BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Allah is not the God of the Bible

It seems we agree that Allah is not the God of the Bible. However, I do disagree with a few comments you made. I saw the souls of those who had been BEHEADED because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not WORSHIPED the beast or its IMAGE. To say this refer to Islam is not a very logical assumption. Islam, as you quote, are beheading people now. There is no beast or image that was set up that must be worshipped now as dictated by a world leader who is ruling now. The passage obviously refers to some future event. Although it is not considered ethical to behead people today, it was however practiced by many nations (for example Japan) long before Islam arrived on the scene. The French are usually credited with perfecting the art of beheading, if you can call it an art. To behead someone is not enough to make the connection you are making because there is too many other things that do not fit the verse referred too. You said that Allah is the god mentioned in revelation, but that does not fit in with who the Antichrist is. The antichrist is a man who will sit in the temple and proclaim himself to be god and force everyone to bow down to him as god. Allah is already proclaimed to be god. I am not sure if you hold to the view that the Antichrist will be a Muslim. Someone gave me a dvd of someone called Walid Shoebat (not sure if its spelled correct). I watched it and disagree with the conclusion that the Antichrist is Islam or an Islamic person.
Allah is not the God of the Bible

The differences between the God of the Bible and Allah are numerous and to claim that they are actually the same God is unreasonable. "The word 'Allah' no matter the origin pre Muhammad is understood in the Islamic context today as the Quranic deity. It is not a word that depicts the Trinitarian Yahweh-Elohim(Lord God) of the Bible. It is wrong for any translation of the Bible in any language to use this word 'Allah' to refer to the God of the Bible. Doing so brings confusion and ambiguity between what the Bible teaches as the Trinitarian monotheistic God with that of the 'Allah' of the Quran. It cannot be considered as a mere argument over semantics for Christians of the protestant/evangelical variety. To use 'Allah' synonymously in reference to the Biblical deity is both confusing for the Muslims and Christians as to which God one is referring to as it is poles apart theologically." http://www.danielpipes.org...
Evolutionism Vs. Creationism

I'm taking on this "debate" against my better judgement. You can't compare a scientific theory with a story from an ancient book. It's like comparing Einstein's theory of relativity to a mother goose story about how Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.My opponent said, "This will NOT be about the Big Bang or Beginning of Life" Isn't creationism the beginning of the human race? Already he contradicts himself.My opponent claims "Evolution is hard to believe without knowing where it started"Evolution is about biological change. It's a fact that in biology, things change. The scientific theory explains how the change happens. It's very easy to understand evolution without having to study abiogenesis.Now let's get to the "arguments""1st of all, I believe Creationism relies on the Bible (vice versa)."That's circular reasoning. Also, believing something doesn't make it true. The Bible is not a science book and doesn't prove anything scientifically."2nd, you cannot deny that Creationism has evidence. If you do, I will give you proof during the argument."Evidence doesn't always prove fact. "3rd, Creationism is HARD to believe in BECAUSE it's hard to believe in a Creator God."It's hard to believe in anything without evidence based on facts."Personally, it's no wonder the majority of scientists are Evolutionists because it's so much sweeter, calmer, and easier to believe in a theory which holds together pretty nicely."Sweetness is a flavor. Yes, it's calm and easy to accept factual evidence. The scientific theory of evolution holds together rock solid."But there are places where Evolution has no answers , and that is where it stumbles and Creationism wins".That's called an argument from ignorance. It's a logical fallacy. Can you give me an easy-to-understand, simple, and short summary of what Evolutionism is? State your evidence. Yes, watch this video:
Evolutionism Vs. Creationism

Pro = for Creationism * Con = for Evolutionism This will NOT be about the Big Bang or Beginning of Life, although Creationism explains all that together and Evolution is hard to believe without knowing where it started. Please don't be close-minded. I'd like to see a logical argument where we each show evidence and reason for our cases. Each round will bring it's own topics to hand, I'm sure :) 1st of all, I believe Creationism relies on the Bible (vice versa). 2nd, you cannot deny that Creationism has evidence. If you do, I will give you proof during the argument. 3rd, Creationism is HARD to believe in BECAUSE it's hard to believe in a Creator God. Personally, it's no wonder the majority of scientists are Evolutionists because it's so much sweeter, calmer, and easier to believe in a theory which holds together pretty nicely. But there are places where Evolution has no answers , and that is where it stumbles and Creationism wins. Can you give me an easy-to-understand, simple, and short summary of what Evolutionism is? State your evidence.
The Biblical God cannot be shown immoral

