BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
'Under God' should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance

Introduction I would like to begin by thanking Con for giving me his arguments towards why the term "Under God" should remain within the United States Pledge of Allegiance. Because Con has informed me that he is having some technical difficulties with his computer, spelling and grammar will not be a problem in his arguments. Now that introductions and thanking is complete, it is time for rebuttals and any last arguments I may have. Rebuttals "I would like to say that among adults in America 78.4 % are Christian and only 1.6 % are Atheists[sic]" Indeed, that may be true. There are many more Christians in the US than Atheists. However, that does not mean they can be excluded from the law? There are a few concepts of Democracy. I will tell you about the one that matters in this situation: Majority rules; minority rights. If the views of the minority, who have their own beliefs and opinions, were not accepted, it would be considered discrimination. Unfortunately, Con then went on to completely ignore the non-religious, when saying that "we all have something that we put [our] full trust/faith in". Not everybody, meaning Atheists, believes in a higher power. Now, in his argument, he is referring to God as an object. According to the definition, it is true. However, most people do not think of God that way. There are people who do not believe in a God at all. They do not even think of God as an object. Those people should not have to endure this. They should be able to endure equality and 'minority rights'. Con has not answered my question. I asked: "If it suddenly became 'One Nation Under Buddha', would you have a problem with that?" I believe Con thought be was answering it by saying, "So for America to say the one nation Under God it's sort of like In God we trust no mater what religion or belief we all have something that we put are full trust/faith in science God Buddha the Flying spaghetti Monster[sic]." Unfortunately, he did not say whether he would have a genuine problem with it. What about if it was "One Nation Under Xenu" or "One Nation Under The Flying Spaghetti Monster". I guarantee many people would have a huge problem with that. In Con's next argument, I would like to see an answer to the question. Conclusion As I believe I have stated all the rebuttals and arguments necessary for this round, it is now time for Con to give his arguments. I look forward to his answer to my question and his rebuttals to my rebuttals.
'Under God' should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance

Sorry about the grammar my computer crashed and I am now writing on a device with a terrible spelling/grammar check so please forgive my grammar I shall do by best though. With that out of the way I would like to say that among adults in America 78.4 % are Christian and only 1.6 % are Atheists as you can see here http://religions.pewforum.org... and also you can see that there are a ton of religious people agnostic and atheists in America. Now look at this link http://www.merriam-webster.com... if you read the whole thing then you will see that god in general terms can also mean a OBJECT http://www.google.com... here is the definition of worship. So for America to say the one nation Under God it's sort of like In God we trust no mater what religion or belief we all have something that we put are full trust/faith in science God Buddha the Flying spaghetti Monster Tv you name it. So basically we are one nation under what ever we personally believe in You may believe in evolution you have adoration and faith in it and I have faith and full trust in Jesus Christ.
'Under God' should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance

'Under God' should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance I wish to have a serious debate concerning the fact that the phrase 'Under God' should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. My opponent, however, will be arguing the case that the phrase 'Under God' should not be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and should persist in being. Rules: 1. Proper spelling and grammar must be used at all times 2. All arguments must be relevant and sophisticated 3. All sources must be cited correctly using MLA format Rounds: Round 1: Acceptance Only Round 2: Arguments Only. There will be no rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals and any last arguments. Round 4: Any last rebuttals and conclusion. I look forward to having this debate.
the united states has a moral obligation to promote just governance in developing nations.

first i would like to say thank you for my accepting my debate and i am doing this debate for school and wanted to see how well i do with it now to dicuss the topic i woud like to clarifie that our government helps other governments in these way, military and economic assistance the us giving aid to other countrays date back to world war 2 when the American Relief Administration, directed by Herbert Hoover who was prominent in the CRB, did food distribution to war-devastated European countries. It also distributed food and combatted typhus in Russia during 1941 - 1943. The U.S. Congress appropriated money for the ARA under the Russian Famine Relief Act of 1921 after the cold war the United States began giving large amounts of aid to Greece and Turkey under the Truman doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org... for right now those are some of the examples how we helped other countries in early years
According to the Christian Bible only Christians go to heaven

