BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should be legal in every state.

Hello and thank you for accepting. I will first begin with explaining my previous points. 1. "There is nothing a gay person can do about the fact that they are gay." I believe that people are born being gay. A straight man could not even begin to consider kissing another man. In their eyes, that would not be normal. So why do people think that gay people chose to be gay? No one could even imagine choosing that. Recently, scientists came up with a theory that explains why people may be gay. They say that they may get the gene from their opposite-sex parent.[1] This actually makes sense, because even mental genes can be passed on like that. 2. "There is nothing immoral about it." There really is nothing immoral about same-sex-marriage. People may say that there is, but I really do not understand why. Do you think you might be able to explain that to me? 3. "The concept of traditional marriage does not have an actual limit or boundary. Who says gay marriage is crossing the boundary?" Last I checked, there was no rulebook for marriage. There were no moral laws placing boundaries on marriage. Some average citizens may have written and published one, but it is not official. Now yes, I think you may be thinking "The bible is the rulebook for marriage. It talks about it." Well, I'm sorry to say, the bible also says that if you do an activity other than church and God on Sunday, you should be stoned to death. How many of us really follow the word of the bible? 4. "Marriage is redefined as society's attitudes evolve, and the majority of Americans now support gay marriage."[2] What people think of marriage has changed over time. So even if the bible defines marriage, people have not followed it for hundreds if not a thousand years already. Why begin following it now? These are only s few of my points. I will give the rest later. [1]http://www.usnews.com... [2]http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
Gay marriage should be legal in every state.

I would like to debate with anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong and should not be legal in every state. Please feel free to accept this debate challenge. Here are my points: 1. There is nothing a gay person can do about the fact that they are gay. 2. There is nothing immoral about it. 3. The concept of traditional marriage does not have an actual limit or boundary. Who says gay marriage is crossing the boundary? 4. "Marriage is redefined as society's attitudes evolve, and the majority of Americans now support gay marriage.[1] I have more, but I am only listing a few for the time being. If anyone wants to challenge my stand on the matter, go ahead. [1]http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
The doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural.

Since this is the round for closing statements, I will not be providing rebuttals. I would like to thank my opponent for taking the time to carry out his side to the end and I enjoyed the engagement. My goal for this debate was to prove that the doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural. My opponent and I agreed upon the following definition for the doctrine of the trinity:"There is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. "My initial arguments really expanded on this definition and provided a Biblical defense for each piece of it. I believe I successfully provided rebuttals to all of my opponent's arguments throughout the entirety of the debate, but that is ultimately up to you, the voter, to decide. The Bible clearly teaches the deity and eternal nature of the Son (Jon. 1:1-3; 20:28, 29; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1; 1 John 5:20; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Rev. 5:13, 14) and the Spirit (Jon. 15:26; 16:13; Act. 5:3; Eph. 4:30; 1 Cor. 2:10, 11; 3:17). The Bible very clearly shows the triune formula (Mat. 28:19; Rom. 15:16, 30; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 13:14 Eph. 2:18). These passages form the metropolis of the trinity.
The doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural.

My opponent stated that "The doctrine of the trinity is taught in the exact same way by all Christians who affirm it". This is simply not true. There is ambiguity and disagreement among those who accept Trinitarianism. There are several doctrines of the trinity: Eastern, Western, social analogy, modal, so forth. There is one doctrine in the sense of the threefold name of God of the rule of faith as found, for example, in the Apostle's Creed. This, however, is not yet a doctrine. It is ambiguous and can be interpreted in a number of ways. There is one doctrine in the sense of the Western formula of "three persons in one substance." However, this formula is also ambiguous if not misleading and can be interpreted in a number of ways. A doctrine of the trinity would presumably be one interpretation of this formula . . . let us assume that the phrase "doctrine of the trinity" in the question refers to any of a number of widely accepted interpretations of the threefold name of God in the role of faith. So, there is ambiguity and disagreement still. This is not characteristic of revelation, but rather of man"s imperfect intellectual efforts to define God according to philosophical criteria. Proponents of this view have even added text to the Bible and opposed the correcting of such errors when it was discovered. The doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Catholics and mainstream Protestants is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy, and vice versa. The Trinity doctrine of the second century A.D. differs from that of the third, and the fourth century developed even newer ideas. Aquinas' doctrine is different from that of Augustine, and Barth again developed a new doctrine of the Trinity. My opponent said that I did not provide a single source for the claim" the term Christian was first used by non-christians" , however in the second to last paragraph of my argument I clearly said that I was quoting the ESV of the Bible, acts 11:26.
The doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural.

