BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God has predestined before the foundation of the world who would be saved (Calvinistic Soteriology).

Okay. there a lot of questions and I will attempt to answer them all. 1. He did give us the ability to understand. He did not give us the ability to understand him fully. We can understand the Bible and what it says but we can't understand God fully. Again, I think I quoted Isiah in the Bible when he quotes God as saying, "My ways are not your ways. And my thoughts are not your thoughts." So I do know that God has chosen the elect before the foundation of the world. I know that because the Bible says it. Now why God has chosen to do the things he has chosen to do, I don't know.I can't know the mind of God. 2. The core message of the Bible is not contradictory and confusing. However, there are certain parts of the Bible that Christians do disagree on and most Christians would agree that those are openhanded issues that don't divide us. If you want to say that because there is something in the Bible we don't fully understand therefore we shouldn't believe, that is a leap of faith on your and you would need to defend it. 3. I never said that you should believe even though it doesn't make sense. I am saying that the Bible emphatically says that He chosen us before the foundation of the World. It may not make sense to you how God did, how God is doing it, or why God is doing it but it doesn't change the fact that God did it and told us that he did it.
God has predestined before the foundation of the world who would be saved (Calvinistic Soteriology).

But again, (and I'm sorry for keeping things too simple), if God created us, then why would he not give us the ability to understand? If the Bible is the authoritative and infallible word of God, and he's already assigned an eternal destination for all of us, then why make anything in it contradictory and confusing to us? The Bible, after all, is the cause of differing beliefs within Christianity. There are thousands of groups that each interpret it in a different way. Why give us a puzzle to solve when the puzzle doesn't matter? To say that we should believe something even though it doesn't make sense is a cop-out in my honest opinion. If He designed our minds this way, with an urge to seek and understand, then something has to make sense to us.
God has predestined before the foundation of the world who would be saved (Calvinistic Soteriology).

Well good question. However, that gets terribly away from what I was hoping this would be. I want to answer your question in three parts but I am not going to answer it fully. 1. If you believe in the authoritative Word of God, and it is just that authoritative, then this question is important but it by no means takes away from the original point that God is totally and utterly supreme and sovereign over all of salvation. If the Bible says that God is totally and utterly supreme and sovereign over all of salvation but somehow you cant reconcile that with the fact that he gives us commands, it doesn't matter. God's Word is our supreme authority, not your mind and what makes sense to you. The Bible says that his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts. We don't begin with what makes sense to you but with the Word of God. That's assuming that you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is authoritative in our life. 2. If you are a Christian then you have a lot of things that would be seemingly a contradiction and yet you still believe them. For example, you believe Jesus was fully God yet he was fully human. You believe that God is totally one and totally three. I believe that God is totally Sovereign over all of salvation that yet we still have responsibility (the commands that you talked about). That may not make sense to you or to me but that is sort of what makes God God. If God could be understood and was devoid of all mystery, he would not be worthy of worship. 3. God gave us the law to show us our inadequacy. Romans 3:19-20 says, "Now we know that whatever the law says is speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." So, I would say that God has sovereignly used the law to reveal to us how much of a sinner we are so that we will rely on how much a savior Jesus is. Now, why God chooses the methods that he does, I don't know. However, I do know this, that in the Bible there is this sense that we have been saved as a people to worship Jesus for what he has done for us. 1 Peter 2:9 says, "For we are a chose people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, that we may proclaim the greatness of him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light." If we are to proclaim the greatness of Jesus, there must be a darkness that he called us out of. Well what is the avenue in which God uses to show us that we are in darkness? By showing us the perfection and holiness of the law and our inadequacy to keep it. Therefore, on the bases of the sin that Jesus saved us from, we worship him forever and ever.
all states should have opted into medicaid expansion

To simply reiterate, a reasonable citizen could believe that centralizing public healthcare at the Federal level would be detrimental to overall wellbeing. As a result, opting into the Medicaid expansion would be most harmful to overall citizens. There is certainly evidence to support that view, particularly in light of the current VA scandal - where a federally run and budgetarily constrained healthcare agency caused serious harm and death to patients due to operational misconduct. The patients of the VA were promised the same level of service as is promised under the Medicaid expansion, so is it really unreasonable for citizens to decide to opt against such a federal promise in lieu of a state run system in which they have greater confidence?
all states should have opted into medicaid expansion

