BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
why do christians make it seem hard to follow Jesus, when its soo easy.

But what does the bible actually teach, i meen we all have our point of views but what does the bible say? Gen 29:9 And while he yet spake with them, Rachel came with her father's sheep: for she kept them. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Now the bible also says: 1Cor 4:6 My brothers, it is because of you that I have taken Apollos and myself as examples of these things, so that in us you might see that it is not wise to go farther than what is in the holy Writings, so that no one of you may be lifted up against his brother. So don't think more than what the bible says, speak about it exactly how it is written. And no it shouldn't be hard to follow Jesus: Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Its impossible to get to God, with out going through Jesus first 2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 1Jn 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but)] [he that acknowledgeth] [the Son] [hath] [the Father] [also]. Jn 5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. 1Jn 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. Now the bible also says It ain't hard 1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Jn 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
why do christians make it seem hard to follow Jesus, when its soo easy.

It took me a while to actually understand what you've been asking in this question, and it finally came into realization when I read your round 1 post. And the simple answer to your question, is that there can't be women as priests because a Priest is a man. Nuns are the women preachers in a Catholic Church. So, with your question of "Why don't women have equal treatments in church" They do. You're topic on the other hand "Why do Christians make it seem hard to follow Jesus, is actually not factual. When you join the Christian church, you don't worship Jesus, you worship God, and that's the same for every religion, just differant types of gods (God, Allah, etc.) As a member of the Catholic faith, the reason it's not "easy" to join my religion, is because it's a commitment. And that commitment, takes alot of thinking. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate you today too!
Any gun other than pistols should not be sold to citizens.

First off, I must say that I am not American so I am not familiar with any statistics or laws you may have. I will be defending a point based on logic, rather than sources. It would probably be hard to source in such debate anyways. I have seen quite a lot of people defend the availability of larger weapons - I will argue that they serve no use if you are but a citizen. As for the second amendment in America particularly, I must say that it is ridiculous anyone would be willing to use that as an excuse. Even if it came so far, you would never have to defend yourself against your own government. My opponent can set out his/her own strategy in this first round, possibly even coming up with their own ideas to defend their case. Should my opponent lay factual claims though, I warn you, I will ask you for sources. This is the only real rule: if my opponent states something like "defending your house", he/she must prove that anually there are .... % house raids that become lethal and require an assault rifle (!) to defend oneself. I truly hope one of those gun-addicts finally has the guts to step up and attempt to prove his case in a debate. My personal belief is that the only reason you have those big guns, is because you are 1) finding them very cool and show them off 2) enjoy hunting from time to time Good luck to my opponent! He may start in the first round, receiving both opening and closing statement. I'm feeling confident today.
A Progressive Tax System Should Be Used Over a Flat Tax System

I have tried to make this debate impossible to accept. If you are interested in accepting, please leave a comment. I maintain that, in the United States of America, a progressive tax system is more beneficial than a flat-rate tax system. BoP is shared. 1st Round is for acceptance only. 2nd Round is for constructing arguments only. 3rd Round is for rebuttals. 4th Round is for rebuilding your case (this includes responding to rebuttals in Round 3) and summarizing your main points. No new arguments or sources may be introduced in this round. Violation of any of these rules will result in a seven-point forfeiture.
A Progressive Tax System Should Be Used Over a Flat Tax System

As this is the final round, I will refrain from introducing new sources and arguments. My opponent's only rebuttal to my arguments addresses my refutation of his argument that the rich hire people. My opponent did not use his round to address several of my points. My opponent completely dropped my refutation to his first point that a flat tax system is more fair than a progressive tax system. I cannot further respond to any argument on this point he might make in this round; therefore he concedes this argument. My opponent completely drops my contention that a progressive tax helps reduce income inequality. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent completely drops my contention that excessive income inequality is economically inefficient. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent drops my arguments regarding progressive taxation's benefits to the economy, such as increased revenue, faster growth, and less volatility. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this argument. My opponent concedes my argument regarding that many rich (68% of millionaires) believe in progressive taxation. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent has argued that the rich make the companies who hire people. In making this argument, my opponent drops my arguments regarding the effects the middle and lower classes have on the economy and my argument that the rich still have plenty of profit left and thus still have plenty of incentive to continue hiring people. We must conclude that my opponent drops both these arguments.
A Progressive Tax System Should Be Used Over a Flat Tax System

