BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If you are Christian by definition you cannot believe in freewill.

Definitions: Freewill: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. Christian: Following Christian teachings. I. E. your god is a personal god (Joshua 3:10) The Christian god possesses all three qualities: Omnipresence (Psalm 139:7–10), Omnipotence (Revelation 19:6) and Omniscience (Psalm 44:21). **These are not the only verses to that the bible claims god has these qualities, just the ones off the top of my head. I feel there will be no argument on this point but just in case I cited. ** As I am making the claims that if you hold to Christian beliefs you cannot believe in free will, I hold the burden to prove that. I realize that you may actually believe in free will. My goal is NOT to show that you do not believe we have free will, but to show that Christian beliefs by nature do not allow you to believe it.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

I argue god cares about the whole world and not just a small group for 3 reasons. Tough love, Collective consciousness and free will 1. In order to love the entire word he must genuinely want the health of the world in good shape for its eternity. Which means not every group can be treated the same ubless they all act the same. Example, If i love my 2 children and one gets in troublw at school, If i tell the other not to play with him as punishment is that favoritism? No. Its setting an example by giving consequemces to bad actions. 2. We are all as living beings connected by a collective concious which means, We were all given the same oppurtunity to being as morally good or bad as we think is best for us to be happy. The fact that others are not as happy as others doesnt mean god doesnt love thwm, It means they are not apreciating his love as much as others. 3. Free will is why god lets people make mistakes evem though he know they will. I get it, Sounds flawed morally but think about this. If i know the outcome to a movie should i tell you? No! Because the answer isnt enjoyable, Watching the movie is. So god would have to know we would not enjoy being all good.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

The rules are simple enough: Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race - not just part of it. . . Which means this god is a superior ego god complex (in which the bible is entirely about and nothing else) who loves to sandwich in people for his own private little affairs. And since this god doesn't care nor love the ENTIRE human race, Then why create anyone to oppose him knowing all to well that uprisings and bloodshed will occur especially when it isn't necessary which is not love nor care, That is if god is a true god in which he is not, Because nobody can prove that this god even exists. And why be evil and hate in the first place rather than bringing in peace, Harmony, Love, Care, Kindness etc in which has never happened for any length of time anywhere on this planet since his inception? Nah. So either way its a losing proposition for those that believe. But have at it. And another question that remains is. . . Why believe? Top 10 reasons why the bible is repulsive (youtube) dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

Here on this site you have no authority to dictate how grading is based, Plus there is no grading only public voting based on whatever the voter decides I accepted the debate becuase the question asked is debatable. I dont believe in god but i can debate for or against his existence because i am a debator. As for the question of, What proof have I shown? Lets ask what point(s) have you ignored? MUSLIMS! A koran IS my proof. I didnt bother to cite text because THAT point is so debating that i thought you would have valid points AGAINST it and instead you responded unfocusedly. Look if you want to debate, Then debate. If you want to judge, Criticize or persuade someone, Then create hereiswhyyourewrong. Org and allow no responses from anyone with out credentials validating their grammatical fluency. I also argue, Christianity, Flawed as it may be, Is the REbirth of the brutal god your'e talking about. It is their way of coping with the faith in my eyes. But christians dont show as much dedication to the character god as much as they are devoted to the character jesus christ. Acknowledging newer ideas like "turn the other cheek" instead of god's version "eye for an eye. " Ergo, Not the most ignorant nor religion of the ignorants.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

"1. This is not school, Its real life. On the internet, On a free site, Open to the public. " Here on this site, Debates are graded on grammar and spelling. "2. Im not christian, I dont believe in god, " Then you should not have accepted this debate. Continuing "I only argue the point christians are NOT the MOST ignorant compared to muslims. Escpecially compared to you. " In which you failed to do because you brought in no proof or evidence to support your claims. "3. You yourself show massive ignorance. Ignoring my point" and what point was that? "Closing: im sorry you hate god so much". Well I showed you one helluva lot of evidence. What have you shown? Nothing. Tell yah what? Don't bother. I'm not going to thumb through your riddles that are unreadable through your maze of ABC's.
Prove that the god according to the bible loves and cares for/ about the ENTIRE human race

