BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
their are four types of christian gods

thank you for your statements. Im still not sure how god is not random. here is an idea maybe god does random things to test our faith. but how do we know god even cares. how can we be certain of it. i understand miracles happen but their are billion and billions of particles in the world and billion of trillions of events happing every second this can be understood with probability and chaos theory which explains it much better then believing their is a giant man who stares at us from the sky. i also have a problem with that. it is not ok to socially believe in ghost goblins witches or monsters but it is ok to believe in a giant mythic powerful all seeing man with absolutely no description and hard found proof other then the romans stupidity of killing anyone who believes in him (which does not prove Jesus exist just that humans are stupid and vile) that lives in a mythical place called heaven where everything is perfect. it sounds to me like a fairy tale somebody made up and people jsut started beliving it for the sake of being afraid of death and that their is not afterlife. (this may seem really offensive and i dont meant it to be at all im just really confuesed on religion and i would love to discuss those points sometime!! i would also like to talk about some of the paradox's about god somtime after the "debate")
their are four types of christian gods

God is anything but random. That notion has been thrown around continually based on people"s lack of understanding of His ways. Yes, there are planets that we as fragile humans would consider harsh and hellish. There are around 1700 known planets now, and a scant few can maybe support life. Earth, our small planet in a relatively small system around an average sized star, is perfect to support life. If God just does things because He can, why does he bother with us? If you could create planets on a whim and build a universe with wonders like the eagle nebula or super massive black holes, why both with humanity? It"s because He loves us, he created us for a reason. We are the only creation in existence to be made in the likeness of our Creator. I am going to quote a man I do have a lot of respect for despite not being a Catholic myself. Bishop Robert Barron said, "God permits certain evils in his creation to bring about a greater good." History will continue to repeat itself not because God does not love us it continues because people do not love each other enough to stop it. God gave us freewill to do good and to do evil. But isn"t humanities greatest evil to sit back and watch the world suffer? We can expand more on God existing if you wish. I"m just going to give a couple quick points here because this is a topic I could go on about for days. Point one is the historical evidence for the life of Jesus. The second is the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches that can trace their foundations back to Christ himself through Peter who was crucified in Rome under Nero Augustus. Mainly I"m bringing this up for you, and I"d be happy to expand more on this if you feel up to it outside of the debate/discussion. The early church did a poor job of getting rich quick. Most of the apostles were martyred, Peter being crucified in Rome and Paul reportedly being beheaded. Early Christians were crucified, fed to lions, and forced to worship in secret. Though today Christianity is the largest religion in the world and people use it to make money (Joel Olsteen, for example) the vast majority of Christian"s in the Middle East and Asia are poor and face execution in places such as Syria. And of course God wanted to spread his lessons! There is an amazing book on my to read list http://www.americanminute.com... about how God"s word influenced American law. Sources https://www.rt.com... ) http://www.bethinking.org... http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.reasonablefaith.org... http://www.npr.org... http://www.bbc.com...
Resolved: America should elect Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump

Thanks again for debating this topic with me. I wish you the best of luck. I have very little time and I do apologize to my opponent. I will provide a brief summary of my opening arguments and present them in the next round, along with the rebuttals. As this is an on balance debate, my job will be to evaluate both candidates and make a solid case as to why Clinton should be elected President over Donald Trump. In my opening statements, I will layout a positive case for Hillary Clinton as well as a negative case for Donald Trump. In order to properly evaluate the candidates, we have to do more than just say “Candidate X believes Y and thus will be a good/bad president.” Instead, we must look at the proposals that both candidates have made and their experience to determine who will make a better leader for this country.My opening statements will look at economics, foreign policy, domestic policy, and the character of each candidate. These five things are necessary to give a proper evaluation of the candidates. Again, I do apologize, I just don't want to forfeit the round and leave the debate in limbo. I look forward to reading your opening statements.
Resolved: America should elect Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump

Resolved: On balance, Americans should elect Hillary Clinton as President over her rival Donald J. Trump.Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Rebuttals4. Closing arguments/rebuttalsDefinitionsShould: Should implies that we have some obligation to do so on the basis of the evidence presented. As such, this will be based on a balancing of the pros and cons of each candidate. That balance makes this an on balance debate, meaning that neither of us have the burden of proof. [1]Terms and Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Follow the structure of the debate properly11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossTime: The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms. Thanks to Cooldudebro for accepting this debate.Notes1. Thanks to whiteflame for providing the working definition of "should." (http://www.debate.org...)
Israel is Justified in Attacking Hamas' Forces in the Gaza Strip.

