BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The bible is a good source of knowledge

I was born with a rare form of eye cancer called bilateralretnalblastoma. My dad saw it the night I was born. My doctors told my parents that they would first save my life, then my sight. They managed to save both. My parents prayed daily. It was a real struggle to do save me. The day I was set to go under anithesia, and the day that I had my right eye removed, my dad and mom were extremely worried. My dad walked into the room and said to my mom, she's gonna be okay. Do you know that I would be dead right now if my father hadn't prayed? If people are dieing for what they know is right, then yes, it is necessary. If someone came and put a gun to my head, and said, do you believe In god. I would say, heck ya. It is a decent way of living because it is standing up for what you believe in. In many stories, like David and Goliath, people thought it was impossible for David to beat him. But you know, because David had faith, he was able to beat Goliath. I think that you are exaggerating, spaghetti man. I am affended that you think you have the right to question my faith. In my last argument, I asked you for facts. I have seen no facts, all I see is a bunch of bogus opinions.you want a story proven true, how about the story of when, Jesus Christ, you savior and redeemer, was killed on the cross to save us for our sins, so that if we sin( as you have in the previous arguments) we can repent in his name. That is proven, the tomb he was put in after he died is to this very day still standing. How can you say that there isn't a difference? Well your totally right, I mean, if you discard the fact that he died for you. Yes the bible is man made, but so are journals. Are you saying that the revolutionary war is not real, because, the only proof you have of that is the journals of the people living in that time. The bible is nothing more. The bible Is the word or journal or the prophets or people living in that time frame. Go to http:// you should read and understand the bible, because you obvisaly don't.org. You better believe it because at the end of the day, the bible is your saving grace.
The bible is a good source of knowledge

So you think genocide and slavery are just part of life necessary in this world or the millions of people killed in the name of god is just something that is ok. You are delusional or misled if you think this is a decent way of living. An i never lied about the bats. http://wiki.ironchariots.org... And can you give me one story in the bible that is true and by that i mean can be proven possible through facts no imagination. And what is the diference between the Flying spaghetti monster(fsm) and God. Nothing. Hiw can you blindly follow something theough faith alone. And yes a point of view is opinion youve made that clear. But my point of view is based on logic not made up fairytales that cannot be proven. If you cant prove it exists it isnt real untill further information suggests otherwise. Like the FSM. Or russels teapot. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_teapot
The bible is a good source of knowledge

There need not be scientific proof of god. Faith is like a little seed, if planted it will grow.it may be full of awful things, but such things are just reality, they are life. If we follow the examples set, we will be worthy to enter into the kingdom of god. Yes, by the way I have read he bible and if you have, you obvisaly did not understand it. And in a debate, I believe that it is unprofessional to lie, so I think that saying that " most" things in the bible can be disproven by science should not be brought to the table. This is not fairy tail land, so don't go and say that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster. No factual basis? I'll give you factual basis. I would like to go back to your first argument. I have no need to defend myself and your point of view is not logic, it is simply an opinion. Eat it spaghetti man!!!!!!!!!!! By the way, the bible says nothing about bats and birds, so get some reading glasses! And go get your spaghetti! Now, I wanna see some facts!
The bible is a good source of knowledge

1.For me to question the word of god means thats there must first be a god. Since there is no proof of a god in any scientific reasoning he does not exist until sufficient proof is provided. Have you actually read the bible. It is full of hideous awful things. Most of the text can be disproven by science today. 2. Saying that god spoke to these men is as likely as the flying spaghetti monster creating the universe. You can literally subsitute "Flying spaghetti monster" into any text where God is used and both have the same chance of being False, until further information is provided saying otherwise. 3. You really didnt give me any facts at all to reply to, just alot of imaginary stories that have no factual basis.
The bible is a good source of knowledge

The bible is an excellent scorce of information. I think it is unknolageable to question the word of God. - the bible tells the story's of jusus Christ. - the bible is man made, but it is the word f the prophets that have been spoken to by god the eternal father and in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. - the bible is a road map to our lives. - the bible is the word of god. I will let you sit on that.
The bible is a good source of knowledge

I am curious about how you will defend yourself and i believe i can convince you to see things from my point of view. LOGIC. 1. The bible is man made 2. Stories in the bible can be easily disproven by science 3. The earth is older than 2,000 years old 4. Dinosaurs? 5. There are over 250,000 interpritations of the bible.( ex. King james bible) 6. Why is there an old testament and a new testament? Besides the fact that the church was done crusading and encouraging genicide and slavery as encouraged in the old testament. 7. The old testamant says bats are birds corrupted by evil when they arent even the same species. Ill start off with that... Im eager to hear your reply
Apocalypse

