BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Concept of God or Allah

Concept of God or Allah. Suppose i created a male and female frog, then threw them in a circular well. the well has 7 stones. After some years , the frogs start thinking how their god looks like. So they thing their god is also a frog , but mightier. he has children's that is tadpoles, which later become frog. So they make statue of frog and start worshipping it. But i created frog, and i am not a frog but a human being. So i feel insulted that instead of worshipping me , they are worshipping frog statue. Similar is the case of human beings. the circular well is the world. Seven stones in well are continents. Just like how a frog cannot climb the wall of well to see me, In a similar way human beings require to travel billions of years to see or meet God or Allah, which they cant. Some human being of this type of R34;R06;mentalityR36; start making stone statues or R34;#R06;idolsR36; ,like frog does, and start worshipping them, instead of God or Allah. Finally , i request my christian brothers, hindu brothers, Buddhist brothers, and all idol worshippers to read Quran or listen to Quran in your mother tongue, like English, hindi , Urdu, Kannada ,French, German etc, and then decide whether you want to convert to Islam, or continue with your old religion. So Read Quran in any language, convert to Islam, enter paradise or jannat, and leave happily for ever. accept Islam by saying " there is no god but Allah, and prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) is the messenger of Allah ". Day of Resurrection or qayamat is very near
Mormonism sucks, and is stupid

Tariff You dont pay 10% to be a mormon, you pay 10% to be a member of LDS. Every church in the US needs tariffs to exist. They just choose to pool the money so that churches world wide can exist. Its kind of like religious, unofficial government. Weddings I know thats not the purpose, im just saying that all religions follow thier own belief structure so its unfair to call them stupid because of it. Seclusion: your friends community did that to him, not his religion. moromon asks for a moral lifestyle, but morals are interpretable by community. Misunderstanding of the religion: Yes, all stimulants and barbituates are banned unless they cause you are in danger if you dont take them. I didnt say i agreed with it, just informing you so you can inform your friend. Your examples: Im not saying that these outdated ideas are sensable, only that they ar religion 101. In any form of christianity, somebody saying "masturbation is natural" is a sinner. And as far as the racism, same thing! If you want me to agree that Mormonism is stupid, i will only under the circumstance that you call all religion stupid. The reason is say so is because ridiculous backwards tihnking is religion 101 and is seen no more or less than in mormanism.
Mormonism sucks, and is stupid

10% of money goes to the church. -the 10% tariff is an oold bibilical thing. it was done for many years in the christian religion. also, LDS is not a very much followed church (at least comparatively). They need money. And if you dont want to pay, there are independent churches. Non Mormons can not attend Mormon weddings. -not a fan of this rule. i have a number of mormon friends and i know i wont be able to attend. But so many religions have rules like this. its a strict religious kinda thing. In arab judaism, they establish communities of varying size and remain very secluded. look to the SY community in brooklyn, ny. its unfair to label mormonism as ridiculous under this circumstance when its such a universal occurence in orthodox religion. Raising kids in secluded environments. -many religions prefer to base themselves in secluded areas. there are plenty of mormons living abroad. its not the religion, but the social aspect (as seen in all religions) that keeps people secluded. children generally don't understand why they behave certain ways are do certain things in most religions, the reason why is taught as well at an early age. But when a teenager cannot answer why he doesn't drink coffee, then it get worrying. -i can tell you why: mormons follow the strict code that any stimulant or supressent (unless under extreme circumstances) is abuse of the body god gave you. all caffine is prohbited. im suprised a life-long mormon doenst know that, but thats poor teaching, not the religion itself. i must insist, imposing silly rituals is religion 101. not a fan of it, but its a fact of life. mormonism is only strict becase they are a people very well connected with their faith.
Mormonism sucks, and is stupid

Ok good, sorry about that, and the miss understanding. so to the debate. You respond to all my arguments by saying all religions follow these, so let me go to show why this is not true. 10% of money goes to the church. This is not true for all religions, let alone most of them. Yes in some religions, such as christianity, there is a collection, but it isn't mandatory. Sometimes people do not even go to church to worship. Hinduists, for example often worship at home with out giving ten percent of their earning to the church. Non Mormons can not attend Mormon weddings. This is not true for all religions. Christians can marry non Christians, Islamics can marry Jews or Christians, and hinduists can have interfaith marriages Raising kids in secluded environments. again this isnt true teaching beliefs since birth. yes others do this, i wasn't trying to say that children generally don't understand why they behave certain ways are do certain things in most religions, the reason why is taught as well at an early age. But when a teenager cannot answer why he doesn't drink coffee, then it get worrying. your next point that all religions have "silly" aspects is completely true, i am simply stating that these these aspects are alot more extreme with Mormons, and impact then in a mmuch greater way. so basically its not the fact that other religions have these aspects, but that Mormons are much more extreme, and influential on the people.
Mormonism sucks, and is stupid