In this post I'll address Pro's Opening Essay.Before evaluating whether Pro has provided us with good reason to believe the resolution, we should be clear on what the resolution means.The resolution before us is that the Biblical God cannot be shown immoral. Taking this at face value, it would seem to mean that it's impossible to show that God is immoral. On the one hand, this places an unbearable burden on Pro and on the other, a remarkably light burden on me. For, all I'd need to show is that there's nothing ridiculous about the Biblical God being immoral, and while this position may be highly unlikely, surely it's not ridiculous.So, I thought this understanding of the resolution would make things far too easy for me. What else could it mean? Well, sometimes we exaggerate, and say something cannot be done or cannot be happening when we simply mean it's really hard to believe that it will be done, or that it's happening. This strikes me as a more fair, accurate interpretation.As such, it'd place the following burden on Pro: Convincingly show that it's highly unlikely that the Biblical God is immoral. This would correspondingly evince the position that the Biblical God "cannot" be shown immoral.Has Pro accomplished this task in his Opening Essay? Well, it would appear that he has not. Pro suggests that many arguments to the effect that God is immoral involve fallacious inferences and poor hermeneutics. While this may very well be the case, it wouldn't show that it's highly unlikely the Biblical God is immoral. At most, it would show that we've failed--so far--to show that the Biblical God is immoral.Yet, I don't think Pro's Opening Essay shows even this. It's not clear to me that the arguments he lists are actually representative of the most formidable objections to the Biblical God's moral nature. They certainly don't appear 'common' to me from the academic literature concerning this topic. Perhaps these objections are more representative of novices, or some such. But, the state of poor objections to a position shouldn't indicate the state of reflective objections. One of the convenient--but challenging--aspects of academia is that scholars tend to ensure their arguments aren't fallacious (which isn't very difficult). That way, if their positions are to be defeated, it must be on factual grounds.So, it seems to me Pro has a long way to go before satisfactorily evincing the resolution. This isn't to say it can't be done though, and so I look forward to Pro's response.Thank you for reading.
The Biblical God cannot be shown immoral

I propose a simple debate that I'm sure many critics of the Bible will find intriguing, that the God of the Bible cannot demonstrably be shown immoral, and His actions in both the Old and New Testaments can be justified. I contend that no definitely complicit actions exist by God as recorded in the Bible, and a contextual reading of the Bible as a whole reveals a depth of moral soundness to God's actions. I look forward to a professional and courteous debate on this subject.
Outer space exploration should be pursued.

It's nice to see that people (such as yourself) are finally getting some free time now that the "May Rush" is almost over. Good luck I am against the idea of Space Exploration. I advocate that everything that we can know (that comes with few costs) should be pursued. Learning about outer space is awesome but only when it is done with conventional means. Therefore, weight must be put onto the word "exploration." I. Too many costs When analyzing the resolution, you must look to the amount of costs placed upon us. BILLIONS of dollars is spent on NASA per year (evidence may be needed but I know it's a lot.) I challenge my opponent to show me what is so beneficial in outer space exploration that it is worth spending billions of dollars. II. To few benefits Certainly there are benefits (such as certain inventions) when you go to outer space, but all of those things could have been discovered without outer space exploration. In the end... outer space anarchy seems to have little to no meaning to it. Exploring an area is not worth spending billions of dollars. Most of the exploring can be done by telescopes on earth... exploration is completely useless. Thank you and good luck!
I can prove Ron Paul is better than your favorite candidate for president.

