BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We need to become a nation under God again

My opponent concedes that America has generally improved, and that they were only talking about the government. However the fact that America as a nation is better off, with a greater economy, healthier people etc. , this shows that the government has also improved very greatly, as the growth was started and led by the government. Next my opponent says that there shouldn't be a law about religion because everyone has a right of freedom of religion, however my opponent contradicts themselves. You can't have freedom of religion in a country that dedicates itself to only the Christian version of God. If you want to put "God in the gov't," you would probably only put in one version of God, therefore the religion that follows that God will now be on a higher ground than all other religions, as their religion is endorsed by the gov't. And this violates the right to freedom of religion, as not all religions are treated equally under the law. Next my opponent makes the fallacious claim that "praying can solve anything. " To prove something like this, you would need a great deal of unrefutable evidence. It's obvious, you can't pray yourself out of life threatening diseases, you need to take action and get yourself treated by a medical professional. And finally, my opponent says "there shouldn't have to be evidence because the bible says to. " This is ridiculous, the Bible holds no more credibility than the Hobbit. The BOP was on my opponent in this case, to prove the credibility of the Bible, which they did not do. My opponent dropped the first amendment argument. I thank my opponent for this debate. That concludes my rebuttals, and I will not add any more arguments since this is the last round.
We need to become a nation under God again

Yes things like that are better now. But this debate isn't about how health and medicine has improved, I was talking about the government. I never said there should be a law about religion because everyone has the right to have whatever religion they want. Several people of all races and religions have moved here and brough there beliefs with them, I understand that. And yes I'll have you know praying can solve anything. God will save my nation. I know I have to take action myself but God will help me with that. There shouldn't have to be evidence because the bible says to "We live by faith and not by sight." -2nd Corinthians 5:7. There isn't any evidence of Zeus or Thor either.
We need to become a nation under God again

Many problems with my opponent's arguments. They state that the country was "founded on God and Christian principles." I'd like them to elaborate more on this statement, and give evidence for it, and also show how it's relevant to the topic at hand. My opponent also states that "our country was great back then and now that the gov't doesn't really care about God look what has happened to it." I'm sorry, but what exactly has happened to it? "Back then," the USA was just a newborn country with no relevance in international affairs. Now, after adopting secular values, it has opened itself up to people from around the world, which allowed it to grow incredibly fast economically. Not to mention that the USA is much better now than "back then," the average lifespan of a person is much higher, the USA is the largest economy in the world, and the greatest military power as well. Now I will move on to my own arguments.Contention 1 - The Constitution [1st Amendment]The constitution showcases the intent of the founding fathers, and is also the law of the land. And this constitution is a secular document, as it never appeals to God in any sense. It is also stated in the 1st amendment - "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."Thomas Jefferson, himself a founding father of America, wrote about the 1st amendment in a letter, calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Contention 2 - Seperation of Church and State protects free speechThere are many religions in the world, the two largest ones being Christianity and all it's various sects and factions, and Islam, and all it's various sects and factions. There is also Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, so forth. Secularism ensures that all these religions are on the same ground, and none are given extra privelege under the law. It also ensures that non religious people can voice their views without persecution. And this is very important, as the more discussion there is about religion, the more transparent it can be, and more truth will be revealed.Contention 3 - Which God?However disappointing it may sound, praying will not solve anything. God won't save your nation, you actually have to take action yourself. There isn't any proof that God exists. My opponent is suggesting that Americans subject their entire nation under the will of an entity for which not a shred of evidence of it's existence exists. There is no more reason for America to be a nation under the Christian God then there for America to be a nation under Zeus, or Thor, or the flying spagetthi monster. I'll leave it at that for now, I now toss the ball back to my opponent.
The 10 Commandments are still in effect and must be followed and kept!

We'll obviously CON is very confused as to who this debate is for. This debate is for "Christians" who do not keep the commandments. Obviously if you do not believe, it would not pertain to you. Again, this debate is directed to "Christians."This was a waste of my time. "Christians" out there who believe the 10 commandments have been done away with, I will create this same debate again. If I lose this debate, so be it, since this debate is for the so called "Christians."
The 10 Commandments are still in effect and must be followed and kept!