Israel is justified in attacking Hamas' forces in Gaza. The attacks by Hamas and comparable groups have been unprovoked and are unjustifiable. Israel has every right to defend itself and has given Hamas more than enough opportunities to end conflict peacefully. Since it's inception Israel has not forced it's will on the people of Gaza, and barring the relocation of Palestinian peoples has done nothing to provoke attacks other than being Jewish (stated in regards to the feud between Islam and Judaism). It is not only the duty, but the right of Israel to defend itself against the horrible attacks of Hamas on its people. Not only has Hamas provoked Israel but they have done so with total disregard for the Geneva Conventions. They have consistently acted violently using methods not of waging conventional war, but of purely terroristic nature. It can no more be said that Israel can allow such attacks on its people than it could be expected that any government would turn a blind eye to the slaying of thousands of women and children in it's own country. Israel has been provoked, and after it has exhausted numerous peaceful measures in attempt to disarm Hamas it is inevitable that Hamas will continue to fight with terroristic violence. From a tactical and political standpoint it is evident that the only way of stopping Hamas' attacks is to actively hunt Hamas. The old adage of the best defense being a good offense is certainly true in this scenario. All other measures have been tried and failed. It is no longer a decision of should Israel attack or not, but a decision of should Israel defend itself or not.
Israel is Justified in Attacking Hamas' Forces in the Gaza Strip.

Since my last argument, and as would be expected from a few days, hundreds of innocent Palestinian women, children, and elderly have been massacred by the Israeli government, with no further Israeli deaths. As would be expected, rocket attacks have not stopped, but have continued at their retributively intensified rate. As would be expected from a still new, politically timed offensive, the government continues to poll well with its previously more dovish constituency. Any reasonable person will conclude that: a)The actual reason for "attacking Hamas" (electoral success) is nothing like the rhetorical one, and b)Even the rhetorical reason is unjustified, because it punishes collective punishment with collective punishment, 100 times over, thus having no knowledge of the reason collective punishment is considered illegitimate in the first place.
same thing: self defense, tiller's abortions, and someone killing two year olds

Realizing Your Mistakes, Missed By The Eye: I clearly stated that abortions are legal, subtracting the one you mentioned. Aborting and Murder look different, but this is normal since they are different. I'm not supporting Abortion, but stating that they are not all the same, since that's what you asked for. I do not claim any understandability, but exploit the fact that you did not use correct terminology when you created the said debate. Abortion and Murder are not the same thing since they are practiced differently, thus making them much less than the same thing. I do not try to justify the action, but inform how they are different.
same thing: self defense, tiller's abortions, and someone killing two year olds

"You do not abort the same way you murder, which happens to be my main point, and requires a proper response. i recognize they look a bit different, but that's all. how is it significant? both involve killing a living human being for unjustifiable reasons. i can only assume ht epoint you are trying to make is the bit about "understandability", that's why i post that response, which you've yet to respond to. "Hopefully you realize that abortion is completely legal, subtracting the earlier one, but you failed to address that in your rebuttal. actualy, not all abortions are legal. that's one of my main points. illegal abortions of viable babies for trivial reasons.
same thing: self defense, tiller's abortions, and someone killing two year olds

First Corrections: I had hoped for a stronger rebuttal, something to base my argument on, in pursuit of a quicker response. This is a debate, making the subject open to debate. So therefore abortion was open to debate in this setting, where responses are necessary, so we can learn something from this debate. You failed to notice that the processes are different, and should be treated this way. You do not abort the same way you murder, which happens to be my main point, and requires a proper response. Hopefully you realize that abortion is completely legal, subtracting the earlier one, but you failed to address that in your rebuttal.
same thing: self defense, tiller's abortions, and someone killing two year olds

who cares what process was used. they are both illegal murders. you might be going down the road of, at least one is plausibly understandable, arguable, debateable etc. but just because abortion in general is debateable, that doesn't mean all abortions are. we shouldnt put the baby with the bathwater. who cares what process was used. they are both illegal murders.
same thing: self defense, tiller's abortions, and someone killing two year olds