For this debate, all what I need to do to win is to show just one example of a non-Christian going to heaven. Fact 1: Babies go to heaven "Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods, that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind; (Jeremiah 19:4-5) Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it. (Deuteronomy 1:39) "Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, As infants that never saw light. There the wicked cease from raging, And there the weary are at rest. (Job 3:16-17) "Moreover, you took your sons and daughters whom you had borne to Me and sacrificed them to idols to be devoured. Were your harlotries so small a matter? You slaughtered My children and offered them up to idols by causing them to pass through the fire. " (Ezekiel 16:20-21)Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. " (Matthew 19:13-14) "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut. 24:16). In addition, there is a story in David's life where he lost his baby and exclamed that he will see him again. Fact 2: Elijah was not a Christian, but went to heavenThe fact that he went to heaven is very clear. He was taken to heaven alive: "And it came to pass, as they went still on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. "How do I know Elijah was not a Christian? Simple, Jesus never came and thus could not have confessed his sins and accepted Jesus as savior. Remember, you have defined "christian" as one who fully trusts in Jesus. They didn't even know the Messiah's name would be Jesus. Fact 3: Enoch was not a Christian, but went to heaven. This is re-affirmed in the book of Hebrews. He is listed as the "hall" of faith and talks about God taking him alive. This is consistant with Genesis. How do I know he wasn't a Christian? Same way Elijah wasn't a Christian! | Conclusion |I have given examples of how a person who has not confessed there sins can go to heaven. Therefore, I have won this debate.
According to the Christian Bible only Christians go to heaven

My argument is that, according to the bible, the only people that go to heaven are people who accept Jesus as their Savior and know that they need forgiveness from God. We see this throughout the bible from Genesis to Revelation. When looking at Adam and Eve someone could say, "They would have never known about the historical figure Jesus, meaning they could not be saved." True, they would not have known specifically about Jesus but they did know that they needed forgiveness from God somehow. Moving on to some verses that imply the only way to get to heaven is through Jesus. John 14:6 - "Jesus answered, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except threw me." I believe this is Jesus making a clear statement that He is the only way to heaven. Matthew 26:39 - "[...] My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me [...]" Jesus even asks if their is another way to give people salvation. The answer is clearly no. It must also be made clear that Jesus was not asking because He did not know the answer. He was asking so that we would know there is no other way to heaven. John 6:40 - "For my fathers will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" Acts 16:31 - "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved- you and your household." Ephesians 2:8 - "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God." Romans 10:9 - "That if you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." This is the most compelling in my mind.
God Is Real

I'll go through my opponents response, then do any clarification that is needed. [Summary + responses] 1. Science disproves miracles --> My opponent makes the point that timing does not make a miracle. Ok, but lets use the source my opponent has used, the bible (Exodus specifically). If the twelve plagues actually happened, but were due to natural causes that does not disprove the fact that it is a miracle. This is true for two reasons: a. It seems very odd that a people that were enslaved just so happened to be freed because 12 horrible things occurred to the Egyptians. 12 natural occurrences helped a people that prayed for this to happen. That is too coincidental. b. Definition of miracle: "any amazing or wonderful occurrence." These occurrences were indeed miracle because they were amazing and wonderful to the Israelites. 2. (His attack) Syllogism 1 --> My syllogism 1 does not say that there was a creator, it only proves the point that the universe had a beginning. Proving the part of God comes into Syllogism 3, not 1. 3. Big Bang --> This only proves my point. The big bang started the unvierse, but how can amtter have been there for an infinite amount of time. This leads us to the conclusion that: a. All matter had to be created b. Universe was infinite a --> Only proves my point that the universe had to have a beginning, but if science was utmost, then there could never be a beginning, because matter can create itself. b --> Mathematically an scientifically impossible. Time could not exist if the universe was infinite. If time can't exist, matter cannot exist, because they both need each other. 3. Science is ever changing --> If this were true then science could not answer any questions because it could not be correlated together. Furthermore, it would not be absolute, and thus answers would be relative. 4. Science proves natural creation --> Science proves that: A. There was a beginning (This fact we dont dispute) B. Science is subordinate to its own laws, and thus creation is impossible (he drops this in his rebuttal) C. Obviously we exist, thus since science cant have "first creation" then the cause for it is beyond the physical, because it needs to be because it needs to be outside the laws of nature. D. This force we call God.
God Is Real