The BoP is on pro making the claim.Must: "be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)."https://www.google.com...Nobody is obliged or should follow biblical doctrine out of necessity. The 10 commandments are only obligatory or should be followed according to biblical doctrine. If I don't follow biblical doctrine, the 10 commandments don't need be followed and kept.Pro pastes biblical doctrine to affirm resolution but if nobody should or is obligated to follow biblical doctrine his points are irrelevant.Back to pro.
Islam is evil

I can offer different Interpretations of your Quran. Tabari 17 ;187 "killing unbeleivers is a small matter to us" The words of the prophet Muhammad. Q uara in Sura 2: 282 A womans testimony counts half of a mans testimony. There are many examples like this. I could add more but that is for scholars to endlessly debate. Now we have a myriad of different Middle Eastern Countries who are Islamic and continue to slaughter eachother . The only thing that they agree on is that Israel should be destroyed . Israel has democracy . This small State has contributed more to mankind than all Islamic Countries combined. Check the list of Noble Prize winners of both. Speaking of peace and love may win over the Ignorant , but when the 12 th verse of Islams holiest book either speaks of Allahs hatred of non -muslims or calls for their death ,forced conversion or subjugation its little wonder support for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader Muslim community. When Islamists profess they share our values I suggest you look up a word they use with all its makaai connotations , the word Taqiyyah.
Islam is evil

The Koran is a nonsense. It is a collection of myths. If Mohhamad was alive today he would be arrested for war crimes and child sex . Islam would , if it could , take away the human rights of every female on the planet. Your holy book , the Koran , should be ridiculed at every opportunity. The violent rhetoric of Islamic reactions to cartoons of your prophet in a Denmark publication exposed the very real threat that we face here in the west. Islam is a bad religion.
Socialism is morally superior to capitalism

My opponent seems to have forfeited the third round, so i will just lay out my case. The only thing immoral about capitalism is greed, I have made it perfectly clear the other to charges were invalid. However, socialism clearly is not fair to the people who work harder than others, the redistribution of wealth is a system of organized legalized theft, and socialism encourages sloth by rewarding others for less work. In conclusion, capitalism is in fact morally superior to socialism.
Socialism is morally superior to capitalism

Rubttles C1: First off, I can not deny that greed plays a part in capitalism. Capitalism has some moral wrongs to it, but I will be proving that socialism is worse and therefore is not morally superior to capitalism. Concerning fairness, I would like to as my opponent and the voters a question. If someone does more work then another person, and then gets the same wage how is this fair? Capitalism rewards each person according to the work that they have done. If someone has worked very hard then they get rewarded for their hard work, if someone is lazy then they are also rewarded accordingly. This is fair. Concerning equality, Each person has the same opportunity. Each person is going to have to work hard in order to succeed in life. If your a rich spoiled kid then your going to still have to work really hard to make sure the means of getting this wealth is taken care of. If you are a farmer then you are going to have work equally hard to get the wealth that you deserve. Everyone has equal rights to free enterprise. If I want to start a shoe company then I have the same right to own a run the business as the owner of McDonald's. Everybody has there own talents, and it is up to them on how to use them and they will be rewarded according to the work they perform. C3: I totally disagree with my opponent's third contention. Socialism encourages envy, which is agreed upon as immoral. In socialism the poor people are encouraged to envy the wealth of the richer people who worked harder then they. Socialism also is immoral in terms of theft. Under socialism a ruling class of intellectuals, bureaucrats and social planners decide what people want or what is good for society and then use the coercive power of the State to regulate, tax, and redistribute the wealth of those who work for a living. In other words, Socialism is legalized theft! Socialism also encourages sloth. In socialism each person is rewarded the same amount no matter how much he works. So if a guy works more then another guy he still gets the same amount as the other guy. Therefore, socialism rewards sloth. In Conclusion, Capitalism is fair. Capitalism supports equality. Socialism encourages envy. Socialism is a form of theft. Socialism rewards sloth Vote Con! Sources : http://www.ashbrook.org...
The Problem of Evil falsifies the Christian God's Omnibenevolence

.The burden of proof is on me to demonstrate the resolution to be true. I will argue in the following round and Con may provide rebuttals/arguments in the same round.10,000 characters. Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening arguments, Con may rebut meRound 3: Rebuttals/ArgumentsRound 4: Rebuttals/Conclusions - No new arguments/brand new rebuttalsThat is all, good luck! !
God? [Or Evolution]