con basically said. all states accepted orgiinal medicaid as it gave them money, helped poor people to some degree, and allowed the states to determine eligibility. con says many don't want the expanded medicaid because in this version they would be religuishing control of elibility, and having to pay a portion of the bill. con admits that that portion is ten percent. the problem. states on average already pay 43% for its beneficiaries under the old rules. under the new rules, they only pay 10%. and more to hte bottmline, the average state's share after the new rules are estimated to range as an increase of only 1.1 to 2.8%. http://www.cbpp.org... so states would be according to con, quibbling about losing a little more money, but while at hte same time getting a ton more money in return to their state. getting that large of influx of cash to your state, for such a small obligation yourself, is a no brainer in terms of stimulating your economy, at least from the perspective of the states. also, states would be according to con, placing a relatively small degree of control over their dealings, inproportioally higher than the amount of money they can get, and above the value of the human lives involved. is it worth getting a lot of money to your state and saving a lot of lives.... in return for a very small state budget increase, and very relatively small reliquishment of control? yes, it definitely is.
all states should have opted into medicaid expansion

Under Title XIX Medicaid (pre-ACA), states retained broad leeway in determining eligibility for their own programs, thereby allowing them to ultimately control the costs of the programs and maintain an adequate level of fiscal autonomy. As a result, all 50 states opted into the Title XIX Medicaid program. Under the ACA Medicaid expansion, states are required to provide Medicaid coverage for any individual earning less than 133% of the Federal Poverty Line, regardless of existing eligibility criteria. This rigid implementation forces states to concede significant administrative authority over their Medicaid programs to the Federal government, specifically the CMS. Considering that Medicaid is one of the largest line-item expenses for state governments, averaging nearly 17% of general expenditures, this secession represents a significant forfeiture of governing autonomy. In exchange for this secession, the Federal government offered to cover 100% of the expanded cost for the first three years of the program, but only 90% after 2020. Therefore, after 2020 the states would be saddled with the fiscal liability for the costs of a program that the Federal government, and not the states themselves, retained the authority for determining eligibility. This represents a direct relinquishing of fiscal autonomy by the states to the federal government. It is reasonable to assume that some citizens believe that state governments can better administer public healthcare spending than Federal authorities. These citizens would rightly elect state officials who would opt out of the Medicaid expansion in order to preserve state autonomy and retain public healthcare administration at the state level. If these citizens democratically elect such officials, then it would be wrong for those elected officials not to execute the will of the electorate by opting out.
all states should have opted into medicaid expansion

i would think the states could opt out after they have opted in? i may be wrong. and to my understanding they could take the expansion, and work with the government to tailor it to their state so it's less of a federally overreached situation. as for quality of service, medcaid has been successfully doing what it does for decades upon decades. if someone needs serivce, they get it. as for the long term service, same point. the only way con's point would stand, is if the federal government itself was questionably not going to last. there are some theoriest that say it won't, but most don't see this to be the case. we are still almost perfect credit rating from credit rating agencies. the best predictor of default some say is what percent our debt payment is as a percentage of GDP, and if' ts at 12% we are screwed, but we aer no where close to there. ben bernanke said that he sees us staying a thirving country due to the way we optimally manage money. of course that could change, but it still is notable for the foreseeable future. our debt to GDP is high, but it's been higher, and it's not unrealistic for us to stay where we are or go down from that point.
all states should have opted into medicaid expansion

all states should have opted into medicaid expansion it basically amounts to politics alone being the reason people are dying. obamacare included a medicaid expansion for people with low income. (people with more than little income are part of the normal obamacare insurance exchange program, that may or may not include subsidies. the main reason the states should have opted into the expansion, is because so many people will die if they don't. an estimated 17,000 people will die because they opted out of the expansion. http://healthaffairs.org... https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net... also, getting medicaid to one's state is a financial boon to that state. it causes funds to flow to the state. it's in the states interest to take the money. even if there were some strings attached, or a co pay with teh state, overall it is more beneficial cause it's basically free money, at least with respect to the state. also, government run insurance is known to be more cost effective than other programs anyways... usually. the USA spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare, and has worse results than other developed countires. the other countires spend 10% on health care and get better results. most of those countires have govenment health care. (some have tightly regulatd private markets, but this is getting into another debate) also, the states can work with the federal government to create their own program. it's not like they are without options. while there may be principled reasons to be against the expansion, none are sufficient to overcome the above points. even if you quibble with some of the points, the fact that 17000 people will die otherwise is sufficient reason to take the expansion. if you have quelms with the system, work to reform it. in the mean time, take what you got. the polticians knew it would make them look bad to take the expansion, so they went against it. it basically amounts to politics alone being the reason people are dying.
It is impossible for God to not exist!

