BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Deity of Jesus Christ

1) "My opponent is quoting the NWT; which, according to source 1, is an invalid translation of scripture." How do you know? Do you read Greek? If so, please explain why the translation of Hebrews I cited is incorrect grammatically. 2) John 8:58 doesn't say I am: "Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been." Exodus 3:14 says " So God said to Moses: "I Will Become What I Choose* to Become."" I don't see the connection between these two verses. If there is one, the burden is on you. Even if he said "I am", that wouldn't make him God. I have said "I am" in countless sentences over the course of my life, but I have never claimed to be God. Also, why do I care what the Jews thought of Jesus? They frequently misunderstood what he was saying. 3) The evidence is the lack of the definite article before "theos". Greek has no indefinite article, so in order to make things indefinite, they simply omit the article. In English, we do have an article to make things indefinite: a. Therefore, in order to render it in English as it was in Greek, we must add a. Also, I must remind you that the burden to prove the deity of Christ is on you. You must demonstrate why there should not be an "a". 4) Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn, so he is obviously the first created meaning. John 1:14 also calls Jesus the only begotten or created son. Also, you still have not addressed the fact that Jesus is called the wisdom of God, and wisdom was created by God according to the Old Testament. 5) I agree that the New Testament is the completion of the Old Testament, but what does that have to do with the deity of Christ. 6) That does not seem like the natural interpretation of the text, but even if I were to accept it, you have a problem. If the Father is in charge of Jesus, how can they be equal ontologically? 7) Regarding Colossians, of course God dwelt in Jesus, just as He dwells in all who believe. The Word was certainly made flesh, but the Word is merely a spirit creature, not God. You still have not dealt directly with my logical argument or the verses I cited. Instead, you have simply brought up other verses. 8) You quoted only part of 1 Cor 1:24, and you left out the part that was key to y argument. Jesus is called the wisdom of God. This same wisdom of God is said to have been created by God in Proverbs. " Prov. 8;;22-23 is not a reference to Christ, but to wisdom." If Jesus is wisdom as the part you cut out says, then this is about Jesus.
The Deity of Jesus Christ

Rebuttals; 1. Heb 1.8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." My opponent is quoting the NWT; which, according to source 1, is an invalid translation of scripture. The King James Version is much more accurate in that it makes it clear that the Son is God 2. John 8:58; the key here are the words "I Am". Christ is quoting Exodus 3:14, where God is revealing his name to Moses. Christ, therefore is declaring himself God. That is why in 8:59 the Jews tried to stone him 3. On John :1:1, what evidence do you have to add the article "a" to it? 4. Where in the Bible does it say Christ is a created being? 5. No, both Testaments fit together and don"t contradict. The reason why I made a point that Num. 23:19 was written pre-incarnation is that, I was trying to make a point that in the NT there is a fully revelation 6. In reference to JN. 14:28, i was point out that because Christ is the God-man, he can say "My Father is greater then I"" because that"s him speaking as a man. There is another way to interpret this verse, The Father is greater in his office but not in his nature. This was explained neatly by Dr.. Walter Martin; "Trump is the president, by virtual of his office, he is greater then every American. However, if you asked Trump if he"s was better then me, Trump would say no. Greater in office but not greater in nature." 7. John 5;26; you said it is impossible for God to become a man. If this is so, then explain JN 1;14 "The Word was made flesh" & Col 2;9. "For in him {Jesus} dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. 8. I Cor. 1;24 "...Christ is the power of God..." just because it says this does not mean Christ is not God. I Cor 15;28 "The Son also himself shall be subject unto him {The Father}". This does not mean the divine part of the Son; for in Heb. 1;8 we are told that the Son himself shares his Father"s throne. Prov. 8;;22-23 is not a reference to Christ, but to wisdom. Jn 20;17 Is the humanity of Christ, not his deity. (1) https://www.gotquestions.org... "
The Deity of Jesus Christ