Additionally, my opponent asserts that the rich create jobs and hire people, yet he provides no evidence for this (or his other claims). Multimillionaire Henry Bloch stated "rich people don't create jobs. Companies create jobs" But it's the rich that make those companies that hire people. For example Elon Musk is a billionaire and the founder of several companies; space x alone hires 30,000. Those companies costed a lot to start; if he had been taxed so much more he wouldn't have been able to create as many companies and thus thousands more people would be unemployed.
A Progressive Tax System Should Be Used Over a Flat Tax System

In this round I will post my contentions; in the next I will respond to pro's contentions.1. A flat tax system is more fair.In a flat tax system everyone gets taxed the same percentage.2. A flat tax system is better for the economy.It is those rich upper class people who hire people. If the upper class is taxed a greater percentage than the middle and lower class; then they won't be able to hire as many people; they won't be able to afford it. If all classes are taxed the same percentage then more people will be hired.
Are people cutting down to much trees

apparently you decided to ignore my spelling suggestion. Future reference put a reasonable response time for the debate(reason why the round was forfeited). There are many trees still here, and trees can be replanted and grown again. We are not in a dire state to where people can't breathe because of a lack of trees. The homeless problem is actually an issue. The wood from trees provide many benefits to society, then trees are planted to make up for what was used. And if there is not enough trees to supply the needed oxygen, we would die from suffocation not "posan".
Omnipotence is impossible

Pro is attempting to say that I have lost because I can not prove the existence of God. However, that is not relevant because the debate is on the possibility of Omnipotence. Every single one of Pro's arguments are under the assumption that with a omnipotent God, he can do all things. Therefore, if this God has the power to do anything, He certainly has the power to change the past. I am not attempting to prove or disprove God's existence, I am attempting to prove the possibility that God could be omnipotent. Conclusion: After providing a way that God could do all of the things listed, my opponent attempted to change what he himself had said: "Omnipotence: Having unlimited power; Being able to do absolutely everything" which includes the ability to change the past, and or travel through time. Furthermore, an Omnipotent God has the ability to change the past, undoing his previous decisions, and removing the supposed impossible paradoxes.
Omnipotence is impossible

Ok, so the things that you are saying are possible, but if we are talking about God, this is the flaw in your argument- So God is considered a superior being correct? So superior to us, that He is said to have always existed and will always exist. So in this infinitely higher being, how do you expect your self to understand the mechanics of His power? Furthermore, if God was an infinitely higher being, then we can assume that he can change the past, or even time travel. So, he could make himself unable to do a, then change time so that he could, and do it. God is all-powerful, so he has the power to redo even his own acts. Since He has at His command all the power in the universe, God omnipotent can do anything as easily as anything else. All His acts are done without effort. He expends no energy that must be replenished. His self-sufficiency makes it unnecessary for Him to look outside of Himself for a renewal of strength. All the power required to do what he wants is within himself.
Omnipotence is impossible

I will simply list things that no matter how much power someone has, he still can't do; To prove omnipotence is impossible. - First make himself unable to do A, then do A. - Create a problem that he can't solve. - Appear certain time after making himself vanish completely and forever. - Make both himself immortal and another being that will always be able to kill him. Obviously, if my opponent does not succeed proving that being can be powerful enough to do every single one of things I listed, I win.
there is no god

Thanks, Pro. We can continue debating the BELIEF that there is no god, though I don't see how you can really get around some of the arguments I've already made including Russell's teapot analogy. How do you plan on proving all concepts of god cannot exist despite the variation in description and applicable traits? Also, how do you plan on addressing the notion that human reason and understanding cannot grapple with the complexity of god's existence? I welcome the discussion so feel free to shed some light on disproving the belief in god in the next few rounds :)
there is no god

