BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Old testament truth, New testament made up for love of money and power

Has Pro ever considered that perhaps humans created God in their own image, Rather than the opposite. Especially with regard to the popular Middle Eastern deities. After all, The Bible and it's derivatives were all written by humans and not written by gods. Old testament, New Testament. Nonsense or truth? Who knows? Archaic theory is what it is and all theories will eventually become archaic theories. Unless we can acquire unequivocal proof. Proofless Indoctrination systems, Perpetuate belief in myth based theory and myth based theory is easy to understand. Tales of wise old men with beards who can magically make things happen are simple images that require limited intellect. Whereas attempting to convey an understanding of the known complexities of universal law and structure to a mass audience with variable levels of intellect would be an impossible task. Especially as the target audience for indoctrination are the very young. Pro was raised under the Catholic indoctrination system and I was not religiously indoctrinated and therein lies one difference between us. Pro's young brain was programmed with an archaic theory which they came to accept with a blind faith and without the need for real proof. I was taught to be open minded and not to accept things without question, Consequently my approach to theory and philosophy is as variable today as it always have been. Pro's approach to their God is as rigorous as it probably always has been. Of course: Wealth and power go hand in hand with indoctrination systems, Whether they be religious systems or any other philosophically or theoretically based social system. The greater the target audience the greater the rewards.
I call BS on Christianity".

I accept. I will uphold Christian values against your atheist onslaught, Answer: I see, so Christian values are important to Christian beliefs (okay seems like a great start here), even though you don"t believe Christians when they tell you these values are what caused them to believe. So it would follow that you do not put very much value in these Christian values because you claim that you still do not believe (are not a follower of Jesus). Therefore I can dismiss Christian values for the same reasons that you have without a fight here".so carry on. and supposed 'reasoning' power. Not because I'm a Christian (because I'm not), but because you militant atheists need brought down a peg or two. Answer: So our needs as atheists is your only concern? Sorry, non sequitur responses draws out non sequitur conclusions on my part. So lets start with what you mean by Christianity. I propose we limit this debate to the Bible, and specifically to the New Testament where Christ appears. Answer: The bible is not a historical relevant collation historically and cannot be used for claiming historical events. The books of the bible do not even appear in the order they were claimed to have been written. It is not nor has ever been an accredited source as it contains no contemporary accounts of Jesus. The bible as you know it appeared hundreds of years after the claim life of Jesus. So if you are trying to beg the question at the expense of history, please stop now and provide another source UNLESS it is your intent to provided NEW evidence to its (the bibles) validation. Remember, if you are going to use the bible you must validate it as a source and no-one has been able so in over 2000 years. The systematic religion that arose in his name after the fact is not what we are discussing, but the man himself, the things he said and the representation of him in the bible is what we shall address. Agreed? Answer: There is no evidence to suggest Jesus ever lived so I guess I disagree. The bible at its best, and using the bible as its own reference here is nothing more than a collection of texts written by (mainly) self-professed illiterate Hebrew slaves who are said to have written and narrated the bible in Greek generations (at least one) after an otherwise un-witnessed claim/event. So yes you can use the bible and NO the academic world does not recognize it as a source. The best example I can come up with at the moment is this".the academic world and public schools are allowed to study the bible at their leisure, they are NOT however allowed to study "from the bible" for reasons I just mentioned (but not limited to). I have many sources to apply support here, but I didn"t feel it necessary as I am the one who needs to critique (call BS) on what you have to say in support of your belief as a Christian. Yes I know you claim not to be, but I"ve heard this from many Christians that do not want to end up sounding foolish by linking themselves to such an absurdity. Please note that "you do not have to respond to this post" as it is I who has to undo (call BS on) your Christian beliefs"whether you are one or not.
I call BS on Christianity".

I accept. I will uphold Christian values against your atheist onslaught, and supposed 'reasoning' power. Not because I'm a Christian (because I'm not), but because you militant atheists need brought down a peg or two. So lets start with what you mean by Christianity. I propose we limit this debate to the Bible, and specifically to the New Testament where Christ appears. The systematic religion that arose in his name after the fact is not what we are discussing, but the man himself, the things he said and the representation of him in the bible is what we shall address. Agreed?
I call BS on Christianity".

