BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is real

Can God exist? Yes. Because of why we are even here. The Big bang theory is a good theory but somethings just don'yt add up. The theory is that the universe blew up (It's a short version of saying it). It is not bad, but would't have someone of something happened to cause it? Things cannot happen by themselves. Everything in the world that happens is usually the result of someone doing it. So after the Big Bamg happened, we have an infinete universe. Someone has to have caused that too. The universe cannot be infinete on it's own. Now many say that God isn't real because of suffering. In my opinion, this does not prove that God is not real. Now many athiest's claim that we were created by evolution. I'm not saying evolution isn't true, but it is very unlikely. Why? Because we are in the perfect spot for life to be on Earth, we as humans all llok diffrent. Was this all just a lucky coincidence? I don't think so. Conclusion: God has to be real, everything cannot be created by a lucky coincidence.
Christ is God

Pro's caseLet me summarize Pro's case in a syllogism to show more clearly why it is fallacious.1. To beget means to produce an offspring of the same nature as the parent.2. Christ is the begotten son of God.3. Therefore, Christ has the same nature as God.I have already shown that the first premise is false, and I gave two reasons.First, because Jesus was not literally the result of procreation in the same way that humans beget humans. Pro agreed with me about that.Second, because David and Solomon were begotten sons of God, but they did not share the same nature as God. Pro also agreed with me about that.So being the begotten son of God is not enough for Pro to conclude that Christ is God. I have already shown that being the begotten son of God simply means that one is the messiah. I gave Biblical reasons for attaching that meaning to the phrase. If Pro wants to attach the additional meaning of "having the nature of God" to the phrase, then he needs to give Biblical reasons for attaching that additional meaning. And he needs to explain why it has that meaning when applied to Jesus but not when it applies to David and Solomon.My caseThe indicernibility of identicalsPro attempts to get around the fact that Christ did not know the hour of his return by saying Christ has the ability to know but not the authority. However, that does not in any way undermine the plain facts. The plain facts are that it is essential to being God that one know all things, but Christ did not know all things.He goes on to argue that Christ later gained knowledge of his return. But that is irrelevant to my argument. If something is an essential attribute of God, then it is not possible to lack that attribute and be God at the same time. The attribute is not simply having the ability to gain all knowlege; rather, the attribute is having all knowledge. Mark exlicitly tells us that Jesus did not have all knowledge. That means Jesus is not God.Hebrews 1:3In the previous two rounds, I showed that since Jesus is a copy of God's being, and not just a copy of one of the persons of God, then Jesus is not merely a distinct person, but in fact a distinct being from God.Pro's responses undermine his own case. First, he points out that it depends on how the copy is made. But he argued elsewhere that Jesus was not made, so he is contradicting himself. If Jesus was not made, as Pro claims, then his discussion of how a copy is made is irrelevant.John 5:26 says, "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself." Pro interprets that to mean that the Father begat the son.Pro's interpretation is incorrect. The context makes it clear that what it means for Jesus to have life in himself is that Jesus has the ability to raise the dead. This is obvious when you include the previous verse.John 5:25-26 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself."Notice the use of the word "for," which connects verse 26 with verse 25.
Christ is God

1. In the previous round, I did explain why the Son is of same nature with the Father and this is because he is begotten from him as the Scriptures show. To beget means to produce an offspring of same nature with the parent. The Son is begotten from the Father that is why he is of same nature with him.In fact, he is the only begotten one who is God by nature ( John 1:18). In the New Testament, the Incarnate Son was only declared ( not made) begotten Son. Romans 1:4; Acts 13:35 To sum up, these are the two ways the begotteness of the Son is defined: 1) In the sense of sameness in nature ( of the offspring with the parent) 3) In the sense of Messiah-ship (which springs from the Son-ship of the Word). 2. The Son has the "ability" to know the day and the hour of his return but at that moment, he has no " authority" to use that ability. After his resurrection, when he's about to ascend into heaven, he told his Apostles that " all authority have been given to me both in heaven and on earth"( Matthew 28:18). He now could use his ability to know the day and the hour of his return. Colossians 3:2 proves that he already know it now: " In him lies hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." There is no single Bible verse that says Jesus was given ability to do something but always given authority to do something which means he already has ability, innately. 3. It depends on how the copy was made. The writer of the Hebrews used the Greek word " character" ( literally,of an engraving-tool, an impression)and hence, the Son is shown to be the "exact imprint of his nature" (ESV). As to how he is a perfect copy of the Father's nature, it is by means of his being begotten from him ( as even the immediate context evinces: Hebrews 1:5). John 5:26 confirms this fact. The Father gave the Son the same life he has. How did the Father gave it? Surely, it cannot be like as if i gave a plate of pasta to you or as if I handed over a book to you. The language of giving life in the context of Father and Son relationship highly implies "begetting". For how do humans impart same life to offspring? i
Christ is God