I am a atrong atheist and strongly believe there is no god. i think religion was started a long time ago because people back then simply didnt know any better. science has again and again contradicted religious beliefs. religion started as an easy way to answer earths biggest questions. as science evolved, and some answers came about,religion was turned into a business. for example, mormons have to give up 10% pay. is that really fair? i think it is all jut a way forstory tellers to make money.
Darth Vader was framed

Anakin was always meant to be a jedi...this was clear from when his medichlorines (jedi's molecules that connect them to the force) were off the chart. It would me a mistake of the entire jedi council to allow such a powerful youth not be trained by the jedi. Yoda might have disagreed with Anakin's training, but it is clear that he wanted power and that if the jedi didn't take him, the dark side may (The emperor can easily sense someone with power) Plus Anakin wanted the power to free his mom and the slaves (What could be more noble right?) There was no way that Qui-Gon would not train him and therefore he was destined to be Jedi in any case Now on your topic of free choice...it is clear that Anakin was involved from the emperor from the minute he became a Jedi. Sure he didn't seem very attched in the first movie, when palpatine was just a Senator, but he was surely great friends by the second movie... before he got involved with Padme and had the vision that eventually lead him to the dark side. Not to mention the fact that the emperor had sent Darth Maul early on in the first movie to get OBi-Wan and Qui-gon and stuff and clearly, if the emperor can tell the future (as revealed in episode 6), he surely knew of Anakin right at the beginning before Padme and love was in the picture, so the emperor could have easily (and did) corrupt Anakin through the force. remember Anakin's medichlorines were off the scale. Now you say that he was tempted by love and because he broke the law, but it is clear that even other Jedi like Obi Wan supported Anakin and that he didn't convert to dark right after marriage. The visions... they came after Anakin met the emperor so clearly the emperor could have caused them So there go all of your arguments and you never responded to any of my opening arguments directly, so therefore i must urge an affirmative ballot It is as clear as the crystals in a jedi's lightsaber...Darth Vader was framed.
Darth Vader was framed

I would like to say I am not a huge Star Wars fan, but my father is. I have seen every episode, at least 7 times in the order 4,5,6,1,2,3, because I asked what a Wookie is. So I know alot about it. I would like to say Darth Vador/Anikan was NOT framed, because he had essentially free will to join the dark side. He did have a chid due (although it was twins...), and he saw a vision of his wife dying. That on it's own means he was not supposed to still be a jedi. Yoda CLEARLY states, that "Fear leads to hate hate leads to anger anger leads to suffering. Thus fear leads to the dark side." I would also like to say he may have been tempted to join the dark side, but this is of coarse due to the fact that he broke the law and fell in love. =============================================================================== On another note, I would like to say the way he died was unfair, but so was the children's deaths. I have more, but would like to give my opponent some time to argue the basics
Darth Vader was framed

When we think of big bad villains, a few names come to our minds. The Joker...Lex Luthor...heartburn... and Darth Vader. Well that last name should not be on the list. I am not talking about heartburn. Darth Vader, the man behind the black plastic mask, was framed. Plain and simple. This is clear: We all think Vader was so bad and that he killed little younglins, tried to kill LUke, and that hoo haa, but this is not the fact. What it really happened: he was possesed. By the emperor. The emperor was a master of the force and needed someone to control, so he picked Anakin. Since Anakin had a kid on the way, the emperor hoped to make another apprentice. (Since Jedi don't marry, Anakin was an unusually lucky catch). So as it went, the emperor possesed Anakin... made him kill Mace Windu, fight Obi Wan... and the rest. Of course when the emperor was shocking Luke, his power was temporarily weakened in Vader. (In the 3rd movie, when the emperor shocks Windu and such, it is clear he loses control over Anakin, since Anakin starts repenting killing Windu. In this way... anakin overcomes when the emperor tries to shock LUke, kills the emperor... and then has a disco party... THE END
Resolved: Mikal's Fiance Marina Is Possibly GodChoosesLife