I call BS on Christianity".Watcha got? It is my belief that the Christian argument is so weak that I can literally call BS on any part of it and effectively disarm the pro side of the belief. Rules, if it affects why or how you came to believe in the Christian religion then I can oppose it with sound reasoning. Second rule, voters may NOT vote on matters on conduct! While this is still a formal debate that will included only valid sources and citations and should/will remain respectful, I am calling BS on whatever you as a Christian have in the way of your religious beliefs! I figure it like this; you as a Christian belong to a group whose guild lines (the bible) instructs it"s believers to act out with violence, dehumanization and demeaning tactics when confronting non-believers, so you earn NOTHING in the way of politeness or conduct so it evens out. Third rule: final round closing arguments only, so no new material unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties. So bring it". : )
Bowser vs the Sonic the Hedgehog. Hopefully...

I accept the terms that my opponent has set for this debate. We have also agreed in the comments section that Sonic will have his shoes, he arena will be made of stone, and that Sonic's rings will not play a factor in this fight. As a result, Sonic will be able to use all of his powers without the use of rings. I hand over the next round to my opponent and eagerly look forward to his arguments.
Bowser vs the Sonic the Hedgehog. Hopefully...

In a one-on-one battle, Bowser from "Mario" could defeat Sonic the Hedgehog from "Sonic the Hedgehog. " The rules are as follows: 1. There will be no abuse of linguistics, semantics, or such in the debate. 2. Items are not allowed in this debate. 3. The setting of the fight is a square field that is ten miles on each side. This square can not be exited. 4. No allies are allowed in this battle. An ally in this debate is anything that can act on its own to aid the battler. Therefore, a robot that aids Sonic or a Koopa aiding Bowser is an ally. 5. Invincibility stars are not allowed in this debate (emphasis). BOP: Pro, (I), must prove that Bowser could defeat Sonic the Hedgehog. BOP: Con, (PeacefulChaos), must prove that Sonic the Hedgehog could defeat Bowser. Neither side can argue for a tie. I guess that's it. I hope my opponent enjoys this debate as I do. Please disregard the other debate challenge, as I messed up there. Well PeacefulChaos, I want to debate this topic, and since my other opponent has refused to accept after a long time, I will debate this with you!
The Big Bang Theory does not disprove God.

Your assumption that I was speaking of only the God in the Bible was false, therefore I call this debate void. I was speaking of a supreme being in generally, and therefore your argument that the Big Bang and Creationism are mutually exclusive is incorrect. And if you want to talk about burden of proof, then explain how the idea of a Big Bang goes against the laws of science itself - something cannot be made out of nothing, where did all the energy come from? A God perhaps?
stem cells

Only 500 words, so I will do this quick.1) The use of embryonic stem cells for research involves the destruction of blastocysts formed from fertilized human eggs. The destruction of blastocysts can be compared to killing and abusing human life, making it immoral. A life is a life and should never be compromised.2) The development of this technology can lead to knowledge on cloning. The abuse of this can be compared to nuclea research. @PRO: Killing off life to save lives isn't right.
stem cells

I think stem cells should be allowed to be used as often as they need to be because we have suposedubly alot of uncurable desiases in this world that i think can be cured today by stem cells some people think it more like cloning and it messing with nature 1. caner can be cured by healthy cells usually by taking cells out of embellical cord when babies are fist born 2. many STD's may be cured 3. and possibly deformities when in the womb
stem cells

Bone Marrow stem cells = Painful2. Umbilical Cord Stem Cells = Planned by Famliy members, Not likely.3. Embryonic Cells = Killing Human Life, making it immoral.4. Abuse of Stem Cell Technology Will Occur5. Cloning may be possible.6. Cloning is an abuse of life. When considered together, the disadvantages outweigh any possible advantages. ..
stem cells

1) Taking cells from peope via the bone marrow can result in a painful destruction.2) To use the umbilical cord, it must be planned ahead by close family members, so that the body doesn't reject it.3) In the case of embryonic cells, the extraction of stem cells from an embryo requires its destruction. In other words, it requires that a human life be killed. 4) Abuse of the the power to "play god" will occur.==Dropped Argument==1) The risks of this technology (Cloning)is simply too high.
atheism is belief to the contrary, thats all