For this debate I'll be using different versions of the Bible. I'll say which version I'm using when I'm using it. For the definition of the trinity, I'll agree with pro on the first part, but not the second, which I'll get to later. Here's my reason for my statement(the doctrine of the trinity isn't scriptural): The New Testament(which is usually what's used as proof text to define the trinity)itself is far from any doctrine of the trinity. This is because a) there's different versions of the Bible, and thus different translations of the trinity, and b) because different Christians come up with different translations of the trinity, even if they're using the same version of the Bible for proof text. The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. The apostles of the New Testament,of course, teach no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople [AD 381] was the formula of one God existing in three coequal Persons formally ratified. In the ESV of the Bible, acts 11:26, it says "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Here, the passive construction "were called Christians" suggests that the term was first used not by Christians, but by non-Christians. This is why I believe the doctrine of the trinity isn't scriptural.
The doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural.

The intention of this debate is to engage the doctrine of the trinity. I am not looking to debate someone who is not a Christian (i.e., a Jew, Muslim, etc.). I want to debate a unitarian Christian regardless of affiliation (Arian or Socinian). The debate will be structured as follows:Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Initial Argument(s)Round 3 - Rebuttal(s)Round 4 - Second Round of Rebuttal(s)Round 5 - Closing Statement(s)There are only three rules:1) Do not accept this debate without my permission.2) Do not violate the debate structure.3) Contain the rounds within the 10,000 character limit.Definition(s):trinity - There is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.Note:Please express your interest in the debate in the comment section or via PM. Ask any questions you may have in the comment section. I will not provide an invite to the debate until Friday. I plan on the debate being completed through the weekend.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

I appreciate the concern for my eternal life but I'm a little put of by the lack of discussion of even a basic engagement. The Round 5 post you make was less than min after my Round 4 post leaving me to think it was a cut and past response. Either way Pro make the claim that "God make Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". Up to this point we have Pro supporting this claim with. Round 1 - God did it (my words not Pros) Round 2 - God did it. What do you think about that? (same) Round 3 - God did it with a hint of all humans decent from Adam and Eve. ( no supporting evidence, rational, or even comments. again my words not pros) Round 4 - Had to do with original sin (off topic), sexual impulses (off topic), urge to steal (off topic), and burning in Hell (off-topic) Round 5 - Being saved, taking sides, Jesus, blood, you get the idea (off topic) I wish you well Pro and maybe next time we can engage each other in a meaningful dialog.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

You can be saved and freed from all suffering in eternal life. Repent, take sides with God against your sin, admit that you deserve death and Hell, believe God loves you so much He died in your place so He Himself paid for your sins with His own blood and rose from the grave and is the Lord Jesus Christ. Call on God in Jesus' name to save you and you will be His child, born of His Spirit, Jesus Christ Himself wiill make His abode in you and give you a new heart, make you a new creature that loves God and life and hates sin and death.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

1. As I do not believe in the Christian God, I do not blame God for anything. 2. It was my understanding that Christians believe that God punished Adam with death, I've never heard that it was Adam that passed death onto all of us. 3. If god created Adam as a perfect man then why did he sin? If God created Adam as a sinner then why would God punish Adam for acting within the nature he was created? 4. If you are a pervert who made you if not God? If God does makes perverts then yes, it would be his fault as they are acting within the nature God created them. I don't feel is is God's fault when a "pervert" can not control them selves as they have a sickness, not God created them that way. 5. Same as #4 6. Brings up an interesting point. Why does God not remove sinners from this world so we as a civilization can follow his teachings and commandments, as we were meant to, with out distraction? 7. According to many religions I am going to suffer in an afterlife. Yours is no different
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Why do you want to blame God for Adam and Steve? Isn't it bad enough that Adam sinned and passed death onto all of us? Are you going to blame God for Adam's sin too? Did God force Adam to eat of the tree of the knowlecdge of good and evil? Did God create Adam as a perfect man or did God create Adam as a sinner? Who's fault is it that you have to die? If you are a pervert, is it God's fault that you don't control your sexual impulses and urges?I guess you think it's God's fault if you get the urge to steal something and you put it in your pocket and sneak away. Yes, maybe it is God's fault for allowing you time to act stupid when He could have taken you out of this world before you stole and let you burn in Hell where your sin against God belongs.Now what am I trying to say? If you are not saved from the fire of Hell, you need to get saved before it's too late and always agree with God against sin, and never blame God for your sin or for anybody else's sin.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Pro, please make you argument for God creating mankind. If God did not create homosexuals, who did? If God had created Adam and Eve we would see this in our gene pool. All male and female humans would have genes that were passed down from two individuals that lived during the same period of time (and a lot of in-breading). As it happens we have an example of what this would look like, Mitochondrial Adam and Eve. Mitochondrial Adam and Eve are evidence against God creating the first humans, but it serves as an example of what to look for.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