Ahh..My Opponent makes some good points and breaks down my statements to make them seem useless. Science does indeed disprove Miracles, but just because something happens at a time in which is good for someone's use doesnt mean it was done by some external being. The fact that a volcano errupted and in turn a river miles away turned red does not mean that some "God" used nature to do his bidding. If thats the case, does this mean that his bidding is to kill people all over the world? This proccess happens in random places near inactive volcano's around once every fifty years. As to your idea's that (:A. Everything that exists has a beginning. B. The Universe exists. C. Thus, the universe has a beginning.:) This is true but it being a fact that due to its own existance, a external being must have made it, that does not neccassarily have to line up. Ever heard of the Big Bang Theory? In the begginning, there was darkness, then slowly, atoms and began to form. As they began to form, they made up two parts of the known Element Table. After many of what we of the now, call years, the atoms multiplied and evolved, and after many of what we call Billions, of years, there was many elements and some began to react with each other, due to this imbalance, they began to implode upon themselves. When the implosion was complete, the now destroyed atoms began to fuse with other destroyed atoms and shot out across the darkness. Then, after a few more billion years, planets and suns were made. This is part of the theory which describes how the universe came to exist. Now, on to your Science comments. Science is "ever-changing" so if you look in every corner you can find everything can be shown if you turn to science. Sorry for that extremely short answer, but i am running low on time so I will try to finish my point. My Opponent stats that God is atemporal and aphysical. That is to say, if there really is a god then he would have to be of that sense to have such things made about him without being around for people to see. Some people that say they see god and then they get put into some kind of medical facility and are usually found to have some kind of illness: mentally or physically. As for your Final Conclusion "God is needed for the creation of the universe, thus our existence as a universe proves his existence." I have to say that science proves the creation of the universe could happen naturally, and thus a naturally formed universe would destroy your point. God is just the thing people think of or "see" when they lose someone or something or get "lucky" and have to praise something. Time for a Rebutle?
God Is Real

I'll go through my opponents opening argument, then move to mine. My opponent says that he wants to focus on the Christian God, however the topic of debate is "God Is Real", doesn't say the Christian God is real, thus my only obligation is to prove that a God does indeed exist. Summary of opponents case + responses: 1. The Bible He claims that Christians claim that the Bible is proof of God's existence. --> I argue that the Bible is an externality of God's existence, but it does not prove his existence. --> Even if you don't but that argument, I would argue that his logic can be applied to anything. For example, my science textbook says that the earth is made of rock. Ok, how do I know that from just reading a book? For all I know it could be made of cheese. 3. Science disproves Miracles E.g. River turning into blood. Due to volcanoes and toxins. --> For arguments sake I will defend this from a Catholic perspective. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God is omnipotent, but still bound to his creation's laws. This is confusing, but in short omnipotence is not the ability to do whatever, but the ability to whatever within boundaries. Link this to the river turning into blood. Yes, it was because of a volcano, but that doesn't disprove God's intervention. Miracles are merely God's intervention with nature and science. Furthermore, my opponent concedes that something of that nature did happen. Ok, I would say the timing was quite appropriate. Furthermore, remember the crossing of the Red Sea. At that time an earthquake and a rockslide prevented the water from flowing. Again, natural, but a timely intervention of God. [Case] I affirm: God Is Real I'll make this short, in syllogism form. Syllogism A A. Everything that exists has a beginning. B. The Universe exists. C. Thus, the universe has a beginning. Syllogism B A. Science is the governing natural law B. Science is bound by its own laws C. Science in its present form cannot create anything new (E.g. Law of Thermodynamics #2) D. Thus, science cannot explain the beginning. Syllogism C A. God is atemporal and aphysical B. Since science is subordinate to itself, something beyond the natural is needed C. Therefore, God is that being. Final Conclusion: God is needed for the creation of the universe, thus our existence as a universe proves his existence. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
God Is Real