This debate is impossible to accept. If you want to accept, please post it in the comment section and we can debate this if you like. The motion is clear that this house believes that there is a possibility that GodChoosesLife is Mikal's fiance Marina, it is the opponents duty to show the negative of this that is that there is no possibility that Mikal's girlfriend Marina is secretly Marie. There is a shared Burden of Proof. First round for acceptance only. I have permission from Mikal and Marie for this.
Resolved: Mikal's Fiance Marina Is Possibly GodChoosesLife

Well this is sad, I guess I win since even if Krit brings an argument in the last round I will not have a round to defend myself. He could give counter rebuttals but I would not be able to counter counter rebut. With that I extend my contentions, I have successfully shown that Marina is in face Marie. They are both the same. Adios muchachas!
Are the Saints better than the eagles

ok i agree that the Eagles suck now because they got rid of there best players. Mcnabb Retired and they got rid of brian westbrook there running back. Also they got rid of reggie brown there best wide Receiver. In 2006-2010 they were beast but now they got sucky players and a dog killer. even in 2000 the Eagles could beat the saints but now, they cant because of Michael Vick.
Are the Saints better than the eagles

Compare the quarterbacks, the most important position on the field. Drew Brees vs Micheal Vick. There is no question who is better. Brees has averaged 255.6 yards per game in 138 career games, including breaking the NFL record for passing yards in a season, which was over 5,200 yards. Vick has never put up 4000 total yards in a season. Also, Brees averages a 70.2% completion rate. The highest Vick ever had in a season was 62%.
Having a penis is better than having a vagina

Men use religious text to show their dominance. I am from a Hindu community where also religious texts are misrepresented by Male priests to show their dominance. But if you carefully read them Shakti the Female form of God is the supreme power. Now as You are a christian I also respect your beliefs but God is neither Male nor Female he just keeps on changing forms. He is formless and Idols what we worship are just his incarnations. I agree with you that we men have to face less trouble because of our anatomy but going too far and bringing up this superiority thing is not right. Let us enjoy our penis and our life but should also be sensitive towards the opposite sex. Don't be so rude to win an argument. I hope you change your opinion someday. Now your c-section and other points that for sperm you need a penis and all that .First all over the world c-section is avoided if you can have a normal delivery and even if you have a c-section than you still need a vagina to send the sperm. Now if we start discussing scientific exception which don't need vaginas then even may be one day you don't need penis and even frozen sperm. Tissue from female body could be used to reproduce again.This is not about finding loopholes or a contest but about being sensitive. Anyway friend thanks for adding me as your friend. I hope we will develop a healthy relationship here on debate.org. Thanks.
Having a penis is better than having a vagina

You use God as an example that I should respect women, but God himself does not. I can insult women because men are superior to women, it is in the bible. "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. " (I Corinthians 11:8-9) "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. " (Ephesians 5:22-24) But that is not up for debate. What's up for debate is that a penis is better than a vagina. You claim we came out of vaginas, but this is optional, for one can have a C-section done. But without a penis, there can be no childbirth. Yes, there are sperm doners, but that sperm came from a penis!
Having a penis is better than having a vagina

How can you say so? God has created every organ to serve a purpose. We( you and I) are males so we are comfortable with our penis but you should not term vagina as inferior to Penis. That is very negative Thinking because it is the same place from where we came out to see this beautiful world. You cannot insult women like that. what debate you have started? You are really inferior to women when it comes to intellect, I am sure about it. Women should be respected and your debate indirectly is disrespectful towards them which I didn't like . That is the reason behind my entering in this debate .
Having a penis is better than having a vagina

First of all you can pee standing up or sitting down, and you do not have to wipe a penis after you pee. You save more time and sitting down you litterally have to get lower to the ground, symbolic of women's inferiority to men. 2nd a penis would be a vagina in a fight as it can grow several times larger and be as hard as a sword. Blood coming out of the penis every month does not exist, but it does for poor saps with vaginas.