I think that as pro "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" that the beginning of round 2 would be where one would expect pro to make their supporting argument for their position. Since this has not happened I am going to make a few assumptions. Please correct these assumptions as they are not based on much. Assumption 1: The "God" Pro is stating "created male and female, not male and male" is the God of a Christian denomination that does not accept evolution. There are many denominations of Christianity and not all of them take the Bible literately. If this not your position I apologize. Assumption 1: That you are either arguing that "God" created Adam and Eve or that "God" did not create homosexual people, which begs the question, who did. My position, is that there is not enough evidence to support the idea of the Christian God creating Adam and Eve. I also do not feel that if the Christian God did create humanity that some other entity created homosexuals.
iPhones are better than Samsung phones

Apple probably has better lawyers and siding when it comes to companies. Battery life, most android and samsung phones have better battery life than iphones, your battery dies on the bus you can pull a fully charged battery out of your pocket and boom you have 100% charge. Beautiful interface, that is a opinion (Technically this debate is opinion unless we are adding hardware facts) ease of use ( again can be classified as an opinion) sturdiness, if you dropped an I phone 1 foot it would break. A samsung galaxy can have a ton more space, it has a bigger screen more apps than apple ( its probably has a more optimized interface for app developers) The hardware in samsungs phones are better, you can even see this in some apps that are cross developed such as flappy bird, the android version had more pixels and shading than the one for apple, until they optimized the game to run better on the iphones hardware, because there would be some fps lag if they didnt.
iPhones are better than Samsung phones

Steve Jobs is a scam, he sued what ever company he took the ideas off of, he sells crappy non customizable macs to people that think they are better because they are more expensive. Apple calls their love whipped customers stupid and cheats them out of their money because they are easy to take advantage of. They hurt other businesses, and make people go bankrupt apple should be sued by every single phone company in the world, id love to see apple go out of business.
iPhones are better than Samsung phones

There's no problem with using other people's ideas and putting your own spin on it. Samsung blatantly copied features of the iPhone according to a court order. The battle is still ongoing. Plus, when the first iphone came out in 2007 there wasn't any phone like it. The screen, music, apps, and other capabilities were the sole ideas of Steve Jobs. Android phones have more variety but variety doesn't mean quality. Quality determines which phone is better. The higher quality android phones don't have a much variety and only very few, if any, have better hardware than the newest iPhone. The iPhone is the best-selling smartphone of all time and reviewers regularly complement the user interface, features, simplicity, and speed of the iPhone vs. it's competitors including samsung. iPhone is the highest quality smartphone on the market given these qualities and innovative history.
iPhones are better than Samsung phones

Actually most of Apples ideas were copied off of by other companies http://www.mondaynote.com... like they say in the article apple doesn't actually invent anything, therefore they never revolutionized the tech industry today much more hurt it than helped it. Also androids such as samsungs have a ton more variety and has better hardware, also they are a lot cheaper. I guess its a OS preference, so it would be an opinion on if apple products are amazing.
iPhones are better than Samsung phones

iPhones were the first phones to really revolutionize how we use the smartphone. It had a huge screen, a built in iPod, and a really neat interface. Samsung blatantly copied Apple when they released tier samsung galaxy line and have been copying Apple patents ever since. Apple won in court to have Samsung pay them billions of dollars for copyright infringement. The iPhone was the true pioneer and still is in the smartphone industry. The trade screen size with acceptable battery life (unlike samsung), have a much more organized App Store, is much more user friendly, is much more stable as an operating system, and just all around cooler and easier to use.
Sexuality