I believe Evolution is scientifically incorrect, there are so many loopholes in it. Evolutionists believe God doesn't exist. They claim that science proves the Bible wrong, and everything happened by chance. Can you imagine that all this world, all this uniqueness of every living thing was "by chance?" There may be similarities between different animals, but that can also point to a single Creator, not just a single ancestor. There are so many problems with Evolution which haven't been solved yet. Present your views, and I will contradict them. I am strong about my views. Also, how can life come from no life?
Turquoise is Better than Teal

You have an okapi to whom you dictate your desired messages and then he types in with his hooves. Anyway, the fact of the matter is, undergarments doesn't necessarily mean underpants. He wore a brassier every day while running the Nazi's which happened to be teal. He even had a name for it, "Mein Schnitzel Magnet". Hitler was evil, and wore a teal bra.
GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not

Why you brought this debate up means nothing. What matters is the resolution. When you support the idea that "GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not," this means that you must defend that he is always "wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not," which you have not done. Its relevant because it is what the resolution says. He said that those people are not Christians. Well, many people who do such things are not Christians. Thus, GodSands is at least partially correct. Thus, he is not "wrong. " Well, you're PRO. That statement was NOT the resolution, and thus is NOT what we are debating over. He never said that that paragraph was targetted at Christians. It would also apply to non-Christians. Because of this, he is at least partially correct. Conclusion: My opponent has seemingly forfeited everything that I have said. What he said in that particular thread was only partially wrong. My opponent has no real argument.
GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not

I only have about 15 minutes to post my argument, but since my opponent did not come with valid arguments, other than to tell what the resolution says, as if I did not know what I wanted to debate, I am going to make a short argument. 1. As I said before, I brought this debate up because I wanted to challenge GodSands and prove to him that he is wrong when he tells others whether or not they are Christians, based on what he said in that particular thread[1]. My opponent wants me to prove that GodSands is always wrong, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as I do not believe that he is always wrong, nor did I say that. Of course he is not wrong when he tells an Atheist that he is not a Christian. On the contrary, he is wrong when he says that those who do the secret habit [and sins similar to that one, which do make you a sinner but not a non-Christian] as if it meant nothing to God, they are not Christians. 2. If this was a debate about GodSands being wrong all the time, then I would be CON, and I would also not have said, "It looks like GodSands knows who is Christian and who is not, << >>" 3. My opponent wrote, "In conclusion, GodSands is correct at least some of the time when he tells people that they are not Christian, thus saying he is simply "wrong" is incorrect." I do not disagree with that, but what is the point of my opponent writing it? This debate was made to prove that GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether or not they are Christian [Ive stated the reasons why], and I never said that he is always wrong. I also did not just say that GodSands is simply "wrong". I provided good arguments proving that what he said was wrong because he referred to Christian women who dress to draw attention from males, guys who do the seret habit, and so forth, saying that they are not Christians. This is wrong for several reasons, and one of them is that the Bible does not state that a man who does any of this is a non-believer. Conclusion: I do not believe that GodSands is always wrong, but what he saiin that particular thread was obviously wrong, because being a sinner does not make you a non-Christian. Reference(s): [1]http://www.debate.org...
GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not

Where in that paragraph did it say that he was only talking about those who claimed to be Christians? He never did. He was also addressing atheists and people who are not Christian, and never claimed to have been. Also, it says nowhere in the resolution or the first round that we are only discussing that topic. He also acknowledges that some people are atheists. This means that he calls them non-Christians, and he is correct. The resolution does not say that it is based on that particular thread. It is based on GodSands in general. In order for my opponent to win, he must prove that GodSands is always wrong, which he cannot do becuase he is sometimes right.
GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not

My opponent either misunderstood what I wrote or has no other way to prove me wrong except by saying something that is not true at all. Con said, "My opponent claims that he is only saying that GodSands is wrong only most of the time." This is once more a false claim. I did not say that GodSands is wrong only most of the time. I clearly said that he was wrong in the thread (http://www.debate.org...). The resolution was meant the be based on what was being said on that thread. That is why I began by saying, "I just read what GodSands and other people wrote on this thread: http://www.debate.org...; -- Not so long after that I said, "I challenge GodSands [he did not accept this debate, so I challenge anybody] to a debate, based on what he <*said*>". My opponent has to understand that the resolution is based on that specific thread. Moving on, Con said, "Naturally, many of the people who live in sin, as described by GodSands, are indeed not Christians. This means that GodSands is correct in calling them not Christian." This is also not what we're talking about. We're talking about people who call themselves Christians and may very well be Christians. GodSands said that those who masturbate as if it meant nothing to God, they are NOT Christians. This is what we're discussing. How can GodSands know whether or not those who masturbate, yet call themselves Christians, in fact are Christians? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a person who masturbates is not a Christian, for instance. Also, it may be that some real Christians do not consider masturbation being a sin.
GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not