Point 1: But about the Son, he says: "God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. (Hebrews 1:8). This verse just says that God is the Son's thrown. I don't see how this has anything to do with the deity of Christ. "Point 2: you said, in regards to John 8:58, that Jesus pre existed the incarnation, therefore, Jesus is God" Noah also existed before Abraham. That would make Abraham God as well by the same reasoning. Jesus is simply a spirit creature who became a man. "Point 3: please provide evidence that John 1:1 was influenced by Trinitarians. Evidence, please" The evidence is that all modern translations were written by Trinitarians. This is the only way to explain why they would make "god" definite when it is indefinite in Greek. "Point 4: Numb 23:19 was written before the incarnation, so this verse must be interpreted through the New Testament" Are you saying that the New Testament can overrule the Old Testament? I happen to think the New Testament does not contradict the previous revelation. God also tells us that he is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If He was not a man then, He cannot become a man. "Point 5; I John 4:12 means God the Father, not God the Son" How do you know? It just says, God. If the Son is God, this would apply to him as well. "Point 6: John 14:28, Jesus is speaking in his humanity, not his Deity" What do you mean by this? "Point 7: col 1:15-16 "firstborn" does not make jesus into a created being" Firstborn clearly means the first one born or the first one created in this case. That's why the firstborn son of this time is the one that was born or created first. If you don't want to accept the plain understanding of the text, please provide evidence. "Point 8: John 5:26 The Son has two natures , God and man" This is impossible. God is by nature perfect, but man is by nature imperfect. Therefore, God cannot be a man as Numbers tells us. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, while Jesus was none of these according to scripture. "Point 9 the Father and Son are distinct yet one in Deity (Jn 10:30)" What do you mean by one in deity? If they are distinct, doesn't that just mean one in purpose? Also, the passage you cited means they are one in purpose. This is why Jesus asks that the disciples would be one just as he is one with the Father: "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you." (John 17:12a). You still have not addressed 1 Corinthians 1:24, Proverbs 8:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:28, and John 20:17. I look forward to your response to these texts.
The Deity of Jesus Christ

Point 1: according to Heb 1:8 the Son is declared to be God; Jesus is the Son of God (Mark 1:1) therefore, Jesus is God #2: John 20:28 Thomas was speaking on the inspiration of Holy Spirt and said that Jesus is God Point 2: you said, in regards to John 8:58, that Jesus pre exsisted the incarnation, therefore, Jesus is God Point 3: please provide evidence that John 1:1 was influenced by triniatarians. Evidence, please Point 4: Numb 23:19 was written before the incarnation, so this verse must be interpreted through the New Testament Point 5; I John 4:12 means God the Father, not God the Son Point 6: John 14:28, Jesus is speaking in his humanity, not his Deity Point 7: col 1:15-16 "firstborn" does not make jesus into a created being Point 8: John 5:26 The Son has two natures , God and man Point 9 the Father and Son are distinct yet one in Deity (Jn 10:30)
The Deity of Jesus Christ

The purpose of this debate is to discuss the deity of Jesus Christ. Before I begin my opening argument, I would like to let everyone who"s reading this to know that both of us who are debating this topic intend to use the Bible as our authority. The Bible clearly teaches the full Deity of Jesus Christ. This is evident in John 20;28 where Thomas clearly declares Jesus to be God. It is also evident in John 8;58 where Christ says that he existed before Abraham. Finally. John 1:1-3 teaches that Christ was with God in the beginning and he himself was God
Abortion Should Be Legal