For this I would like to correspond this conversation to that of the Christian Religion. Christians say that there is a god and the proof is in a book. Wow...a book...How can they know that the book wasnt written by a group of people in a room trying to further their religion? The normal response from them would be: This cant be because all the ideas focus on diffrent things yet somehow correlate to the same event. Well then how about one person in a room? There are many ways that someone can create a religion and write some book speaking about how all these magical things happen. Next, they would speak about all these miracles that happen. Wow turning a river to blood. Science has proof that this happened due to an eruption from a volcano miles away in which the fumes and other toxics went into the water, thus reappearing near villages, and then a christian would say that god killed the children that were the oldest. The child who is the oldest sleeps closests to the floor so when the fumes and toxics are released they are usually the only ones effected. There is a way to solve every problem located in their "book." This is the end of my Opening Statement.
should people date online

My opponent made some good points, but I don't believe its justification enough to date online. Online dating tends to favour people who are attractive even if they have very little to offer in the way of personality or character. Having a sense of humour pales in comparison to a nice face or great physique. You might be attracted to someone physically, but in real life you might not get along. People tend to give inaccurate representations of themselves on their profile, so it’s not easy to judge someone, until you meet them in person. Women put more emotion in the virtual dating world because they seek a soul mate, whereas men are typically after a more casual relationship. Online dating can make people very vulnerable, for example; if you think you’re dating someone your age, and then you meet up with them, it’s possible they could be an old man who wants to grope you or worse.Be practical, don't date someone 300 miles away, there are more than enough people per town or city.
should people date online

i agree with my opponent in round 1 i also disagree here"s why: some people that date online dont cheat and date more than 1 person on the internet. here"s some pros reasons i think people should date online: Over 40 million singles in the U.S have tried online dating. One out of five relationships start online. Whether it"s on Social media, Facebook, Twitter, a mobile app, or traditional online dating site, there are a lot of success stories. It"s efficient and available 24-hours a day. Many sites provide matching tools and send you emails of suggested matches to make it easier for you to view potential dates. You may have friends in common which will make you more comfortable. Pro: You can determine if there"s chemistry in person sooner. Pro: It"s pre-dating, without the pressure of wondering if you"re date"s profile is accurate. Pro: You can easily date in groups, while developing new friendships with people with similar interests. Pro: Dating sites have entered the events business giving you more choices to meet in person, without the pressure.
should people date online

How authentic can an online relationship be? It's likely that whoever you're dating online will be playing the field, meaning they probably have a few people on the go and you'd be a fall back option. Most people you meet online are from different countries, so chances are you'd be dating someone far away, too far to see often, if ever. I don't believe you'd be able to maintain a relationship, where you can't physically be with that person, as you'd be unable to attend to certain human needs, such as supporting them in their daily life for example: Drive them to work, take them to the cinema, hug, kiss, make love. Do you even know who you're dating? You might have seen a picture of them, or even skyped them, but they could hide so much from you, it'd be unrealistic to discover anything they didn’t want you to know, because you can't come around their house.
should people date online

online dating should happen because: Experiences with online dating tend to be mixed. Some people have excellent experiences with online dating that end in satisfying relationships. Others have stories filled with confusion and frustration. Thus, much like any other way to date, meeting someone online has both benefits and drawbacks. so how does someone date online successfully? As it turns out, a simple analysis of the pros and cons of online dating can help out a great deal. Fortunately, the psychological research just happens to have such an analysis. Online dating provided individuals with access to many more potential partners than they could often find in their daily lives. This is especially true for individuals interested in partners of a particular type, orientation, lifestyle, or in isolated areas. Many online dating sites offer various types of personality testing and matching. Such matching can help guide individuals toward dating partners who may be more compatible. Online dating offers a number of ways to get to know a potential date before meeting in person. Such computer-mediated communication allows for safe and convenient interaction, without much risk or time commitment. For the busy professional, or the safety-conscious, such communication is an excellent way to "test" potential partners. Overall, it is important to remember that online dating is best used as a resource to meet individuals for eventual face-to-face dating. Keeping that goal in mind will prevent you from getting stuck on the drawbacks and limitations of dating online. So, if you get confused, the best next step is always to move an interaction toward a date. If you are overwhelmed with access to too many choices, then find a way to narrow them down and find better matches. If you don't know what to do with a potential match, send them a quick communication. If you get frustrated with talking online, then suggest a meeting in person. Follow that process and you will more easily find a satisfying connection online and face-to-face too.