1. This is not school, Its real life. On the internet, On a free site, Open to the public. 2. Im not christian, I dont believe in god, I only argue the point christians are NOT the MOST ignorant compared to muslims. Escpecially compared to you. 3. You yourself show massive ignorance. Ignoring my point and focussing on spelling because you were triggered by my atheist statement. Haha it is even more so ignorant to label me a god believer because i took the PRO side of YOUR debate. Closing: im sorry you hate god so much and hate how furstrating it is to have an open, Fact based discussions with christians. However, You are focussing that energy ineffectively. Your quotes are accurate from the bible, But i argue that the koran has even more non tolerant and distructive beliefs. I. E. Ignorance.
swimming is a better sport than soccer

1. But the point is that we are suppose to convince them. And even then, injuries have different degrees and retirement is based off of that. Someone may get no or petty injuries in every sport. Especially since the site only listed types of problems, but not numbers of injuries from each sport and the degree of each injury. Therefore we don't know which sport has more injuries. Therefore that point has been refuted. 2. That's one person. You can't say one person accounts for all. And how do you know? If it's because she said it then you are neglecting that people can lie. 3. I know who you were referring to, but yet you are still not a mind reader and you still can't possibly know. 3 Again. Yea but in swimming they don't have cooperation. In soccer you directly work with them by passing the ball to each other. In swimming you are by yourself, even if your team gets judged overall. No one can aid or cooperate with you like they do in soccer. 4. Really? You can't just copy a thousand links and paste them and expect me to read every single one. You are support to quote your evidence and provide it, then list your source. Extend my teamwork, portability, and money arguments.
swimming is a better sport than soccer

1. I wasn't talking to you when I said I'll let you decide, I was talking to the viewers because they can decide on their own without being told by either one of us. 2. I know Missy Franklyn and she swims for all the reasons I stated 3. when I said" like most athletes who play sports for the money," I was referring too profetional athletes like Michalle Jordan, and Michael Phelps. People like that who don't care about the sport anymore just the money. 3.swimming has teamwork, propably more than any other sport. Though you are judged on your own score in the race, in the end it is about who's team has the overall high score. Me and my team are like family, and so is the USA Olympic swim team. 4.I would like you to rethink that health fitness stuff about swimming, and why you should choose swimming over soccer, it is all in these sights. http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com... http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com... http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com... and when you read this one don't stop at the first sport, keep reading through all of them. http://www.answers.com... and FYI this is not me. http://www.answers.com... hthttp://www.humankinetics.com... http://www.active.com... http://www.medicaldaily.com... theses are just some of the reasons swimming is better than soccer.
swimming is a better sport than soccer

My opponent provided me with two links saying that she"s not going to say which one is more dangerous, and that I get to pick after reading both of the links. So I decide that swimming is more dangerous. And my opponent obviously doesn"t understand anything about health so I will put it simply. If someone is anorexic and plays soccer which burns less calories, this person will die later than if someone was anorexic and swimming. Unless they build muscle, but to build muscle you need to eat. Therefore it depends on the person. It depends on the diet, health issues,... Etc. So my point has not been refuted. Then my opponent points out that most swimmers don"t do it for the money, but pro has conceded that there are some people who do. But how does my opponent know if someone does it for the money or not, pro isn"t a mind reader. Therefore pro has no proof that more people swim because they love it rather than for the money. And even if some people do it for the sport, money is still a benefit. It"s not mutually exclusive. People can still do it because they love the sport and love the money they get as a result of it. "See most swimmers are not big headed like most athletes who play for the money" So basically my opponent is saying that most athletes do their sport for money, but only swimmers do it because of the love of the sport. How can my opponent possibly know that? " I don't know what I would do if I wasn't allowed to swim anymore. I have tried tons of sports but none of them compare to swimming. I believe that's what the other swimmers feel as well." This is basically my opponent saying that because pro feels this way about swimming, that everyone has to as well. There is no valid evidence for pro to assert this about athletes, but not about swimming. Teamwork "While fitness goals are generally very personal, we can all benefit from sharing common goals with others who push us towards them. The lessons that players learn on the field translate to the rest of their lives and the camaraderie teammates share in unparalleled. The ability to work with others to reach a common goal is powerful when related to everyday life- in other words, join a team!" In soccer, people need to learn to work as a team, therefore they learn the important skill of cooperation. Portability "Soccer is not an expensive or prohibitive sport. All that is needed is space and a ball. It is a relatively simple sport to catch onto and is played mostly outdoors, which we already mentioned as being healthy here." In swimming, you realistically need a big pool to swim. But in soccer all you need is a space and a ball. I can play in my room, but it would be hard to swim in it. Source- http://www.healthfitnessrevolution.com...
swimming is a better sport than soccer