I'm going to stick with the format I started with in the last round and discuss our cases separately.Pro's caseIn the previous round, I explained why Jesus being the begotten son of God does not mean Jesus is God. Pro agreed with all my reasons, but disagreed with my conclusion. He agreed that Jesus was not literally begotten of God. He also agreed that "begotten son" also applied to kings of Israel who were not God. This undermines the claim that Jesus is God based on the fact that he is the begotten son of God.In the first round, his argument was basically that since Jesus is the begotten son of God, that he is therefore of the same nature as God. But now his argument has changed. Now, he's arguing that "begotten son of God" means the same thing as having the same nature as God. But I don't see that he defended that claim. He asserted it, but didn't give any arguments for it.Instead, he argued that Jesus was the begotten son of God before his incarnation. That is not enough to infer that Jesus has the same nature as God. His conclusion is a non-sequitur.My caseIn the previous round, I gave two reasons for why Christ is not God.The indiscernibility of identicalsI showed that since there is something true of God that is not true of Jesus, that Jesus is not God. Pro responded by pointing out a distinction between the Father and the Son--one is incarnate and the other isn't. But that is not relevant to my argument. I grant that if the Trinity is true, then there will be things true of one person that are not true of the other person. But the issue isn't whether the Father and the Son are the same person, but whether the Son is the same being as God.One of the essential attributes of God is that God is all-knowing. So any person that is God must be all-knowing. Jesus is not all-knowing, as I showed in the last round. It follows that Jesus is not God.Hebrews 1:3When I brought this argument up, I anticipated an objection from Pro, and I dealt with it. I anticipated that Pro would claim it only means that Jesus is not the Father. But that is precisely why I fixated on the term "being." Notice that Hebrews 1:3 does not say Jesus is the exact representation of the person of the Father. Rather, it says Jesus is the exact representation of the being of the Father.In the doctrine of the Trinity, there is one being (God) who is three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). It is possible for one person to be a copy of another person and still be God, but it is not possible for a person to be a copy of God's being and still be God. "Copy" implies distinction. While there is a distinction of personhood in the Trinity, there is not a distinction in being. So if one thing is a copy of God's being, then that thing is a distinct being. Since Jesus is a copy of God's being, it follows that Jesus is a distinct being and is therefore not God.
Christ is God

On the begotteness of the Son "To beget is to produce an offspring of same nature with the parent." Con is right about the begetting. It is used in the Bible figuratively ( as a metaphor) not literally which involves sex, a consort( wife) and a beginning (time). I agree that the begotten language was used to human Israelite kings and this doesn't make them of same nature with God.It is important to know why is this so and the reason is because they prefigured the Word ( the pre-existent Christ) who is God by nature who shall become flesh in the right time ( John 1:1,14, Galatians 4:4). I agree that incarnate Son was declared "begotten" by the Father at his resurrection in order to reveal his identity as the Son who is the Messiah ( Romans 1:4, Psalm 110:3 LXX). This means that Jesus was declared ( not made) begotten Son at his resurrection. This encapsulates Psalm 110:3 ( LXX) which speaks of the Messiah as a begotten Son. " I have begotten you from the womb before the Morning Star" Psalm 110:3 (109:)Septuagint What this means is that Jesus wouldn't be declared the begotten Son if he wasn't already it at all. The Son is begotten from the Father before he even took upon himself human nature ( John 1:18, 5:26). In the entire New Testament Scriptures, you won't find it implying that the Son was begotten from the Father to mean that the Son had a beginning of existence and hence, a creature ( like what Arius had taught) but that the Son is of same nature with the Father and that's what the begotten metaphor is all about ( John 10:28-38). Again, it is a declaration of who he is and not a creation of what he will be( Psalm 2:7, Heb. 1:5,5:5, Acts 13:35). "Today, I have begotten You" Notice that it is in the present perfect tense. It means that the Son is of same nature with the Father before until now ( and forever for the Father is eternal). On the Incarnate Son The Father and the Son are not same person but rather, two persons who are same in nature. The reason why the Son has qualities that the Father does not have is because the Son was incarnated and his Father wasn't. On Hebrews 1:3 word: Being meaning: nature/ existence NIV says " exact representation of his being" ESV says " exact imprint of his nature" The verse says that the Son is the exact imprint of his Father's nature/existence. It is true that the Son is an exact copy of the Father's existence. It means he exists the same way the Father is. The Scripture agree: John 5:26 proves that he has the very same identical life ( life in himself or self existence) which the Father has. It is true that the Son is the perfect imprint of the Father's nature. Scripture agree: John 1:1 says that the Word is God by nature and in Colossians 2:9, it says that the whole entire divine nature dwells in the incarnate Son. The copy is not the original. The Son isn't the Father. The copy is exactly the same as the original. The Son is exactly the same as the Father ( in nature/existence). The verse didn't say the exact representation of his person but rather, of his being ( i.e. nature/existence).Therefore, the argument of Con is null and void.
Veganism

