greenhouse gas emissions for five to ten years?"
Rap Battle

Rap like me, you'll go straight to the top, keep doing what you're doing And you're sure to get dropped like a trick, nothings even up my sleeve A million albums sold and it's hard to believe well it's true homeboy It's not a lie, I used to sell tapes on sunny side I used to catch the 40 bus around the way Me and Fred Benz, slanging tapes all these things, that we did Grab the microphone and start making hits You fronting Mc, I hate to cap You make hit records and you still can't rap I said it before I'll say it again you don't believe me, ask your fans When I walked into Cali The place was packed, Sir Too Short don't stop that rap I keep rapping my rhymes, all the time, you got no rhymes So you listen to mine I'm not starting a fight, just telling it right The best dam rapper who ever grabbed the mic His name is Too Short, now shut your mouth In '81 I was rocking the house, I'm a hustler, and im a fighter.
Rap Battle

Ladies and gentlemen! Thank you for your attention! But I think I forgot to mention that you're in the fourth dimension. Yes, The Russian can time-travel but first imma throw you on the gravel and then beat you with paddle, Should I change the title? cause this is a massacre, not a battle. Sure, try to run, but you'll be dead before I'm done, with a bullet through the head, 2.7 grams of lead. No no dude, keep trying! In a few years you'll be flying! But you'll never be as dope as I, This is a V-I-C-T-O-R and Y.
Rap Battle

you might be trying to diss but in fact you should be full of fright, i wanted to give you a little time in the light, but its time i show you a real lyrical fight, you think your all cool cuz you think you can rhym, but in fact when i was reading this i felt like it was a wast of my time, rhyms like these need to be put to rest, cuz your words dont even come close to the best
Rap Battle

Welcome! Let's just have us a little rap battle shall we? Voters: Distribute points however you wish, pay no attention to grammar. Once I get started, You'll be drowning in my raps! You'll be bombarded, like a German plane by flaks So, what's your name? Claire? Oh, I really don't care I'm just askin to be polite, 'cause I'm a Gentleman by day, and a rapper by night
The penny should be immediately discontinued.

I will follow my opponents order, and then give my conclusion. Contention 1: My opponent attempts to prove that the United States can grow all of its own food by saying it has been done before. Not only does he give no evidence of this, but this is not relevant to the debate. Within the last few decades, the population has exploded within the United States, creating not only a higher demand for food, but less space to grow it. As this portion of the attack falls (and as I have shown, this portion must hold up for the attack to hold up), this attack falls and my contention 1 stands through the final round. Contention 2: My opponent claims that since more than half of the prices are marked to be rounded up to the nearest nickel, people would have to pay more. However, as he ignores the three factors I mentioned that randomize rounding (multiple item purchases, sales tax, and stores changing pricing strategies), this attack fails and my second contention stands. Contention 3: My opponent attempts to prove that our dependencies would simply shift because the supply of other coins would increase. However, he gives no logical reasoning or proof that this would happen. In fact, this scenario seems very illogical. He then goes on to a red herring asking about a slippery slope leading to "using 100 dollars to buy a gallon of milk." Hence all of this attack must be ignored and my 3rd contention stands. Contention 4: My opponent STILL misunderstands this attack. The point of the germs reference is simply showing that the penny has so little nostalgic value that people are worried about the germs. As this attack remains unblocked, it stands through the final round. Contention 5: My opponent assumes that since it costs billions extra to make pennies it must cost at least as much if not more to make other coins. However, this is only possible if there is a bigger difference in the price to make vs. actual value in the other coins. As he has given no proof of this, the assumption must be ignored. As all of my contentions and attacks stand at the end of this debate, I must strongly urge a vote in affirmation of today's resolution.
The penny should be immediately discontinued.

Once again, same order 1st cont: he seems to have failed to remember that the entire world used to run off the crops they themselves grew, not by other people. And when/if we start importing food, IT WILL COST MONEY, and lots of it, therefore outweighting any small amout we might be overpaying to make the iconic penny. 2nd Cont: Now onto the whole roundung situation. How many products do you see that are like 19.05 or 13.24..little, if any. Most produts are such prices like 19.95, or 14.99. in face maore then half of all products are that way, not exactly half, therefore NOT neutral. 3rd Cont: I did not drop it, i proved we would just switch our dependence from china to other countries, or possibly even stay on china. and if we get rid of all the pennies, then we are going to need to replace them with nickels and dimes. and whatabout when they get too expensive to make, do we get rid of coins until its all bills, then work our way thruogh all the bills until we are all using hundreds to buy a gallon of milk? 4th Cont: The germ issue applies even more to bills then to pennies, once again, bill are made of linen a very easy cloth to contaminate with batcteria. 5th Cont: If it cost BILLIONs of dollar to make pennies, then that must mean the same if not even more with nickels, dimes, quarters, ect. So, in conclusion, i beg you, don;t get rid of the penny, it would be just as unpatriotic as ripping up the Lincon monument, or toppling th eStatue of Liberty.
The penny should be immediately discontinued.