Ok, i understand. I just hear of many people who claim "its a clut" or "its not christianity at all" (refering to the LDS). I was merely angry about that, but im equally interested in an informed debate. To responde to all of your examples of how mormonism is bad, we must realize a simple fact: all religions follow this. Find me a religion that doenst heavily promote the teaching of itself to the offspring of faithful. Find me a religion that doesnt have a set of rules that outsiders would find "silly". Judaism says that prok is dirty, even though we know for a fact that it is no dirtier than beef or chicken. It also believe that it is a sin to eat meat with dairy products. The epispocal church chooses the eating and drinking of the body and blood of christ (represented by wine and crackers) as a part of their religious practices. Find me a religion (specific) that doesnt concentrate in certain areas. Finally, your logic is flawed, to be a part of a religion it affects you (and usually your children). Moromons are just as tied to their faith as any other orthodox interp of any religion. I am not a mormon, nor do i find their beliefs spirtually enriching for myself. But if youre going to call the religion "stupid" as you did in your topic statement, you must see every religion as such as well
Mormonism sucks, and is stupid

Well thanks for your input ComradeJon, but i really wasn't referring to their traditions. My points were going to be more along the lines of how the religion affects the individuals. For example, there is a general rule that about 10% of money earned goes to the church family members who are not Mormon are unable to go to a Mormon family members wedding. How the great majority raise their families and children in areas heavily populated by other Mormons. ex: Idaho and Utah how children are taught to believe and follow all of the doctrines since birth, with out being given a choice these children generally don't understand why they behave certain ways are do certain things. My friend for example is almost 16 and still doesn't know why he cant drink coffee, but can drink coke So i really wasn't trying to bash there religion, just make it more interesting, and less formal. and i never said other religions don't believe strange things, but normally those things don't affect people and children the way Mormon beliefs do.
Mormonism sucks, and is stupid

This started because i have a good friend who is Mormon. I have known him for about five months, and during this time i always ask him questions about his religion. Yet everything he says is either a contradiction, doesn't make sense, is incredibly unbelievable, or just plan stupid. I have no problem with religion, or people having faith, but come on. Has anyone actually taken a moment to study this? So i invite anyone who thinks they can, especially if you are Mormon yourself, tell me why this branch of Christianity isn't stupid. so go ahead this is a 5 round debate make the first move and i will tell you why your points don't make sense, or are just stupid no offense
God does not love you.

I guess you don't have any fear that there is a Hell because you started your debate by saying you are going there and you obviously do not care. You don't know what you are doing. God loves you and He is pleading with you to believe him before it's too late. I guess you won't believe Him. He loves you and you are free to not believe Him if you don't want to believe Him. If he did not love you, it would be too late now and you would have no more time to reconsider. He won't wait for you forever. He is giving you more time than you deserve. He is giving you time because He loves you and does not want you to be lost to the fire of hell. You don't have to believe it. God loves you and he allows you to believe anything you want to believe. You can't say He didn't try to warn you. You can't say He did not lovingly plead with you to let Him save you from the fire of hell. Well I guess you can say that, but it won't change the fact that He loves you and He is pleading with you to trust Him and let him save you.
God does not love you.

God loves you. If that is not sufficient for you, you will run out of time and as you are rejecting God's love, you will be rejected by Him. "God loves you" does not mean you can continue in rebellion against Him forever. Your rebellion will be confined away from His heaven forever to the fire of hell if you don't drop it before it's too late. You man win this debate, but what good is that if you lose your soul forever in the fire of hell? God loves you and he wants you to reconsider believing Him. If you will not reconsider, you will get what you deserve, the same rejection you are giving to Him, He will give to you. If you don't care that He died in your place, why should He care when you choose to die for yourself by yourself? why should he not have you cast away like garbage? he loves you and He does not want you to burn in Hell. You are chooing the fire of Hell rather than to believe that He loves you. You are arguing against yourself, and you think you are winning? I'm sorry.
God does not love you.