For thousands of years our ancestors have slaughtered animals to eat. Without having done this, they wouldn't have been able to promote such successful agricultural societies, which in turn gave rise to large cities that contributed to the spread of knowledge and religion. Along with this, eating meat allowed us to grow bigger brains and decrease the size of our organs, as meat provided more energy. Experiments have actually been conducted that show vegan diets causes you to have bad memory and literally makes some people stupid. For example, a few groups of children in Africa were split and one had a vegan diet while the other had a meat diet. Increases in intellectualism were seen in the meat eating children while the vegan kids didn't really advance much but the variety showed poor test performances (link to article below). Despite many arguing how healthy a vegan diet may be, meat has many calories that are vital to the human body in producing much energy to complete daily tasks while in contrast a vegan must consume many plants in order to match up to the standards of a meat eater. In conclusion, without eating meat our IQ wouldn't have flourished and allowed us to create tools and develop ideas that would evolve in the future to become much greater. African vegan children experiment: http://news.bbc.co.uk... Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter: http://www.npr.org...
Veganism

Me personally I am not a vegan, I love meat but I do understand vegans motives and their beliefs. Vegans are usually people who believe we can live in a cruelty free world. They treat animals as they are almost equal to themselves and act like every animal has feelings just like humans. Vegans know for a fact that each animal has their own friends and families and it would hurt them to know that they did that because just imagine if that happened to you. How would you feel if a superior being would start to eat your family? Vegans are trying their best to protect nature all around them and help protect basic animal rights which is a good thing, especially with an immoral way of killing animals for food. The way they currently slaughter them is that they take too long to actually kill them and make their death a rather painful death. Vegans want to see their deaths be as swift and as painless as possible.
Veganism

I have grown up all my life eating meat. My brother is a vegan and he doesnt seem to mind us eating meat at dinner, but I have read forums where there are crazy vegans wishing death upon people for eating meat and they go off on random strangers for eating a hamburger and exaggerate its contents to show why veganism is the best option. This has given me a very bad opinion on vegans so I thought that maybe I would argue against veganism here to see what kinds of arguments people would post supporting veganism.
diplomatic immunity

Ok but still you havent responded to the reason we have diplomatic immunity and why no one has ended it. Just because the United States owed money for our diplomats England owed us money as well so it balances out. Also the system is self regulating because we can punish our diplomats. So because there is so much inherent checks on the system and it overall balances out to achieve a net benefit and because no one is in favor of it being ended as far as the global community you should vote aff for diplomatic immunity.
diplomatic immunity

Diplomats are exempt from import duty and tariffs for items for their personal use. In some countries, this has led to charges that diplomatic agents are profiting personally from resale of "tax free" goods. The receiving state may choose to impose restrictions on what may reasonably constitute personal use (for example, only a certain quantity of cigarettes per day). When enacted, such restrictions are generally quite generous. Diplomats are not necessarily exempt from paying government-imposed fees when they are "charges levied for specific services rendered." In certain cases, such as London's congestion charge (a daily charge on all cars entering central London), the nature of the fee may lead to disputes, but there is an obligation for the receiving state not to "discriminate as between states"; in other words, any such fees should be payable by all accredited diplomats equally. This may allow the diplomatic corps to negotiate as a group with the authorities of the receiving country. In January 2006, it was reported that the United States owed several million pounds in unpaid congestion charge fees[citation needed]. It was also reported that diplomatic immunity had been used to avoid paying millions of pounds in traffic fines, as well as dodging around GBP1 million in local rates[citation needed], although some embassies have agreed to settle their bills. Clearly, with all the quasi-illegal activities that result from diplomatic immunity, it must be abolished.
diplomatic immunity