My opponent claims that he is only saying that GodSands is wrong only most of the time. This is not what the resolution says. For the resolution to be affirmed, he must prove that GodSands is always wrong. My opponent quotes a statement from GodSands written to every member who lives in sin. Naturally, many of the people who live in sin, as described by GodSands, are indeed not Christians. This means that GodSands is correct in calling them not Christian. My opponent's conclusion makes no sense. Not all people believe that the only valid Christians are those in their sect. In conclusion, GodSands is correct at least some of the time when he tells people that they are not Christian, thus saying he is simply "wrong" is incorrect.
GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not

To begin with, I did not say that GodSands is wrong every time he tells other people whether or not they are Christians. I said, "I challenge GodSands to a debate, based on what he [i. e. in . http://www.debate.org...]. " Moving on, this debate is not about GodSands telling Atheists that they are not Christians. It is merely due to these kinds of statements: "Those who live in sin, those boys on this site who masterbate as if it meant nothing to God, and those girls who dress to draw in attention from boys without any affection to God. Those who do these things without remorse and a feeling of self corruption within, YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN! !" He said, "Those who live in sin. .. " -- As I said, Christianity accepts the fact that every man sins, hence why there is repentance, and why Adam and Eve were forgiven. They also sinned, but that did not make them non-Christians [according to the Bible]. He also said, ". .. those boys on this site who masterbate as if it meant nothing to God. .. " -- This is again not making anybody a non-Christian. In order to know about God's mercy, people sin automatically, so that they can feel how God is helping them not to sin anymore. There are some things people do even though they do know it is a sin, and that God does not like it. But that simply does not make them unbelievers at all. GodSands ends the whole comment by saying, "YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN! !" -- I do not see where Atheists come into the discussion at all. He is clearly talking about people who masturbate or live in sin, which refers to those who say that they're Christians. Lastly, I also never said that GodSands is never correct. I simply said that he was not correct in that specific thread. As I also said earlier, some other Christians, even non-Christians like myself, believe that he - according to the Bible itself - is a sinner, and does not stop sinning. For example, the Bible says in Matthew, chapter 7, verse 1, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. " -- It means that he should look at his own sins before looking at other people's sins. According to the Amish, he is sinning by sitting in front of a computer. According to some other sect, he is sinning because he does not pray all day. Conclusion: Not everybody here who say that they are "Christian" are belonging to his sect, so they might be Catholics while he might be a Protestant, so he is as much of a non-Christian to them as they are to him.
GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not

My opponent believes that GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether or not they are Christians. However, considering the vast number of people that he has called Christians or non-Christians, he had to be correct at least some of the time. Additionally, he acknowledges that atheists are not Christians. He is correct in doing so. My opponent must prove that GodSands is wrong every time that he tells other people whether or not they are Christians. Good luck.
GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not

I just read what GodSands and other people wrote on this thread: http://www.debate.org... It looks like GodSands knows who is Christian and who is not, based on what he thinks people do that is forbidden in Christianity, and what he thinks they do willingly, not because they perhaps have a hard time warding it off. Perhaps he should understand that there is a thing called repentance, and when people sin they can repent, and sinning does not make them non-Christians. Rather, it just proves that they're sinners, and so is everybody according to the Bible, and that is why everybody should ask God to help them repel the devil's whispering. I challenge GodSands [he did not accept this debate, so I challenge anybody] to a debate, based on what he said. I strongly disagree that people aren't Christians just because they sin, especially because my interpretation of the Bible tells me that GodSands sins too. For example, he thinks that somebody who does not worship Jesus, yet believes in the Bible, is not a Christian, but some Christians believe that those who believe in the Bible and worship Jesus are not Christians. Round 1 is meant to be a brief summary of why we disagree with each other, and the rest of the rounds are for the arguments and rebuttals. I hope that this debate is going to be interesting to all readers.