You say your Feminist then why have you put this agreement up with is connected to sexuality?Furthermore, you say a man doesn't really care if he sleep with more than one women but what if he has a wife does that still make him respectable?I agree with the statement in your argument which states that if a women sleep with more than 5 men she is going to feel dirty but you don't know if a man feels respectable after sleeping with 5 woman and cheating on his wife- I find that very disrespectful. Thank you.
Sexuality

Equal? What does that mean? The same? They are not the same, but both should be loved and respected. Neither are less or more than the other and this debate isn't about that. My point is simple and short. It is easy for a woman to sleep around, it is exceedingly difficult for a man to sleep around. For a guy to be a 'slut' he must be charming, attractive etc. but for a woman she literally just needs to be 'there'. So it is no great achievement for a girl to sleep around and thus she is referred to as a slut whereas are a guy is a 'stud'. Most men want to be studs whereas most girls don't want to be sluts. This point can be made on an evolutionary level as well. The most dominant males pass on more genes, the most attractive females pass on the most genes, this makes men evolve to be dominant and sexual, where as women evolve to be attractive to males. The man is made to sleep with whoever he can, the more the better, and the female is evolved to chose the best possible one she can. For a man can have 2 babies an hour and a women can have only one per 10 month. Essentially this means males can have sex 2 times an hour and a woman only once every 9month, so she must be choosy. Therefore a female who has slept with a lot of people is not choosy and doesn't hold herself in very high regard, whereas a man who has slept with a lot of women has been successful. He does not care who he has had sex with because, in evolutionary terms, it doesn't matter. Whereas a women is more likely to feel dirty or used. Women who sleep around tend to have low self esteem, whereas males who sleep around tend to be confident and self assured. Basically though, it is easy to be a female slut, hard to be a male slut. Indeed on occasion it may be easier to be a female slut than to not be a slut. Just for the record, I'm a feminist, I love women and are not a 'stud', I am also as aware as a man can be of their suffering in this society. Thank you
Sexuality

I'm a woman and I find this argument disrespectful. In my eyes a woman and a man are equal-they are both the marvelous creations of God.A man earns money for his family whereas a woman also goes out to work to provide money for her family and she provides the food for you males- your mother is a female so are you trying to state that if your mother sleeps around she isn't admirable and respectable how can you say that when a woman created you. Harpz
Evolution is a superior explanation for the origin of man and the universe as compared to creationis

Hmm, I accept thee challenge, First argument: God summed: the most supreme powerful being one could conceive in thought. By association, that which can create the creator of god would be considered a true god, correct? Yet this answer is avoided or simply "Can"t happen". How can something that"s creates not be created itself? The question never answered, if creation did happen, and god created it all, who created god? Creation Origin of life: ????>Created the creator of the creator>Created the Creator>Created God>God created the universe>Creating galaxies>creating solar systems> creating planets> creating life> Creating humans>???? Evolution of Life: (We Don"t Know)>Big Bang>Galaxies>Universe>solar systems>Planets>life>species>">Humans>??? Science goes by what we do know, which is why evolutionary theory was even considered. We know the universe is expanding forming the Big Bang theory, we know the gases from this explosion formed into galaxies, which formed solar systems, which formed planets, which formed first cellular life, which formed multi-cellular life, which developed into species, which adapted due to climate of the planet into different forms, which became the genetic difference between the first species, which formed mammals, which formed prim apes> which adapted to become homo sapiens, which evolved into what we see today. As for other crap like what created the big bang we simply stat "we don"t know". It"s all theories also it open to change. we evolution/science does not mark the problem solved, simply states "this is what we know so far". Irrational answering, "God created it all problem solved." When you don"t know the answer, one simply says "I don"t know" or guesses. But when it comes to origin, religion (Creation) places the answer on a Being, instead of "I don"t know", and when questioned of "who created God?" the answer is "Not possible, God can"t be created".
Evolution is a superior explanation for the origin of man and the universe as compared to creationis

Hello BDPershing I would like to challege you to a debate. I can see that you disagree with me so let's not spam the comments section in the other debate. Here you can clearly express all of your points and I will gladly show you why they are invalid. You make the first argument and then I will proceed. :P Only rules in this debate: you must finish the debate you must support evolution as a superior creation explantation The first 3 rounds we will have constructive speeches (make arguments) and the last round we will recap on our arguments accept at your own caution and let the games begin :D