https://www.verywell.com... http://www.enjoy-swimming.com... Con asked me to prove that soccer is more dangerous than swimming through a link. Well I have put in 2 different links. The first on is common soccer injuries and the second is common swimming injuries. I am not going to tell you which is more dangerous, I am going to let you decide after reading them both. Con also says it is a bad thing that swimming burns calories for people under weight, but actually it's not. http://familydoctor.org... This link is a doctors view of underweight people. It says you should build up muscle strength, and that is what swimming does as well. When I started swimming I was underweight and now I am all muscle, and healthy as ever. So I would love to hear your explanation for that Con. And I would also like to point out that most swimmers don't swim for money. They do it cause they love when they dive in,the water surrounds them in total solitude, and the water and their body work as one organism, and they love when they get out of shape and go back to swimming and feel their muscles ache from the 2 hour practice and how they feel their muscle tone coming back. See most swimmers are not big headed like most athletes who play for the money, they swim cause it is part of their life I don't know what I would do if I wasn't allowed to swim anymore. I have tried tons of sports but none of them compare to swimming. I believe that's what the other swimmers feel as well.
swimming is a better sport than soccer

So my opponent has conceded that in swimming people don't compete against other people, but only themselves. But the thing is that in soccer you compete against other people and yourself. Soccer players compete against themselves so they can compete against other players and win. It's not like Messi or whomever you think is the best soccer player, stops practicing. Soccer players practice so they can improve their skills. They also compete against themselves by, for example, juggling. Soccer players push themselves to be better at the sport. Then my opponent says that there is a more of a chance for people to get injured in soccer than in swimming, but I see no evidence presented for this assertion, therefore I ask pro to provide it with the link. Then my opponent claims that you burn more calories in swimming, but that's good depending on the person. For example, that would be bad for someone who is underweight and is trying to gain weight. Therefore that point is futile. Pay If you look at one of the top paid, I don't even know if he is the top paid, Messi has a net worth of 218 million. The richest swimmer I found is Michael Phelps, and he has a net worth of 55 million. http://www.alux.com...
Solar Power Plant vs Investing

Investing in solar panels is essentially investing like one would with a check one gives to the bank to earn interest. The interest in this case is the accumulation of sun hours converted into energy. The state of Arizona would still be trying to save money, just through the medium of alternative energy sources. I believe using this undeveloped medium is less effective than if they just invested the money traditionally. Solar panels are EXTREMELY expensive when compared to other sources of energy. Newer technologies will develop making the solar panels of today look like the room-sized-computers of the 1950's making the investment bad by design as it will take a long time for it to pay off.
Solar Power Plant vs Investing

First and foremost, BOP is split between both members (each has the BOP for their side). Second, a few assumptions that are not challengable in the debate. 1) Flat inflation rate of 3% per year. 2) In Arizona, we are looking at an annual average of 6.5 sun hours per day [1]. 3) Labor rates and electric rates will follow inflation rates. 4) Solar will last for the duration of it's warranty and deteriorate at 0.5% per year. 5) Investment rates will be at a flat 5% 6) Since we are talking about an existing Power Company, things such as power lines and other infrastructure is already in place and outside of this debate. And on to the debate. .. It is 2013 in Arizona and with growing populations and the manufacturing picking up. As such, the state government has gotten together with a large power company XYZ, to get a new Solar power station built. Unfortunately, in order to balance the federal government, all energy tax credits have have discontinued and all green energy needs to sink or swim on its own. The government will ensure that property is sold for market value (after all, if people know that there is a sudden huge demand for land, price will skyrocket). My opponent and I will be arguing to the board members of the company (the voters) on what to do. I will argue for a large scale solar power plant, while my opponent will argue that it would be better to just take the money and invest it. Thank you. [1] . http://www.affordable-solar.com... *if anyone would like to argue some other fossil fuel (such as natural gas), please PM me and we can work something out.
Professional athletes make ideal role models