Thanks. .. .. Pro. The resolution is "It is impossible for God to not exist", and to be quite frank, Pro hasn't shown how any of his points leads to this conclusion. Even if we assume that water was once turned into wine, or Muhummad actually spoke to someone celestial, why is the first hypothesis God? Let alone that it leads to the conclusion that God *necessarily* exists. Given the lack of intellectual rigor in the evidence Pro had given, it would be just as speculative to just argue the water was actually grape juice, which was brewed into wine. We have no way of knowing what was genuinely the case. There is not much left for me to address given that the remainder of Pro's points either don't address the resolution, or beg the question (God exists because he exists). Hence we can reject Pro's round out of hand. He has yet to address my points, either.
It is impossible for God to not exist!

Alright, I think that I made very clear that I am going to try to imagine that it could be possible for God to not exist. I tried... And I failed because there is simply no way to fathom such a reality since a creator is required no matter what. Please do not try to straw man me, you incompetent atheistic creation of God.I read, at the end of Round 2 that Con said "I will offer rebuttals next round"... Yet all of my hard work into my Round 2's arguments has either been ignored by him or addressed and deemed unworthy of rebutting.I explained why the syllogisms only prove how envious Pro is of god being able to simultaneously know all and do all, not anything else.My round 2 arguments have gone unchallenged and I will give my opponent one last chance to raise rebuttals because round 5 is no new points whatsoever as that is unfair conduct since I cannot reply to it. I will wait until round 5 to recap this debate. the video Con posted in round 2 should be ignored unless they type it out. It is a 53-54 minute long speech that would never fit in this character limit. Thus I call it illegal argumentation and Con is obligated to type it out to prove me wrong.
It is impossible for God to not exist!

Alright I will try to consider the possibility that God could not exist...It seems that Con is jealosu that God knows everything and also can do anything and is saying it's a contradiction when it isn't.I will ignore the video because unless you write the video's transcript adn use that as your argument I won't consider it.Thank you. All my arguments are irrefutable I am so proud that Con is scared to address them.
It is impossible for God to not exist!

I assume this debate will utilize some modal logic, and as such I will define a few symbols:<> = Possible[N] = Necessary--> = Then~ = Notv = Disjunctive (OR)^ = Conjunctive (AND)G = God existsI may define some more symbols later, but these should en sufficient for now. To phrase the resolution in modal logic:"It is impossible for God to not exist"~<>~GThis is logically equivilent to the following statement via Modal Logic axioms 1 & 2 (1)"Necessarily God exists"[N]GErgo, Pro needs to demonstrate either of these statements to be true, on the contrary, I need to demonstrate that God possibly doesn't exist, or God doesn't necessarily exist to win. Best of luck. References: 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu...
It is impossible for God to not exist!

How can god not exist? It is like if you say that a baker ceases to do baking business! God is the wheeler dealer of existence, no way would he have succeeded in this trade if he didn't poof himself into existence! Think for 2 second how can Jesus walk on the water if God didn't make it to happen? How can we all be arguing over something if it doesn't exist? This is the truth.
Commentator's Choice - Democracy is a good system of government

I will begin (a reference to my name!! :D) with a disclaimer. I am not going to argue that democracy is perfect. Every system of government has its strengths and weaknesses. Unilateral governmental systems, for example, sacrifice the majority’s freedoms for relative efficiency; the unilateral group or person does not need to confer with any other faction in deciding governmental policies. Democracies generally sacrifice policy-making efficiency to give the majority both more liberties and greater power in government. Some points in favor of democracy:1: Democracy gives its constituents greater individual liberties and power in governmentThis is democracy’s greatest strength. The majority populace decides the governments policies and/or policymakers. Democratic societies’ policies are made to benefit the majority populace since either the populace itself decides policies or its elected policymakers do (usually the latter case, since the former is incredibly inefficient and time consuming)..The ability of the majority to choose who or what policies it wants is what makes a democracy good. As someone once said, democracy is power ‘by the people, for the people’.. literally. Anything less would not be a democracy.2: Democracy is micro-economically efficientDemocracies generally excel in microeconomics; for every market there exists a supply and demand. Suppliers must account for the demands of the general populace (i.e. a supplier sets outrageous prices and loses all its customers and makes a net loss due to production costs). This means that, while the supplier wants to make as much money as possible, it literally has to accommodate people’s demanded prices and standards. This is another one of democracy’s strengths. Suppliers ultimately work for the people.3: Opportunity to succeed.Democratic societies often reward hard work and/or good performance. I like to think of democratic society as an immense cluster of hierarchical ladders toward economic success. (My favorite ladder is the one which most people start on: the educational system).I argue that democracy’s strengths outweigh its weaknesses and makes it stronger than others; democracy is therefore good.
Commentator's Choice - Democracy is a good system of government