\\\only that all humans should not be considered people./// What? Please explain. \\\This point is fairly easy to understand. I have the (uncertain) potential to one day become the President of the United States. The President, of course, is Commander in Chief and has the right to command the United States Army. Does this give me the right, at this very moment, to command the United States Army? Of course not. Even the President Elect, who is certain barring terrible circumstances to become President, does not command the army until his inauguration./// This argument is invalid for this reason: An unborn baby is most certainly going to be born, you are on the other hand, are not very likely to be a presidential candidate. And unborn baby has a 99% chance of being born, while you might have a .00001 chance of being elected president. Therefore the unborn baby should have rights. \\\There is not certainty that a fetus will become a person, and even if there was the rights of a person would still not be granted until the fetus actually achieved that status./// This argument is invalid because this is a hypothetical argument. We do not know that the child will be killed, therefore we must assume that the child will live (because the majority do). If the child will live, then we should give it the rights of a child. \\\By this reasoning, ever human gamete (including eggs that may never even have the potential to be fertilized) out to have some form of rights because they have some potential to become people. The difference between a fetus and an unfertilized gamete varies only in degree. Both are nonpeople which have the potential to become people. That fact that one has complete diploid human DNA and the other does not is irrelevant, as I have demonstrated in Argument 1./// A human egg has no rights because it is in step one... once the egg becomes a fetus, it is on its way to becoming human. Like with your presidential example, once the president is on his way to becoming president, (he is being inaugurated) then he should be given the rights of the president. Conclusion: Once a fetus is on its way to becoming a human is when it [should] gain rights. The if the mother was too careless to use some form of birth control that's her fault. Ask yourself this: Which would you rather have, a baby with no chance to live, or a baby that had a chance to live but couldn't because it was killed. Even both will not live, it is much more cruel to kill the baby that had the chance. Thanks for this debate grape! \\\I also cite myself, potential Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University/// That's awesome! Now I can site you in public speaking debate, "According to Professor Grape, potential teacher of Philosophy at Cambridge University. Now for the rebuttals! (after grape goes again) Kfc
Abortion Should Be Legal

Refutations: Argument 1: It may not be an individual with an identity, I give you that. But a fetus has the potential of being a human, therefore is on it's way to becoming one, therefore it has the same value. Argument 2: I concede this argument. Arguments: I am here to debate the motion abortion should be legal. Contention 1: Fetuses are humans in the making. A human fetus has the same value as a human life (as stated previously). For the reason that it has the potential to become one. It WILL have an identity and it WILL have consciousness. Just not yet. My arguments are short but I am saving clash for the later rounds. -Thanks!
Abortion Should Be Legal

Rockylightning has asked that I challenge him to a debate, so I chose to offer a challenge concerning the first "Big Issue" on which we disagree. The next round will be for Rockylightning to indicate that he has accepted the challenge. The debate will start in round 2 and will consist of a total of 3 debating rounds. For all intents and purposes, I mean legal in the United States. If any other clarification is required, please ask in the first round acceptance or the comments section. I have no particular preference for rules or format.
Abortion Should Be Legal