The term "atheist" means a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in religion. People who lack spiritual guidance are known as atheist. Therefore when someone is an atheist, it means he or she has no religion. It strikes substantial similarity to colors, as in black is the lack of color, just like the fact that atheism is the act of non belief. Have a look at atheist.org, the website to your supposed 'religion', even it says that "Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion." This disproves your statement on the fact of is atheism is a belief or not.
atheism is belief to the contrary, thats all

Rebuttal upon Round Four: Various definitions of religion could be 1. Something one believes in and follows devotedly. or 2. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. But this definition of religion is so broad that virtually anything people enjoy doing very much, or follow strongly or obsessively, is a religion. It"s a definition of religion that is so broad that it"s meaningless. In reality, most of the things that people follow enthusiastically, are just hobbies. And ironically, although not collecting stamps is not a hobby, getting involved in atheist activities (writing books and blogs, attending atheist meetings) might well be a hobby for some people. But it is a hobby, not a religion. One last thing. Some theists have responded to the "if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby" argument by pointing out that non stamp collectors don"t write books or blogs about not collecting stamps, don"t post anti stamp collecting ads on buses, don't ridicule stamp collectors, etc. This is meant to demonstrate that the "stamp collecting" analogy is weak. It actually demonstrates that the analogy is very good, since it highlights one of the main problems atheists have with many religious people. Here"s the thing they are missing, and the real problem most atheists have with religion. If stamp collectors demanded that people who don"t collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors probably would criticize stamp collectors in the way atheists criticize many religious people. And with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby. Or a religion. I shall not compose another proof for round five, as Vi_spex has written only meaningless words. I will allow my opponent an equitable opportunity at the debate. Thanks you for reading, and I hope you'll vote for me.
atheism is belief to the contrary, thats all

you can call atheism the Black position, atheism is the negative position on an imaginary claim, theism is positive, and agnostic is balance, default, maybe position atheism is the opposite of theism, but they are both not real, so it isnt like hot and Cold, but more like not Cold but hot and unhot, but there is no such thing in reality these retorts are more like jokes.. they are not arguments, my hair is not atheism, atheism isnt a thing religion is a position, on an imaginary claim, atheism is the no vi spex, you are not wearing a hat right now(if you now go to evidence it Means you rely on science) religion=to rely on, while self is one i am one is true belief is theism, atheism is disbelief, disbelief is belief, disbelieving my claim is not, not believing it how do you know the tooth fairy is not real? how is believing in the tooth fairy different then belief in the christian god?
atheism is belief to the contrary, thats all

Atheism is most definitely not religion, just like the color black happens to be the lack of color. There is no belief that believes in not believing, if that made much sense. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color. 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." The singular thing that groups all of the atheists together is their non belief in gods or supernatural beings. That means, since there are many religions out there with different idols, atheists are not bound to agree on anything further than that. Countless arguments have single-handedly proven that atheism is in fact no religion. Does atheism have an eschatology? Eschatology is a "belief about the end of the world or the last things." Now, I'm sure that many atheists have some sort of beliefs about how the world might end, but those beliefs sure aren't clearly defined or uniform among all of us. In fact, any beliefs about the end of the world are accidental - that is to say, they are not a necessary part of atheism. There is absolutely, positively nothing inherent in the disbelief in gods that leads one to any opinions about the end of the world. Quite the opposite of how 'eschatology' is treated in a religion. Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy. My disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is not a philosophy of life - is it for anyone else? Furthermore, a philosophy of life is not necessarily a religion and it doesn't necessitate that a religious belief exists in the person with the philosophy.
atheism is belief to the contrary, thats all

alright, but i am saying atheism is religion thou, so it is belief in god you cant see me right now, and if i claim i am wearing a hat, a theist would say i am, an atheist would say i am not(imagine i am not), and an agnostic sees both sides for what they are, imaginary science believer today call themselves atheists while truly being theists to science and these are the arguments you hear, Scientific arguments, but my claim is that atheism is purely disbelief, so to contrast, belief is purely theism, and science is a religion, as i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it
Marijuana legalization,taxation and sale for adults 18 +

i give up i am tired of ignorant people. I smoke marijuana occasionally and i have no health problems what so ever. I have add/adhd which makes me really unfocused and unmotivational. no matter how much evidence there is on if its good or bad its all biased. I see no problem with marijuana as a plant grown in the soil. No matter how much people try con wins because marijuana is illegal which makes it seem bad to people. people while enjoy marijuana legal or not. Thanks for your time
Marijuana legalization,taxation and sale for adults 18 +