Thats all well and good that he wants to pass laws to make it harder to hire them. Currently the people hiring them are not hiring them legally. They pick them up in pick-up trucks work them for the day and pay them cash. So to enforce these "laws" Paul wants to pass you are going to need a virtual army of inspectors to find these businesses and punish them. Furthermore that doesn't begin to address what to do with the estimated 11 or 12 million of them already here. What does he plan to do with them? Make a law that makes it harder for them to find work?? Anyone who has taken an entry level sociology class realizes that poverty is a great motivator for crime. So now you've taken away the ability for these people to support themselves, how are they going to do it? I don't think this country needs another 11 million hungry mouths to feed. At least now a vast majority of them are working, trying to better themselves. Your candidate would have them poor, still in this country, and with no prospects for upward mobility. The token "pass laws" plan is not going to address any of the problem. If anything it will end up created a great deal of problems. Moore at least realizes the futility and wastefulness that would result in an attempt to remove, or punish these people. Granted many of these people are here illegally, but why are they here? One must put ourselves in their shoes to understand why they have done what they have. If I am a Mexican male who has a wife and 2 children, and Mexico has no opportunity for my to better my family and give them a better life, guess what, I'm going somewhere that does. Poverty around the world and civil strife is causing these people to flood here in record numbers. This is no different than the great waves of europeans who came here in the 19th and 20th centuries. The only difference is that there is no Ellis Island, no program setup to ensure equal opportunity to those who do come here. Instead of looking at these people as Paul does, that is as threats to our country, Moore looks at them as a positive opportunity. One which will allow them to finally get on the books and start paying taxes. One that creates a path to citizenship, one that provides opportunities for these people to better themselves, which will in turn better us as a country. Wasting billions to fight them is useless. They are here and they aren't going anywhere. That is why I feel your candidate is not best suited for the presidency. (Honestly neither of our candidates will win) His policies are made to rally a base, and make headlines. They provide no applicable guidelines, and show little possibility of functioning efficiently. It would be more of the same pandering and polarizing politics. Which is exactly what this country DOESN'T need.
I can prove Ron Paul is better than your favorite candidate for president.

By us giving bad treatment to terrorists in jail, that doesn't help them. Us being is Iraq isn't hurting them, but it doesn't help either. And what you are saying about immigrants could be said about criminals, which immigrants are. Example- There are 300 murderers on the loose, let's say. The police department says, well there were 299, before this latest guy, let's not do anything. How would you respond?
I can prove Ron Paul is better than your favorite candidate for president.

Actually, I do know who Brian P. Moore is. I keep tabs on all candidates from every party, including 3rd parties. I will not debate you on how he probably won't be elected. Ron Paul's stance on the Iraq war and Israel is pretty much the same. The only thing I haven't heard Dr.Paul say is that removing the prisons from Iraq will cut off the recruitment tools to the terrorists. Please explain that further. Economic situation- a $15 minimum wage would definitley be livable for everyone, but thi would inflate prices for everything like a balloon! Companies paying less than that right now would have to shoot their prices up, thus causing the minimum wage workers to again be in turmoil, and people who already had $15+ an hour would also be in some trouble if their pay didn't rise. Immigration- Ron Paul obviously is very different from Moore on this subject. Dr.Paul wants to build a fence. Letting immigrants in constantly without a care in the world would also destroy our economy. They would take thousands upon thousands of jobs from us. This is why we need controlled immigration. We're already at 300 million+ citizens, it's not like we're lonely here. Military- Dr.Paul lives by the constitution, he also demands votes on military acts. He doesn't however, want to destroy the CIA, Homeland Security, etc. Not everyone in the world is kind. I used to hang out with a socialist senate candidate's son. He thought that letting everyone into the country was a great thing. He acted like nobody in the world hated our country's guts and wanted to bomb the crap out of it. I would like to know your candidate's stances on the following. Federal Reserve- it is a quasi-public company. It is partially private. Ron Paul wants to destroy it and make a government owned Federal Reserve. IRS- it is a completely private company. It has been accused of being a Puertorican Trust, although never proven. Ron Paul never said it was a puerto rican trust, but he did say it is private and needed to be destroyed. Education System- Ron Paul hates the American education system. In the 1800s, when parents paid teachers directly, and the government had no part in schools, the literacy rate was at 98%. Now we've fallen to 70-80%. Gun Ownership- Dr.Paul believes in the right to bear arms if not an ex-felon. Qualifications- Texas represenative.
I can prove Ron Paul is better than your favorite candidate for president.

This debate is 4 rounds long. In the first round just tell me who you support and a TINY bit about them. I obviously support Ron Paul. Dr.Paul has delivered more than 4000 babies. He is against letting businesses get away with crimes just for donating. He has only gotton private donations so far, which is the only kind he wants. He has had 123,000+ donators. He has raised more than $18 million, $6 million and $4 million being in single days.
God Most Likely Does Not Exist

Important definitions are provided below:God - the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Exist - have objective reality or being. (http://oxforddictionaries.com...) We will be debating to whether or not the existence of God is likely or unlikely based on accurate peer-reviewed evidence as well as logically sound arguments. If there is no compelling evidence for God's existence, then God is unlikely to exist. This means that belief in a God is unjustified and irrational. Obviously, the burden of proof is on Con to show that a God exists. I would prefer one to accept the definitions above before accepting the debate. I would also like to point out that I do not want one to negate the resolution through semantic ploys. I want a genuine believer to argue and show his/her evidence and reasoning for an actual, observable, and provable God. First round is for acceptance. I hope to have a stimulating and worthwhile debate with Con.
The Democrats are not protecting the US Constitution right and have communist views.