I accept, giving that I understand that I must prove how self defense, tiller's abortions, and someone killing two year old are NOT the same thing. Lets begin. Open Minded....Somewhat: You have posted a debate to be answered by a certain individual. I'm guessing that's not me, but I still can debate most anything. So you ask how illegally aborting an unborn child and killing a two year old is different? Well, I think that we both know the difference is all in the process. You would not abort a baby anything like you would kill a two year old. You see, a baby is aborted through a process which cannot even relate to murder. Have you ever seen a John Two Shoe being killed by aborting to death? No, because John is already two years old, and therefore can only be killed in different ways. The Murderer must then either decide to kill the child, or not to kill the child. And, if his/her stereotype stays true, they will in fact kill the child. Most killers do not kill unborn children unless it happen to be in a victim. So, at a standpoint of process, abortion and killing a two year old are completely different, in process, and will not be treated the same.
same thing: self defense, tiller's abortions, and someone killing two year olds

tiller is a man who did late term abortions, of viable babies, for trivial reasons. one example is he killed a baby at 26 weeks because the mom wanted to go to a rock concert. he did not comply with rules that determine how to determine viability, etc. the next hypothetical says that a man is killing two year olds illegally. how is it different to be doing illegal abortions, than someone killing two year olds? it's essentially the same thing. for that reason, if we see that politics and law aren't working to stop the two year old killer, we should engage in defense of others and shoot the man killing the children. in teh same manner, at least when he's doing those illegal abortions mentioned, we should engage in defesnse of others of the babies being aborted, at least right before the abortion occurs. how are these situations different? if you use the soverignty of the mom... how is it not her fault that she didnt abort earlier when morally grayer (even the law recognizes no absolute right), and how not her fault that she is at least partially responsible for the child's existance etc? please say how these situations are different.
Atheism is more logical than theism.

As Pro stated in the second paragraph of Round 3, “Of course there is no empirical evidence to support Atheism or Theism; it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.”Therefore, with that said, I (Con) rest my case, that is, Theism is as logical as Atheism; as oppose to the title of this debate, “Atheism is more logical than theism.”Interesting about the difference between, “Gnostic atheism, and agnostic atheism.” Pro claims to be an “agnostic atheist” where Pro stated, “Agnostic atheism is the position of indifference on religious matters.” Interesting, for us Deist also shares the same “position of indifference on religious matters.” As for the difference between gnostic and agnostic, relative to theism or atheism simply boils down to the binary nature of belief or non-belief respectively. Pro stated, “Con brings up the fact that no isolated human culture has been atheistic. The reason for that is fairly simple. As a naturally curious species, humans always try to find answers for the things they do not know.” Hence, the discovery of the scientific method, a way to read the handwriting of God. When man morally follows God's handwriting, improves the standard of living in the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example, of what happens when we are morally free to follow such handwriting, with little resistance (Constructal Law), within the awesome machinery of God's Laws of Nature. Pro referring to “Christianity or Islam” is reference to religious dogma, which is off topic of this debate relative to the term “theism,” as defined by Pro in Round 2, reference (2).Thank you Pro for the reference to “Multiverse” (4) and the atheistic spin on it. From a Deist point of view, perhaps one of those “Multiverses,” may turn out to be the universe of God. I thank Pro's following closing with one correction, “I enjoyed debating you, and enjoyed being subjected to different opinions than that of my own and that of the opinion of deeply religious.”I (Con) is not “deeply religious” for I am a Deist who believes in God. “Religion” is not the topic of this debate. With that said, and in closing, my “agnostic” Friend Pro may one day find God through science. The awesome reality of us having this debate, while experiencing life in this universe out of many, anything may be possible, including the universe of God. So I too, will look forward in meeting Pro again on the debating floor.
Atheism is more logical than theism.