I have accepted this debate because I think it is bad form to back down from a challenge. HOWEVER my opponent has not set a clear premise. He contends that the Maya did not know "what will happen". I contend that as far as the context of their actual predictions, they indeed did know what would happen as far as when the sun comes up, when it goes down, when the moon will be full, etc. The Maya Astranomical calendar was 365.2420 days long and was used to fix the position of the solstices, the equinoxes, the synodic revolutions of the planets in our solar system, the eclipse nodes and other celestial phenomena. In this context, the Maya "knew what will happen". http://www.mayacalendar.com... I make no claims that the Maya predicted any events other than the positions of the stars, planets, and other celestial occurrences. I don't know what my opponent expected, but because I have made no claims anywhere on the internet, in person, in forums, or even in my own mind about Mayan predictions, he can't possibly argue that I believe in anything other than what I have here stated. Thank you.
Palestine should be a sovereign nation

The support of the United States means that Israel can attack the Palestinians without any consequences. It is true that a nuclear assault would bring punishments upon the Israeli people, but blasting Palestinian innocents into bits has not brought any sanctions upon them.The Gaza War, as you put it, was not intended to defend Israel from attacks, but began when the Israelis began bombing the Gaza Strip as a whole, because of the threat a few rogue Palestinians posed to them. As to why Israel should not exist, it is because the UN believed that the Palestinian land was theirs, and so they could give it to the Jews. Another reason is that it is completely unheard of to give land to a people without any regard as to the land's inhabitants. Not only this, but giving the Jews a nation whose capital is the most important religious city in the world is unfair to other religions, especially taking into account the fact that Judaism is much smaller than Islam or Christianity.
Palestine should be a sovereign nation

"it is only the fear of Israel's nuclear power that prevents the international community from accepting Palestine's sovereignty."Israel would not be able to use nuclear weapons without a clear purpose, or would otherwise be branded a genocidal rogue state and would face a united front."The Gaza strip conflict would be completely halted by a declaration of the creation of Palestine as a nation, as the inhabitants of the strip are only looking to regain rights lost sixty years ago."The Gaza War was intended to stop missile attacks into Israel. Removing Israel would defeat that purpose. Your only argument as to why Israel should not exist is the "mistaken" U.N. resolution. He has not offered any evidence in favor of this, and giving the descendants of the Palestinians the land they used to live in whould be akin to all blacks returning to Africa, seeing as they have no unique cultural or nationalistic connection [1. http://en.wikipedia.org...].
Palestine should be a sovereign nation

Palestine's land was taken with questionable legality, and so they have Palestine has a right to be a sovereign nation, as it once was. The fact that it is not is a travesty, as it is only the fear of Israel's nuclear power that prevents the international community from accepting Palestine's sovereignty. The Gaza strip conflict would be completely halted by a declaration of the creation of Palestine as a nation, as the inhabitants of the strip are only looking to regain rights lost sixty years ago. The Palestinian people have been forced away from their land by a mistaken UN resolution, and without support they cannot take it back nonviolently.
Palestine should be a sovereign nation

"I never justified [the Hamas]."Here, I'll quote you: "without support [the Palestinians] cannot take it back nonviolently." _________ The difference between civilian and insurgent is blurred when the population supports religiously motivated violence. You offer no examples supporting your claim, and it can be dismissed out of hand._________ I've been to Jerusalem. A quick Google search will confirm that each religion has it's own quarters. If you are equating Israel with Judaism and saying that "the Jews" control Jerusalem, let me remind you that Istanbul is considered the heart of Christian Orthodoxy, yet Turkey is predominantly Muslim, and there is no one claiming to have lost any rights. All three religions have equal opportunities to worship in the holy city._________ The Arabs rejected the partition plan. Israel was forced to expell the more hostile Palestinians.
Palestine should be a sovereign nation

Hamas is a group of fanatics, and I never justified them. I just said that their actions did not define the Palestinians. Also, the Israeli government attacked the civilian population of the Gaza strip, not even specifically targeting the members of Hamas. What do you mean by the fact that all three religions have quarters in Jerusalem? Because as far as I know, Jerusalem is not the capital of a Muslim or Christian nation, but of a Jewish one. Minorities do not have less rights. But the fact that such a symbolic city is in the hands of one religion alone is unfair. In 1948, when Israel first declared itself a nation, the Arabs and the Jews had the same number of people in Palestine. Neither was a minority, and so, displacing half a nation's residents is unheard of.
Palestine should be a sovereign nation