Pro's resolution implies that all professional athletes make ideal role models for all people. Therefore, my burden is to prove that there are professional athletes who do not make ideal role models.My character limit is 500, so I can't provide my arguments. I will provide examples of athletes who do not make ideal role models.O.J. Simpson murdered 2 people http://bleacherreport.com...Mike Tyson raped a girl and went to jail.*No room for link
Professional athletes make ideal role models

Professionalism in sport I believe professional sports people make ideal role models. The definition of role model is "A person who serves as an example of the values, attitudes, and behaviours associated with the role. Role models can also be persons who distinguish themselves in such a way that others admire and want to emulate them." Professional sports people do just that. whether the person who looks up to them is looking at doing the same career choice when their older or even transferring the skills they learn from them into their everyday life. Professional sportsman train hard and repeatedly try to do their best effort which is a good skill for those who look up to the professional sportsman to pick up that skill.
Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.

Ok, this was kinda funny so i decided to take a stab at it. I'll admit that old Al is a bit of a blow heart but a terrorist.....thats more than a stretch. My opponents argument is that Gore's movie, An Incovenient Truth, was essentialy terrorist propaganda meant to "scare the masses into a panic about global warming". Remember, his burden is as stated: "I am here to convince you all that Al Gore is a terrorist." I think this debate fundementally boils down to the notion that words have meanings. My opponent wants to open up the word terrorist to include anybody that has something to say that might cause concern or worry in another person. Is your mother a terrorist for telling you to put on sun screen because you may get cancer (although like global warming, that is disputed by some scientists ;) He claims that this has "Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming". So in effect, his argument is not even hinged on the claim that the panic inducing warnings expressed by Gores movie Arent true...He is saying that even if Gore's movie is 100% accurate it is still TERRORISM because it makes people fearful. If you believe that a terrorist is anybody that makes you worry about something than you should vote pro regardless of the following rounds. My opponent asks you to vote on simple definition. My friends, this is silly because there is no "simple definition" of a terrorist...just ask the supreme court. but assuming that his (not so)"simple definition" will allow us to better understand whether or not Gore is one lets examine it: "a) the action falls within subsection,(2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." I really dont even know what my oppenent is talking about. Here he outlines the criteria for a terrorist....which clearly exhonerates Gore. I'm eager to hear his rebuttal... btw my aunt called me this morning a told me to watch out because the flu is going around....does anybody have the number to homeland security?...i want to report her as a terrorist
Does he fit the definition of a terorist? Note: Nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.

I am here to convince you all that Al Gore is a terrorist. This is not about global warming, this is about a simple definition. Please do not vote based on opinion, vote on the debate. Now while I await an opponent to accept, I will bring up some of my main points. Here is the defintion fo terrorism the United States government uses: "To intimidate or coerce a civilian population;or To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." By this definition Al Gore is a terrorist. I Believe Al Gore used his film, An Incovenient Truth, to scare the masses into a panic about global warming. He showed images of some of the countries largest cities being destroyed by flooding as they were lower than sea level. Doomsaying as this could do much more than just worry people about global warming, it could even affect things like housing prices in the area! Although I am not saying he would have caused these other affects intentionally, would he not have intimidated, and in doing that, coerced a civilian population as the definition of terrorism states? Even Richard S. Lindzen, a writer for Wall Street Journal, wrote in the June 26, 2006 issue that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain. Here we have the definition of terrorism used by the European Union : "given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation." Now I will shut down at least one argument I know will come into use by my opponent if they dont have common sense, that is that he didn't commit any violent acts, so no he can't be a terrorist. Here is the definition of terrorism used by the United Kingdom: "a) the action falls within subsection,(2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it (a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a persons life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." Here violence is a possible method of terrorism, but not necessary for the act to be committed. I hope this will be a good debate.