\\\The exact probability of something happening does not matter./// It does. The probability of a baby being born is much larger than you becoming president. \\\I am talking about the fact that we don't give it the rights of a child on the basis that it will someday be a child. What it will be doesn't matter because right now the fetus is not a person. Whether or not the child actually is killed is irrelevant./// If its irrelevant, then why did you bring it up in the first place? \\\This is all completely arbitrary. How do you know the egg is step one? Why is the oogonium (the diploid cell that produces the egg through oogenesis) not step one? Does the primary oocyte count as an egg, can it be step one? Why is the ovum step one? The ovum is further on its way to becoming a human than the oogonium. These questions, of course, are irrelevant. The designations that my opponent is trying to make are completely arbitrary./// An egg is step one because it has become fertilized. Simple. \\\Furthermore, the presidential analogy is not applicable./// You brought it up... \\\Once the President is inaugurated, he IS President/// Inauguration, in this analogy, is the status of being developed. \\\The fact that birth control is available does not have anything to do with to morality of killing an undeveloped human. This is a common red herring in such arguments. There could be no birth control or a birth control that worked 100% of the time. The morality of killing fetuses is unaffected./// \\\It might be wise to keep a 10 dollar stock that will likely rise to 40 dollars, but that does not mean the 10 dollar stock can be sold for 40 dollars prior to the increase in value./// The first part is more realistic. Let me clarify, lets say your 10 dollars is your baby, there is a %99.99 chance that your 10 dollars will become 40, so therefore you should treat it like 40 dollars, because it momentarily will become 40 dollars. But if you burn your 10 dollars, you wont have 40 dollars later. Let me make this easy to understand. Lets say your in a factory making steel beams. Liquid steel can represent an unborn baby. Steel beams represent a born baby. While the molten steel ISNT a solid steel beam, it WILL become one. What I'm trying to say is that if you just threw away (or killed) the molten steel, you wouldn't have the solid steel in the future. Here's the connection, lets say you let it be developed into solid steel, then destroyed that steel beam. You have no solid steel beam. See the connection here? If you kill the beam in the beginning, it would be dead in the future the same time a solid steel beam would be dead if it was killed. Therefore, killing the liquid steel is the same as killing solid steel. Therefore, killing unborn babies has the same impact as killing live babies. The motion is disproved.
The Ghosts in 'The Turn of the Screw' were Imagined by the Governess.

"how can the governess imagine somethign [sic] in a movie or book"Your claims make no sense. The Governess, as a fictional charater, will think whatever the author wants her to think. Many writers over the coarse of history have taken advantage of the fact that their audience perceives the story only through the eyes of an unreliable narrator and as such can have no idea what is objectively taking place in the story. Fight Club is perhaps one of the most famous examples of this. This is what I believe occurs in The Turn of the Screw. As we are told only the version of the story the governess herself remembers, we are told that the ghosts were real, because that is what the governess thought. However, as in the scenes I described above, there is actually no other proof of this. Furthermore the governess' own mental state has been called in to question by many critics and it is often asserted that she was mentally unstable and sexually repressed. Indeed the control she begins to exhibit over the children in many instances feels unnatural and overbearing. She also fantasises over the childrens uncle, becoming noticeably preoccupied with the hope that he will return to the house to sweep her off her feet. Therefore it is fully possible that she, as a finctional character imagines the hauntings that take place at Bly.
The Ghosts in 'The Turn of the Screw' were Imagined by the Governess.

Resolution: The ghosts of Miss Jessel and Peter Quint in the Henry James Novel The Turn of the Screw were not real and instead exist only in the mind of the Governess. Basically I will argue that the Governess was insane and imagined the ghosts she seemed to think were haunting Bly and my opponent will argue that the ghosts were real and existed independent of the Governess. Rules: - First round acceptance, no new arguments in the last round. - No trolling - No forfeiting of rounds - Please try to reinforce your arguments with textual evidence. - 72 hours and 8,000 characters. I realise that finding an opponent for this debate could be difficult so i am open to discussing changes to the resolution and/or switching positions in the comments.
Subbed Anime vs. Dubbed Anime