For reader/voter convenience I will go in the same order my opponent does Cont. 1- In order for this response to have a chance to hold water, my opponent first must prove that the United States indeed has the resources necessary to grow enough food for the whole nation. Until my opponent gives proof of this, the food portion of the response must be ignored. If we do not have the facilities to do so, then importing food is certainly not a waste of money as it helps ensure the continuation of the nation. As far as the monuments go, the point of having them is to commemorate the various historical heroes of our country. My point is that we are paying extra money to keep the penny when there is no reason to keep it other than your suggestion of the benefit nostalgic value which I have shown not only to be outweighed by the harm of economic down-fall but that it in-fact does not exist. And as I showed in my first contention, the penny is NOT a small waste of money. Cont. 2- My opponent forgets that the other half of products would go down in his hypothetical situation. However, this is not a viable situation unless stores never changed pricing strategies, sales tax would be eliminated, and people never bought more than one item, all of which randomize rounding. In fact, a recent study(http://www.wfu.edu...) confirms that the effect of rounding would be neutral. Cont. 3- Here my opponent drops that we would lessen our dependence and that that would be beneficial, thus those points stand. He goes off into an illogical point that we would become more dependent on countries making the ingredients for other coins. I ask how is it possible that lowering the need of zinc heightens the need for other metals. Cont. 4- I am sorry, there has been some misunderstanding. When I said the penny has no value, I meant nostalgic value. The stat with 58% saving and the germ reference were simply to point out that people think so little of the penny that they not only put them away rather than keep to spend them but germs actually become a bigger part of the decision of whether or not to pick up a penny off the ground than the value of the penny, actual or nostalgic. (Besides that money "poured back" into the economy would just raise inflation.) Last paragraph- Please note I never said that the penny would be THE reason for an economic recession, just a contributor. My opponent concludes by saying that the amount of debt grows "THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, not by pennies." Considering that I have proven that the penny costs us BILLIONS of dollars and this has remained uncontested, this only strengthens my argument. Now, I must wait for my opponent's closing statements.
The penny should be immediately discontinued.

I will attack his case first then defend mine. 1st Cont:It is a waste of money. when you think about it food is a waste of money as well. Why should we pay thousands a year to other people/countries to grow food when we can grow it ourselves? So pennies are a small waste of money, but was it a waste, once again, to build the monuments? 2nd Cont:They are a waste if time. If they are a waste of time why do we continue to make them? We make them because they help to even our money transactions. We can't just round everything to to nearest nickel, because then half of the products would be MORE expensive then before, therefore wasting cash as well. We need the penny to help keep the current prices steadier then they would be otherwise. 3rd Cont:We would lessen dependence on China. Maybe we would but then we would relie more on the countries making the other ingredients for other coins, like steel(iron), nickel, and we would still need alot of zinc. 4th Cont:Penny has no value. The 58% of people who save them are saving them for a reason...to spend them! Therefore, more money into the economy in a bigger amount. and the whole germ situation, that WILL NEVER CHANGE. Dollar bills are made of linen, a very easy-to-contaminate cloth that holds even more germs then the penny, therefore if we went off hygiene, we hould eliminate currency altogether. O.k., now i will defend my case. Argument, the U.S. would be in danger of breaking apart. The penny will not be the reason for the destruction of the U.S. The trillions of dollars of national debt will do it. Those amount grow by THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, not by pennies.
The penny should be immediately discontinued.

When you think of America you think of things like the Statue of Liberty or the sunn beaches of Miami or LA. When it comes to symbols of america though, it is hard to beat the iconinc penny. it is the commenest coin in America and is therefore easy to recognize when you see a penny in the newsparer or ont the internet that it means haing to do with currency. We cannot simply get rid off the penny. That is like blowing up the Lincon Monument or toppling the Washington Monumet. It just simply isn't even thought of.