Your previous argument was that the international community was threatened by Isreal's nuclear stockpile. You concede this point. Innocent casualties are unavoidable in war.Hamas planned to use rocket attacks against the Ben-Gurion international airport and the Knesset (the equivalent of the senate). [1.http://www.timesofisrael.com...] Any country would go to war over attacks on it's capital or toward governmental figures. You even justified the "rogue Palestinian's" violence in the last round."giving the Jews a nation whose capital is the most important religious city in the world is unfair to other religions"Aside from the fact that all three religions already have quarters in Jerusalem, this would suggest that minorities have less claims or rights. Didn't you just say that it was "completely unheard of to give land to a people without any regard as to the land's inhabitants?"
Metal music is better than most other genres e.g. Pop, Rap etc

Good argument. In fact you've already exceeded my initial expectations. However let me give definitions since you have not. metal music: http://www.urbandictionary.com... better: of superior quality or excellence http://www.dictionary.com... most: the majority of Here are my counter arguments. You noted that the quality of other genres of music have deteriorated. While that I believe that to an extent, there's a problem with that argument. That flaw is, that nowhere in the initial argument, or in the topic of this debate, does it say this is about modern music. The title only says "Metal music is better than most other genres" and not "Metal music is better than most other genres today." You note that quite a bit of rap and pop music have negative messages. I say, there is NO way you will not find songs like that in any music genre. There will always be people who make songs with negative messages in them. Now I will note that there are quite a few good songs in the rap and pop genre. I don't usually listen to them, but I have heard a few good raps and pop songs. As you said for metal music songs: "these songs present it in a fictional manner. For example, they may detail a story or portrayal into the mind of mentally ill people" I have two problems with that argument. 1. The chances of that being true for all metal music songs is none because I have heard metal songs which do not present it in a fictional manner. 2. It doesn't matter if it is in a fictional tone or not, if it is being said, it already encourages people. If you made a story of a drug lord, even if in the end he gets what's coming to him, people already have the thought in their head. Some might think. "Hmm, I'll be a drug lord and do better than this guy!" Or "I'm worthless, I might as well do what this guy did." Or maybe even people won't take it as fictional, maybe they'll take it as encouragement. Here's an example of a rap song that presents a story in a fictional manner. Fictional story, but that doesn't mean its doesn't present a bad message. (note: I do not listen to this rapper.) In the beginning you note that you need 'talent' and 'training' to play Metal music. So? You need talent and training for pretty much every kind of music. Some people, no matter how much they practice simply are unable to play an instrument. Same with training. It doesn't matter if you have a talent in music or not, if you don't practice with screaming or playing drums, you probably won't be playing well. Now here is my argument why other music is better. First of all, many other people prefer other music. http://www.hypebot.com... Now obviously people will have different opinions, some people will like one genre over others, however this chart shows most people prefer other types of music. I await your response.
Metal music is better than most other genres e.g. Pop, Rap etc

People view metal music as 'Just screaming' and as 'Just noise'. I would like to present counter arguments to that then conclude why I think metal is better. First of all, screaming requires lots of cardiovascular training and respiratory training. Screaming requires people to have precise technique to complete properly (which many bands don't do I must admit). I cannot personally do it, but I know people that can and they have to practice and practice and even excercise. Secondly, The instruments used in most metal music requires certain talent. As a drummer I have had to learn how to co-ordinate my limbs in certain technical orders, and also I had to learn how to create stronger and swift movements. Also, as a guitarist I have had to learn many techniques such as tremolo picking and sweep picking to play on par with many metal musicians. I view other genres of music, mainly referring to popular music, rap and other closely related genres as inferior to this. I have some respect for certain musicians, but I feel like the production quality of the music has deteriorated. Popular music uses auto tune, simulated drums and various other simulated instruments. Even if they do use instruments, I view metal as superior in reference to talent. I also believe the lyrics in most rap and pop music have somewhat negative messages, for example, some songs encourage drugs and sexual acts, some may give oppressive opinions on women and men and some are blatantly racist. You could say that 'Metal music portrays violence in their lyrics', however, these songs present it in a fictional manner. For example, they may detail a story or portrayal into the mind of mentally ill people. I hope to receive a response!
Slavery

Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law are applied to humans allowing them to be classified as property, to be owned, bought and sold accordingly, and they cannot withdraw unilaterally from the arrangement. While a person is enslaved, the owner is entitled to the productivity of the slave's labour, without any remuneration. The rights and protection of the slave may be regulated by laws and customs in a particular time and place, and a person may become a slave from the time of their capture, purchase or birth. Make America Great Again
Looking to debate a Christian or atheist. You pick the topic (religious)

"Didn't you read the reasons I gave why my God was the only one that can be relied upon as a First Cause?" Yes I did read them, although they where a bit hard to read. "By the way, not to be rude, but you seem to be inventing your theory as you going along. I highly discourage the practice" Yes I am making up a theory, A theory that is logical yet with supernatural cause, which you said could not be done. I am using theroy to create a universe in which a polythistic point of view isnt illogical. This is what I assumed the debate is about not about definitions and technicalities. “Assuming that the universe had a beginning and has a supernatural cause, Polytheism is illogical.” I am not saying anything that isn’t based on logic and possibilities. You maintain that a group of "gods" could create earth. This is true, but if there were more than one then they couldn't all be infinite, and as a result there would have to be a higher Being than them. You defining god as infinite is making it impossible for polytheism to exist. Yes that is illogical because polytheists believe that each deity has its own area of expertise. The cyclic universe theory is one that the universe creates its self, then is crushed under its own weight and collapses. This is not a supernatural cause, yet with the multi-verse theory a different universe could be created from this initial naturally created universe. This means that there is no Ultimate god as you suggested. With the cyclic universe there is no cause or no supernatural cause. I did not go against your rules as this inst “our universe” (within my theory). The beings created by this “natural” universe are gods who are not infinite. These gods could have created our universe together and that would be defined as supernatural within our universe (the created universe). A confusing theory but not illogical as you stated. I didn’t say the universe was limited (like in a box), In fact I know the universe is expanding. The created universe doesn’t have to be limited to be contained within my natural universe. Because thermodynamics! A side bar outside of this debate: A lot of Christians claim that the law of thermodynamics proves that the universe had to come from somewhere. They then struggle when told god had to come from somewhere saying that god is outside of the universe or is all powerful, “the laws of the universe don’t apply to god they say”. Why do the laws of the universe have to apply to the creation of the universe? The creation of the universe happened before the universe was created! "My topic assumed a creator God, a definition you even accepted!" I used your defined a creator god just no ultimate god. Checkmate.
Looking to debate a Christian or atheist. You pick the topic (religious)

Didn't you read the reasons I gave why my God was the only one that can be relied upon as a First Cause? "With this I must conclude that god is only defined as an infinite creator to some but not all people. If you look at the other definition god is defined as various beings or spirits or even just as a person who is greatly loved or admired." Under this definition you could say that polytheism is true just because some people think it is. We are not debating what people think is the truth but rather what IS the truth. "[The] universe has no fully know cause, although there are many popular theories." True enough. I would say that God was the cause, but I do not expect everyone to agree with me. That was why my topic was framed by the assumption that the universe had a supernatural cause. You maintain that a group of "gods" could create earth. This is true, but if there were more than one then they couldn't all be infinite, and as a result there would have to be a higher Being than them. That Being would deserve the name "God" (according to my definition) while the limited supernatural creatures could be called "angels" or "djinn" or something like that. Supernatural, but not Divine. It should be obvious that the universe does have limits. The fact that the universe is expanding is commonly known. http://www.big-bang-theory.com... This expansion is obviously expansion in size. In fact, scientists believe the universe was (at the beginning of time) extremely small. How could they say it was small unless they had "limits" to go by? At the end you seem to either change your mind or offer alternative explanations. You bring up the "multiverse." I am no cosmologist and find the topic very complicated, to say the least. But even if the multiverse or the cosmic rebound theory was true (which is exceedingly unlikely), the laws of thermodynamics mean that the universe must have had a beginning. Cosmic rebound would require energy. The 1st law of thermodynamics states that no new energy can be created. The 2nd law states that entropy either increases or remains constant. As energy is always being lost, at one point the universe must have started. If we know that my car only can hold a certain amount of gas and burns gas all the time, then we know it must have been filled up at some point previously. Similarly, simply because the universe contains a finite amount of energy which is constantly being wasted, at some point it must have contained maximum potential energy, which would have been the start. This start requires God, Anyway, that point is irrelevant. My topic assumed a creator God, a definition you even accepted! I think I have succeeded in rebutting you, and just in time too. I look forward to your response. By the way, not to be rude, but you seem to be inventing your theory as you going along. I highly discourage the practice.