Extend all dropped points, most notably the plagiarism, that his own source is firmly against him, and how sickly subbed anime apparently sounds (his case, not mine)."The subbed anime is much more original than the dubbed anime."My opponent wishes originality to be a measured factor in this debate, I am fine with that. Subbed follows much closer to a pre-existing script, whereas dubbed is known for greater originality. Consider the case of "Robotech, which was really three different and unrelated series melded together through clever editing and dubbing and a creative rewrite of the original scripts" [1]. It is therefore clear that dubbed anime is more original, offering new content at a level subbed is incapable of."The dubbed anime voice actors don't even sound that great."Not sounding great, doesn't mean they don't sound good; which remains a significant step up from all characters sounding sickly."Nothing in anime sounds good in English."This subjective statement, is easily refuted with two short video clips, Fullmetal Alchemist which even included careful voice modulation to add an echo to the voice of a character trapped in a suit of armor (as opposed to having an identical accent to everyone else) [3], and Supernatural which managed to score the original voice actors from the live action series, giving it a variety of different distinct accents to fit the backgrounds of the characters [4]."Lets be real."I suggest using commas, as your separate ideas seem like they should go together."Reading more subtitles also speeds up your reading speed which I think is a pretty good thing."Please prove this, and by what margin?"Real anime lovers actually watched the subbed and dubbed just ruins anime."This point is without merit, as it's just an Appeal to False Authority [5], and No True Scotsman [6]. How anime how been ruined, has not even been suggested.To show why these fallacies are a problem, I could claim (with basis) that no true anime lover watches anime dubbed or subbed, regardless of if they speak the language. It would be equally meaningless."Also, the dubbed comes out much slower than the subbed anime."I prefer quality of quantity. There is no reason to infer that more of something existing makes it better.Sources:[3] YouTube: Fullmetal Alchemist http://www.youtube.com...[4] YouTube: Supernatural http://www.youtube.com...[5] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[6] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Subbed Anime vs. Dubbed Anime

Plagiarism is a direct and intentional violation of the DDO Terms of Use.Due to plagiarism committed against Theron Martin [1], a conduct only vote may be cast for me without any further reading.For those who continue:Subbed refers to subtitled anime, whereas dubbed refers to the process of rerecording the voice work for other languages.Addressing Plagiarized Material:Writer Theron Martin of USAAnime.us (the person pro plagiarized) argues that dubbed is usually better, with such examples as Hellsing and Neon Genesis Evangelion being much improved by the changes, he of course states on the subject "purists are short-sighted in their insistence on watching only subtitled content ... the whole insistence that anime is an art form is a load of bunk. Anime is first and foremost a commercial product" [1]. The introduction pro copied, was a lead-up to dubbed being better.Onto the single line of pro's case which was not plagiarized..."I believe that subbed is much better than dubbed because it sounds so much more delicate."The characters all sounding "easily injured, hurt, or made sick" [2], is a pretty firm net deterrent to watching it subbed instead of dubbed; many characters (not to say all) should sound strong and healthy.Dubbed wins:Anime is beautiful, having parts of the animation hidden behind subtitles is covering it, further it's distracting from the rest of it. The creators could have narrated audio-books, instead they made animated movies to be seen and enjoyed. Just consider the various masterpieces from Studio Ghibli, with careful voice casting for the English dubs, causing a more complete experience than one where all the characters sound fragile. Sources:[1] http://www.usaanime.us...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Was Vietnam an American victory.

"The accords gave the United States what it wanted..." You say it gave them what they wanted, but you don't say what it is they wanted. They wanted to stop the spread of Communism, and they eventually failed. The Accords only slowed the inevitable merging between North and South Vietnam, it never gave the U.S. what it wanted. "The January accords, titled the 'Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam,' neither ended the war (except for the United States) nor restored the peace. A little over 2 years later, 30 North Vietnamese divisions conquered the South and restored peace in Vietnam. The American commitment to defend South Vietnam, described as unequivocal by Nixon and Kissinger, had been vitiated by the Watergate scandal and Nixon's subsequent resignation." (http://future.state.gov...) That quote dismantles the remainder of your argument. The U.S. never won the war, they only were given a free ticket out of Southeast Asia. You also said that the U.S. was not allied with South Vietnam during their forth war, which is false. They swore to protect South Vietnam, but failed to deliver. "However, I believe there is no true argument on your side because the Soviets were in a hot climate, the troops were much more depressed, there were much more injured to tend to, and less alive to tend to them." This is untrue as (from what I could find, feel free to correct me in the comments. NOTE: I am GIVING you an extra round, basically) there were few, if any, Soviet Union soldiers in Vietnam. Also, from what I read, the Soviet Union wasn't even at the Paris Peace Conference. You'd think that if they lost that many men, they'd bother to show up to the conference to discuss peace.