I believe Cannabis(delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) should be legalized as should Medical Cannabis. It should be taxed by the U.S Government using a sales tax in the same way the U.S government does for Tobacco and Alcohol. Persons 18 years or older would legally be able to purchase from " Dispensaries" not "Drug dealers". Cannabis should be legalized for a number of reasons. 1. The drug war is not as effective as most people think it is. 2. Police and the Government have better things to do. 3. Cannabis is a plant grown from a seed not a chemically altered substance like harder drugs. and i have a reason why my "points (or at least the synopsis's of them) prove literally nothing" I await my Opponents Argument :)
The modern Bible correctly records the words of God

Okay, so I'm playing "devil's advocate" in another debate in a surprisingly literal sense, and feel slimy every time I finish my argument. So...I'm going to argue a position I actually agree with now to offset the feeling of sliminess I get. First, a few terms. Bible: I refer to the 66 book Bible, and prefer the King James version. Another version is just fine as long as it is academically legitimate. Correctly: No significant margin of error. God: Supreme Being, Creator, Absolute Highest Authority Of course, if one does not believe God exists, that would be legitimate grounds to argue against me as well. If you believe in a god other than the one depicted in the Bible, that would also be legitimate grounds to object. I'm really not picky with the grounds for objection as long as it's well argued. Feel free to post either your position or your position and argument in the first round. Obviously I will be arguing in the second round! Good luck, in a way that does not mean bad luck for me!
The modern Bible correctly records the words of God

First off, thank you, this debate we're having seems more like a nice conversation and I apologize for being a bit confusing. Busy man chasing grandchildren all weekend. To answer those questions, I use a couple versions of restored Names scripture that allow me to transliterate as I read. יהוה / Yahuah Yahusha / יהושוע The Transliteration is mine and in no way affects how you breath / speak His Name. I don't argue about those things and truly believe Father Yah leads all in His time. Hebrew words are really sentences. What do you see when you look at Messiah's name in Hebrew? An abbreviated sentence of Yah is salvation. This brings my mind back to Me'ah and what possibly was conveyed in Hebrew and lost to an English speaking crowd. If we are aware that Mosheh was prophesying about Messiah being a prophet "like unto him (Mosheh), then Mosheh must of used parables to illustrate truths as well. My point of Me'ah is not so much about how Jonah conveyed the thought but rather how Messiah did. I believe that an intent has been purposely muddled by the beast and that messiah was indeed speaking about the beast when referencing "heart of the earth". Messiah giving the sign of Yonah would be belly of the earth which lines up with Rev. 13 beast making ready to eat man child. There is a beautiful poetry to Hebrew that I think won't be fully understood till our Messiah returns. With the "New Testament" having gone through so many hands and loosing much of its salt I'm forced to stay away. I believe we need stick to a more ancient path and that the twisted serpent has twisted "the Bible" to represent its image. This is why the whole world wonders about the beast. Hopefully this helps clarify my argument and that you understand the devices of man should not be used and represented as scripture. I think we agree on this point but that there may be difference in how we transliterate names. I believe the "Tetragrammaton " should be left in place of generic titles of authority and that the transliteration be left to the reader. Thank you for your joy Sir, I do feel your love. And wish you peace.
New Zealanders should learn māori

No person should be forced to learn any language, whether or not it is considered their country's "native language." If a country, especially one with a learning disability or difficulty, is forced to learn two languages, it would raise many issues and spark many more debates, such as: -Which language would be considered the primary language? -Which language are all the road signs written in? -What language would bookstores sell books in? -When would those who have already learned one language learn the other? -How are schools supposed to afford teachers for both languages as well as provide classrooms and supplies? -How much of a damper will this put on education budgeting? -Who would be paying for the new road signs and such that would be put on the roads, if they change? -Would the citizens agree to this new rule? Also, your other argument, the one about New Zealand losing it's uniqueness due to the language they speak, is entirely invalid. Even if a country speaks the same language as another, it an an entirely different country. Example: Spain and Mexico speak the same language, but they possess entirely different cultures.
Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

You said: Well I would like to ask for a rephrase of your question. By the way I interpret your question your asking what is the possibility of God. I would argue that there must be a God %100 of the time if we go with Aristotle's Unmoving mover. I would say that there would be a pure actuality aka God for the universe to exist. My response: Aren't you agreeing with me?