God loves you. He loves you so much He came down from heaven and paid for your sins against Him. Death could not hold Him in the ground because He had no sin of His own. He died in your place to pay the price that you can never pay even in the fire of Hell which is, as you said, where you will go if you finalize your death trampling His blood under your feet after He gave His blood to pay for your sins, so He can be satisfied that the execution you deserve was done and you can be forgiven. If you don't care what He did for you, if you finalize your death rejecting Him who created you from being the One who could save you, He will reject you as you are rejecting Him. He loves you or He would not give you time to reconsider your deserved fate. If you end up in the fire of hell, it is only because you rejected the Saviour who died for you and you chose to pay for your own sins instead of believing on Him as your payment. If you say you will go to hell and you don't care, then you will be right and when you get there, it will be too late and you won't like it at all, never, forever, and the smoke of the torments of the people there will go up forever. There will be no arguments against God in heaven. he loves you and does not want you to burn in Hell or He would not tolerate your arguments against Him now and He would not give you any more time to reconsider your fate.
God does not love you.

I will go to Hell. After all I am an atheist. My opponent may argue that at some point in the future I will convert to Christianity, but I will still go to Hell. The holy ghost doesn't exist. I just committed blasphemy against the holy ghost, the one unforgivable sin. (1) Even if I were to convert I would be eternally damned. Now I ask my opponent how can God love me? I have done nothing wrong. I have no reason to believe in the holy ghost. I will not learn any lesson in Hell and even if I did it won't do me any good. No instead I will suffer forever for voicing my opinion. 1. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
God does not love you.

God loves you. I am against the idea that God does not love you. God loves you and He wants you to go to heaven. He loves you because you are made in His image. He made you for His own enjoyment, He wants to give you all of His blessings in heaven with so much good for you that you cannot even begin to imagine the good things God has in store for you if you go to heaven. God does not want you to burn in hell. He loves you and He is giving you time, pleading with you to let him save you from the fire of Hell.ou stated in your comments: Posted by SkepticalDebatee 9 hours ago My argument revolves around the fact that if God loved me he would not send me to Hell.*This is why I took the direct approach referring to Hell. I hope you will continue to abide by the rules and not make any kind of atheistic or agnorstic argument. This will be an interesting debate if you will keep it in the guidelines.God loves you, but if you are in rebellion against Him you cannot expect Him to allow you to be with Him in heaven. If he allowed rebellion to continue in heaven forever, heaven would be spoiiled. His anger builds against those who reject his love and choose to continue in rebellion untill he runs out of patience and they are cast away from him forever into the fire of hell that was made for the devil and his angels. God did not make hell for people, but there is no other place to put them if they are going to talk to Him and about Him like devils untill they die. God still loves you. He's still giving you time hoping you will trust Him to save you from the fire of hell.
God does not love you.

Here is an example of somebody who understood the terms of this debate and showed himself to be well mannered and civil.http://www.debate.org......He accepted the rules and ddi not violate in even the slightest way. This is the kind of debate I am looking for. The Con postion for this new debate is against the assertion that God does not love you. As Pro, you will argue that God does not love you. Ahteirstic or agnostic assertions are forbidden for this debate. You can say "God has not proven Himself to me.". "God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. For this debate you must allow that it may be possible for God to prove himself to you and it is possible that He is there. Agnosicism insists that you cannot know, Atheism insists there is no God. For this debate, you must allow the possiblilty that God can prove Himseff to you. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accetpt this challenge. If Pro, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Pro agrees to forfeit the debate and Con will not be required to supply any further arguments. Pro may ask questions about God, but a rhetorical question that allows only for denial of God's existence is disqualiying and forfeits the debate. Pro must argue how he knows God does not love him or her, and not argue that God is not there or that it is not possible to know God is there.People often say things like "if God loved me, He would not have allowed bullies to beat me up" or if God loved me, He would not have let my son be killed by a drunk driver" or "if God loved me, He would not have allowed me to be crippled in an accident" These are acceptable arguments. Saying that God has not proven Himself to you because there was a time when only God could help but He did not help is acceptable. Simply saying God has not proven Himself to me with no explanation is acceptable. But saying God cannot be proven because nobody can know that God is there is the agnostic argument and unacceptable in this debate. Saying God is not there is the atheistic argument and is unacceptable in this debate. Saying "I don't know if God is there" is acceptable, but you cannot say "nobody can know God is there" in this debate or you forfeit. Atheism and agnosicism which says you cannot possiblly know God is there or that He absolutely is not there are not allowed in this arguement.The definition of God is common and will not be argued in this debate.God is God and any contrary argument is automatic forfeiture.
Ultimate Music War. Literally.