Con argues that the Burden of Proof does not apply to the existence of a deity. On the contrary, Burden of Proof does apply, as it applies to all epistemic claims. It is illogical to believe in anything without evidence.Therefore, it falls to me to give evidence that Theism is an epistemic claim. Let's start by examining at the definition of epistemic:"of or relating to knowledge or knowing" (1)And the definition of theism:"belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" (2)To summarize, theism is a claim that a god or gods exist. This is a claim to knowledge, which makes theism an epistemic claim, which thereby shows that the Burden of Proof is relevant to Theism.Most atheists do accept the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a logical belief, due to the multitude of evidence backing it. Deists, however, not only accept the Big Bang, but also declare that a god exists and caused the Big Bang, while atheists do not. However, without evidence of any sort of that happening, it is irrational to believe such a thing."until then, we have those who believe in God (Deist, Theist, etc.)---Creationist, or hypothetical assumptions (Atheist)---Evolutionist."Is Con proposing that a belief in creationism and accepting the Theory of Evolution are the only two paths? Evolution does not concern the creation of anything, life or otherwise. Evolution is merely talking about how preexistent life evolves. Thus, evolution and creationism are compatible beliefs. Also, you are using a common fallacy known as the "God of the Gaps Fallacy" (3). A lack of knowledge about a subject is not evidence for a god."the "logical" beginning of the universe being the Big-Bang is one of creation not evolution!"I think that there is a misunderstanding here on what evolution is. I never claimed, and nor do I believe, that evolution is the beginning of the universe. Evolution, as I explained above, simply refers to preexistent life forms. The Big Bang is what created the universe. I think the part that we disagree on, is the question of "What caused the Big Bang?".The answer is simply: The laws of physics. Quantum physics allows for quantum fluctuations, which temporarily alter the amount of energy in a point in space, which provided the energy needed to cause the Big Bang (4)(5).I have some questions for Con:You claim that you are a Deist, and that a Deist's beliefs are based on faith. What gives you that faith? Why do you have that faith? Do you think that faith without any sort of evidence is a logical belief?(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...(cosmology)(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheism is more logical than theism.

I, as Pro, will argue that atheism is more logical than theism. First, I will start out by talking about burden of proof. Burden of proof is the "obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position" (1). This means that the person making the positive claim (in this case, theists), have an obligation to provide evidence that there is an all-powerful creator or creators that control the universe. Therefore, I would like Con to start off by providing some evidence of the existence of whichever god/deity they believe in. If no valid evidence can be given, this would lead to the notion that atheism is more logical than theism. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Courts have the responsiblity to create racially balanced schools

Questions for Tarronce 1 How can the desegregation plans bring more harm than good to our people when this plan was the only choice to bring our people together our plan not only was not only brilliant but it shows a good example of what the 14 amenity quoted that every organism is equal. 2 If the courts where powerless to combat my question to u is what would you do bring our community together if our plane was such a bad. 3 The court order shows that everyone can come together as a nation how can that bring negative if the court is trying to make a positive move to help the people and make Boston a better state for others. Answers to Tarronce's questions: 1 putting kids togther would only start a conflict if u let them the hold point of this bussing law was to bring black and whites togther so the goverment would come up whit a master plan a meeting with the teacher to make sure there wont be any conflict between the kids. 2 there edvidence shows clearly mom are protesting trying not to have the blacks kids go to a white school the kids are throwing eggs rocks and es at the busses that clearly shows they dont want black and rights toghther which tells me that the white kids are quoteing there better or different due to there actions. 3 yess the court did stop the fights and the violence thats why there giveing a law to put blacks and whites togther makeing this nation a better place.
Courts have the responsiblity to create racially balanced schools

Q: wouldnt putting together diverse kids create more conflict ? ..... (haaan) Q:Do you have any edvice when you state the the school district broke 14 amendment ( or yu juss satein FEIBS boy!) lmgao Q: who real stop all the violence back in 1964 1974 and all the other time where raceial stuff was getting to hetic ... NOT the amry COPs bearly could .. the court right
Courts have the responsiblity to create racially balanced schools

affirmative 1 In 1964 many kids started boycott 1 kids refuse to attened there school many kids got home school 2 kids started throwing eggs and other metarals at the buses which the black were on 3 kids and there parents started protesting around boston affirmative 2 In 1974 court ordered busing was the only strategy that could have desgregated 1 blacks already tired different things but didint have enough money 2neighboohs were segragted and kids went to there neighboorhood schools 3 the parents still didnt had a choice by the court of law there had to bring both kids togther so now thats started a problem beteween the people and the court of law affirmative 3 Race should be used as a basis for school assignment 1 justic sstephen breyer wrote down yess putting kids togther race would related a conflict 2 judge alex member of the arh circut started putting both black and whites togther which made him thinks that now one race have a power over a norther 3 the school districts went aginnist the 14s amendnt which said everyone is equal but the school still went agenst the law putting kids in different schools making it hard on not just the parents but the kids also 1