So dimplomatic immunity was designed in order to make sure that foreign dignitatries did not get harrased by other nations in order to persuade their policies. It has been an important part of increasing diplomatic ties between the countries of the world. Looking at the potential problems we need to see that they are overstated by far. Look to my opponents claims of people getting away with murder and what not and see it directly contradicts his other piece of evidence. He says "Diplomatic agents are not, however, exempt from the jurisdiction of their home state, and hence prosecution may be undertaken by the sending state; for minor violations of the law, the sending state may impose administrative procedures specific to the foreign service or diplomatic mission." Therefore this is a self regulating system because when ever they break a law in a foreign country they are punished by their own country, it doesnt matter where the punishment comes from as long as there is punishment. The fact is that punishment is assured becaue all nations have diplomats and this diplomatic immunity is extended to all. So if say Russia doesn't punish a diplomat who kills an American we wouldn't punish our diplomat if they did the same thing. Therefore its a self correcting system. Also if we look to the benefits and see that our international relations have been so substantially improved by this we have to be in favor. Now I have one major question for my opponent, If it is so negative to have diplomatic immunity, how come every nation in the world still stands by it and there has not been a move to eliminate it?
diplomatic immunity

The Vienna Convention is explicit that "without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State." Nevertheless, in some occasions, diplomatic immunity leads to some unfortunate results; protected diplomats have violated laws (including those which would be violations at home as well) of the host country and that country has been essentially limited to informing the diplomat's nation that the diplomat is no longer welcome (persona non grata). Diplomatic agents are not, however, exempt from the jurisdiction of their home state, and hence prosecution may be undertaken by the sending state; for minor violations of the law, the sending state may impose administrative procedures specific to the foreign service or diplomatic mission. Violation of the law by diplomats has included espionage, smuggling, child custody law violations, rape, and even murder: in London in 1984, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher was killed on the street by a person shooting from inside the Libyan embassy. The incident caused a breakdown in diplomatic relations until Libya admitted "general responsibility" in 1999.
Colonizing space

Ladies and gentlemen, Unless you have decided already on your vote please take my final comments into consideration regarding my arguments and my opponents *only* argument. My opponent seems to just be stating that colonizing space is a good idea and can help all man kind if done successfully. Of course it is, nothing man kind has ever set out to do would be as astronomical as an accomplishment such as this. However, she forgets that this is a debate and therefore must contest my arguments rather than conceding them. Although because I do seem to see the beginning of some arguments in the Pros previous post, I will simply contest these and proceed to my conclusion. The pro states that man kind needith not colonize space this year but in the future. However, will the resources needed to go forth with such tasks still be present? I'd rather doubt it. As I presented in my earlier arguments, there is much needed to successfully "planet hop". Whatever amount of resources are available now, may not be present later which could be a serious setback to undergo such a task. Yes, my opponent does not mean today, but then when? Time waits for no man and greed shows no mercy. No, space colonizing should not be considered for future population growth problems. Does humanity deserve to prosper? Of course it does! Personally I don't see it prospering very long with the Pros plan of action however. On one last note before the conclusion I would like to point out the Pros last statement practically forfeiting this entire debate: "You've convinced me though that colonizing space isn't all that necessary, but I don't think it should be done." sorry Pro, just saying. In conclusion, space colonization is not the answer to the earths economic, political and growth problems due to several reasons which need be solved before space colonization can be pursued. I ask the voters to please vote within the confines of this debate despite what you may personally know on this subject which would be beneficial to either side. The Con should win for disputing all the reasons that the Pro provided as to why space colonization should be perused and for better conduct and responding in all three rounds. Thank you.
Colonizing space

I would just like to say that colonizing space or exploring space itself is not a bad idea. I don't think people should reject this notion of colonizing space. Is it a bad idea? Definitely not! Should it be done? Of course it should. I don't think there is anything wrong with colonizing space. One should be smart about it of course. You can't just said random people to live on the moon. Especially people who care not even now about our colony/civilization here on Earth. "Population growth does not equal extinction-to many variables." I totally agree that it doesn't, but population growth should be acknowledged. Also i'd like to make it clear that when I say colonizing space, I don't mean now in this year I mean in the future just how you've said "Tech fails, YEARS AWAY." Since I said that, population growth wont be a problem tomorrow, but in years to come. Space colonizing should be considered for future population growth problems. Does humanity deserve to live long and prosper? Many would say no many would say yes. The faith of humanity depends on how or where it abides. The dispersal of the human species is necessary. You've convinced me though that colonizing space isnt all that necessary, but I dont think it should be done.