I've entered and won MANY music wars here but they all had themes. WHat about an ALL OUT BATTLE? Where ALL GENRES, ALL SINGERS battle?!1 song per round, JUST BATTLE PUT UR FAVE ON! DO IT! JUST ALL OUT BATTLE IT OUT!MADNESS IS WHAT I DO... Rationality too but F*ck that sh*t for now.http://www.youtube.com...
The sawn off shotgun should not be illegal

The manufactured ones are already legal. So therefore, in order to be arguing that "sawn off shotguns should not be illegal" you must be talking about something which is already illegal which are the homemade ones."Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), it is illegal for a private citizen to possess a sawed-off modern smokeless powder shotgun (a shotgun with a barrel length shorter than 18 inches (46 cm) or an overall length shorter than 26 inches (66 cm)), without a tax-paid registration from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, requiring a background check and either a $200 or $5 tax for every transfer, depending upon the specific manufacturing circumstances of the particular sawed-off modern shotgun being transferred." [1]So my argument stands. You didn't specify and since the manufactured ones are legal under certain circumstances you must be arguing for the homemade ones.If not then you concede that you were wrong and therefore concede the debate. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The sawn off shotgun should not be illegal

It has nothing to do with its functionality of a hunting weapon. Sawing off the barrel of a shotgun alters the weapon in a way that was unintended. The reason sawed off shotguns should be kept illegal because these homemade alterations to a weapon could be dangerous to the user and surrounding people. You cannot just alter weapons to suit your needs because weapons are under strict legal scrutiny and control. The same way that some cars are not "street legal" you cannot modify weapons in your own home and expect them to be legal.
Technology makes us powerless

The main argument of my opinion is the fact that people have became under dependence of technology. And I am very that my opponent agree with this, and I quote: \ This I agree with. Yes, the technology has made us dependent on it.\ But how can my opponent be so naive by pretending that being under dependence of something doesn't make you powerless? I hope my opponent knows something about history, because as you all know: Every tragic development stars with making people under your dependence. And after this, people lose control, they are not any more able with deal without you and that's why you can get all the power to do what you want.We can see this when it comes to slavery , European expansion, The communism revolution and so on.But that's not the only problem. A human is a creature that is connected with the nature. We talk, we eat, we sleep and all what we do is a natural development based on how we ware made/created.But the coming of some technological systems did made us to lead an other life then what natural one. In the Train we don't talk to each other any more, everyone has his ipad, someone with her smartphone, an other one with her headphones listening to music, it's like we don't even exist. This is not a natural situation, it is a technological life one.And don't even forget the counterproductive effects of technology.Let me make a little analyse of 9/11 2001. Who doesn't remember this day?This day wasn't a incident. Of course the Al-Qaaida was only able to create such a great attack thanks to developed technological machines.When we first discovered guns, we somehow knew that it will be used to kill, maybe to kill ours elf. It is one of the technological development that's created, and the end it will make the human being powerless.The 9/11, The Iran debate on Nuclear Guns, The Google and Facebook existence, Some medical innovations, and all other things that are made possible thanks to technology are all a very big threat to a natural human development, and I can't conclude nothing that saying that it makes us powerless./The very reason the developments have taken place is because we need them, and the reason we have adopted them in our lives is because we find them helpful./ Who says that? Because it's just not true. Every technological developments isn't just introduced because a human being is needing it. Don't tell me that When I don't have a fork, that I can't eat. Don't tell me that everyone need to fridge in order to lead a good life.Technology is based on bringing product on the market. The intention of the going to the market is to earn money, and with money you can target power, that's how things work. I am sorry I can't give you a link to the study of the Havard University, because it's a closed study, not yet available on Internet because of its controversy among some economy professors.But I can guarantee you that what I am saying is the truth, nothing than the truth: Without Internet, the whole market in reach countries can meet serious problems.And why don't we just recognise all these points I just mentioned and accept the dangers and the power of technology?