note: I am a male not a femaleIgnorant people have a very marginal chance at selecting good leaders. This can be seen in modern examples, where the masses select a leader that represents a polarized point of view. In a representative system, particularly in 2 party systems, this can be a bad thing, as it leads to a lack of productivity in the government and overbearing partisanship.In multiparty systems their exists the terrifying problem of massive amounts of runoff elections and other general issues due to the fact that it does not have a unified political assembly.Their also exists the problem that most democracies aren't successful. Most of the time when a democracies creation is attempted the process fails. Taking the odds of creating a democracy could in fact be more dangerous than directly creating a dictatorship, because in fact the end result could be more oppressive than a planned dictatorship or imperial system would be.For these reasons I say democracy should not even be attempted because the chances of success are extremely slim.
Commentator's Choice - Democracy is a good system of government

I thank inaudita for her participation! :)This first round is dedicated to rules and parameters only, so if there is anything you feel is missing, feel free to add it. Oh and.. don't troll me. TToTTAnywho, here are some definitions and parametersDefinitionsDemocracy:- a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives- control of an organization or group by the majority of its membersGood:- to be desired and approved ofSystem:- a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.I will be taking the PRO position on this resolution, meaning I must show, in some way, that democracy is a good system of governmentMy opponent is CON. CON's job is to show that democracy is not a good system of government.Let's GOOO! :D
Commentator's Choice - Democracy is a good system of government

1.Democracy means that the people rule over themselves. Democracy really has nothing to do with capitalism. In the U.S. the two terms have been colluded because Capitalism is such a large part of our society. But democracy in it's purest sense does not rely on money or ownership of resources.2. Democracies always fall eventually, the average is about 200 years. When the people find out they can vote themselves money from the public purse, the course of decline has begun. Add to this groups of scheming persons who hasten this dependency as well as moral decline in all other areas so they enslave the people through manufactured debt and laws to protect them from imaginary enemies which require them to surrender their rights, and you have the tried and true formula for bringing down a free nation. This in fact results in an Autocracy, the philosophical opposite of democracy.3."- The Nazi governmental system was in control from 1933-1945; it lasted 12 years- Italy's fascists took power in 1922 and started to crumble in 1943; it lasted about 21 years- The USSR takes control from about 1920-1991; it lasted 70 years- Chinese communism has been around for about 60 years. It has authored programs which have killed produced more death than any one nation has suffered in WWI or WWII combined[3] (It's what happens when you have one man deciding policies while ignoring every other PoV)."This list is very limited. It doesn't even hold such non-democracies that have existed for long periods of time such as China which lasted for thousand of years, Ethipoia which had lasted for thousands of years as a monarchy, and Morocco which has had a monarchy for a thousand years. The data you selected didn't cover the entirety of all nondemocratic regimes, it only showed the shortest lasting of them.
Commentator's Choice - Democracy is a good system of government

1. By giving power to its constituents democracy provides itself with a weakness. By letting the ignorant masses choose their leaders they are very prone to corruption or partisanship, which are a major cause of gridlock and political disease in democratic systems of government. 2. The idea of beign micro-economically efficient and the prctice of capitalism is not independent to democracies. It can be seen in all variaties of governments, including monarchies and dictatorships, which generally conflict with the political ideas of democracy. I believe we shouldn't be debating whether a capitalist democracy is good, but whether the political structure of it is sound.
Same sex marriages

So now you want to get into the religious side of things? I am catholic so I understand where you are coming from... But, God created us who we are, he creates 'the one' for us and only for us. He creates everything including our state of mind. If 'the one' turns out to be the same sex as you, and you truly believe they are 'the one', you have the right to spend the rest of your life with each other an be recognized by the state as a married couple, Homosexual or not. And for your analogy of the animals, I'd rather keep Human rights in order here and not refer to Homosexual and Bisexuals as animals thank-you.