Firstly nowhere did I say, that the Democrats were communists, I just said that they have communist beliefs. I talked to my friend who was a Democrat and he said he wanted to illegalize being mean. We have the right to be mean to people (not like we should). Secondly communists believe in more order, the kind that want exact control, that is what the Democrats are doing. Hate Crimes "How did our conscience get so seared, that we could all stand by, as history disappears before our eyes" -Threshold "Until the memory of freedom is gone" -Threshold Hate crimes is when someone who commits a crime is penalized for hate. THIS IS WRONG IN EVERY WAY. We will lose the right to be ourselves. We have the right to hate. Its just like in the dark ages. The King imprisoned, flogged, and even killed people for treason. We have the right to commit treason, in America, its called freedom of speech. In the dark ages its called treason. Hate crimes are trying to take that freedom away. Gun Control My opponent says that we should ban guns because they are the perfect killing tool. Well I want him to tell me in his next argument why criminals would need a perfect killing tool when they have to practice their weapon 24-7 otherwise they are sent to jail for even hate. But the people who need a gun for self defense, are broken. If a criminal comes up and takes his bow-and-arrow, or knife, or some other makeshift weapon once guns are banned. The guy who needs to defend himself is lost without his weapon (the gun). So when my opponent says that guns are the perfect killing tool, he doesn't realize that it is the perfect killing tool for the guy being wrongfully attacked by the criminal. While the criminal doesn't even need a perfect killing tool because his weapon is already perfect because he will go to jail if he doesn't perfect it. Also, most guns are imported in illegal manners. Therefore, criminals can get guns just as easily if guns were banned. So both way's my opponent has been trapped for his own good. Going back to the thesis statement of my first argument, right to bear arms is in the second amendment. So banning that is exactly closing the argument. They are not protecting our constitution, they are destroying it. Soon we will have soldiers in our houses again. Second Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org... Bloomberg and his soda banning This belief is Democratic, whether or not Bloomberg is a Democrat or not. This is exactly what I am saying, banning soda is against the Constitution. No wonder Obama was the best candidate to run for the Democrats. Everyone votes for him because they say, I am not racist because I am voting for a black person. In fact, they are being racist by voting for a black person, because he is black. You can't get a free ticket out of racism.
The Democrats are not protecting the US Constitution right and have communist views.

Before I begin to counter these flimsy points, I think that my opponent should understand what the word communism means: a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed http://www.merriam-webster.com...Even if my opponent believes that the Democrats are not protecting the rights outlined in the Constitution, he fails at relating communism to his three major points. That being said, let us go over these three points piece by piece.1. Hate Crimes First, I do not believe that a song should be used as any type of evidence to prove your point. There is a vast Internet full of documents and articles that could possibly support your argument. My opponent could go to the library and take out books on hate crimes. There is a lot of material on the subject to be found.A hate crime is defined as: "any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation)" http://www.merriam-webster.com...Explain to me how anything that my opponent said fits into this. It sounds like my opponent is more concerned about the judicial system getting paid off for a "Memory changing system".2. Gun ControlMy opponent that guns shouldn't be banned because people kill people. Furthermore, he states that guns are weapons in the same way that trophies and cloth are weapons. The reason why people want a gun ban in America is because weapons are a near perfect killing tool. There is very little skill involved, the killer does not need an optimal physique, and there is no training required. KEEP IN MIND I AM NOT STATING MY VIEWS ON THE GUN BAN. Merely, I am stating how the gun ban would theoretically lower crime rates by taking away one of the best tools for the job.3. Banning SodasQuick lesson on Bloomberg. He started as a Democrat, became a republican in 2001, then became an independent politician in 2007. The ban was proposed when he was an independent. So bottom line? THIS ENTIRE POINT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE DEMOCRATS.To conclude, shame on my opponent for saying that 'gay rights' is a minor issue. I know that it is against the rules to bring that up, but it is a major topic in modern America.Also, I would invite my opponent to follow his own rules in being clear. My opponent would benefit from properly structured grammar and sentences.I await your response. Good luck and thank you for giving me this opportunity.