BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There exists a scientific miracle in the Qur'an

Due to the nature of the debate, the burden of proof is solely on my opponent. I take the Con position as an agnostic on the issue. That is to say, my opponent has to provide only one scientific miracle in the Qur'an, and I have to disprove it effectively. Scientific miracle: Accurate scientific knowledge revealed in the Qur'anic verses even though it was not present in that age. This scientific knowledge also needs to be supported by evidence beyond preponderance, so that it is not considered a Texas Sharpshooter logical fallacy committed due to an intentional or non-intentional misunderstanding of a verse. Note: I'm using the term "scientific miracle" as Muslims use it when they say "scientific miracles" in the Qur'an. I, by no means, mean that a miracle can be scientific. They just use that term to exaggerate what they think is revealed scientific knowledge in the Qur'an. As a native Arabic speaker, I can easily determine if a verse is being mistranslated or misinterpreted, provided that I have read the Qur'an three times. Rules:1- First round is not for acceptance. Opponent has to start arguing from the first round.2- Opponent can only say "As agreed" in the last round, so that I can respond to everything he/she presents.3- The burden of proof is solely on Pro. It is not shared.4- Pro has to only provide one scientific miracle in the Qur'an.5- Pro has to accept that classical Arabic is almost identical to Standard Arabic, the formal Arabic I speak.6-Both Pro and Con have to offer better translations if they reject any of the translations used.7- Both Pro and Con should follow the rules and definitions presented here, or else they are penalized by the voters. Info:Rounds: 4. Voting period: 10 days. Time to argue: 72 hours. Argument max: 8000 characters. ..
Obama is bad for our country!

1. Obama has created millions of jobs, saved the auto industry, and has bosted small businesses. It takes more then four years to clean up a mess that took more then 8 years to make. Obama is building America from the ground up. Our economy is better now then it was when Bush left office. [1,2].2. Obama didn't lie when he said that. He obviously would have planned that, but things (especially things like this) do not always go according to plan. 3. My opponent's rebuttel here isn't even worth looking at. My opponent did not use sources to verify his claim, and therefore is not worth anything. I will also contend that if Obama did not do these things, then Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews. My opponent's claim is absurd.I thank my opponent and the voters. Good Day.
Obama is bad for our country!

First I would like to say that i am sorry for not posting in the last round the time just got away from me. What my opponent needs to under stand is that Obama has accumulated more debt than all the other presidents combined. Obama has spent this money on useless things like a turtle highway in Florida. Another point that my opponent stated about this accumulated debt is that Obama is trying to repay his debt, but i say Obama is not trying hard enough to solve this deep debt that he has dragged us in to because if he was our debt would be way less. One lie is that he planned to cut the deficit by half in his first year in office. which we know b my first statement that it is one of his biggest lies wile in office. . http://obamalies.net... My opponent states that Obama`s foreign policy is good, but i have to disagree yes he might have aided in all the points my opponent has stated but he didn't do it by himself. He had help for all over the world to get the items listed done.
Obama is bad for our country!

And I hope this will be a good debate. I will first refute my opponent's claims about the president, and then I will give a contention that will back up the refutations of my opponent's cases. RebuttalsR1: My opponent says that Obama has accumulated a lot of debt. However, he doesn't understasnd the other factors in it like the following:1. What has the President done with that borrowed money?2. And what has he done to repay the debt. Well to start it off, Obama has given 19 different stimuluses to small businesses [1], are the backbone of this nation's economy. he has used the money to bail out the banks that were in danger of going under [2], he saved the auto industry [3], and used it to pay for part of the college education of the future workers [4]. So if we take a look at what President Obama has done, he has used it to do as the ex-president Bill Clinton has said: "build the nation's economy from the ground up". So, this debt while big, was necessary. R2: Then to my opponent's claim s of supposed lies by the president, my opponent doesn't say what Obama lies about. He just gives a highly biased blog that has questionable credibility. Furthermore, if my opponent proves that Obama has lied he must then do two things:1. Explain how lying is bad for our country.2. Give at least one modern president that has lied. Untill he does that there is no reason to accept this point as grounds for saying he is a bad president. Contention 1: Foreign PolicyMy contention will be based on the president's foreign policy. he has killed Osama, brought down the Gadhafi regime in Libya, ended the war in Iraq, he mobilized resources and manpower to aid in relief efforts in Haiti, Japan, Pakistan and elsewhere, etc. [5]. He has surely done a lot better in the area of foreign policy then anyother modern American President. I may add more if the situation calls for it, however I will for now wait for my opponent's response. Thank You. Sources[1]. http://www.whitehouse.gov...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://www.barackobama.com...[4]http://www.education.com...[5]http://www.whitehouse.gov...
Obama is bad for our country!

I am grateful to debate anyone who takes this no matter your belief system. President Obama is bad for our country because he does not do anything but do horrible things for our country. President Obama has accumulated $5,027,761,476,484.56 in debt. . http://cnsnews.com...... Another reason why Obama is bad is because he is a lair! . http://obamalies.net...... A President should be kind, nice, a leader, and truthful, but our president is none of the listed! For these reasons and many more are why Obama is bad for our country.
Moral Education of the child: Whose responsibility? - School(+) or Parents (-)

In an ideal world parents would teach morals to their children. However, we do not live in a perfect world. There are so many parents in recent years that have abdicated their role as morals teachers to their children because they are too busy to take the time to do it. We live in a world where there are a lot of single parent homes. Some parents are working 2 or 3 jobs to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. That sometimes makes them absentee parents. Those who insist that morals should only be taught at home apparently have not seen some of the homes many kids come from. In many instances they have no guidance at home and zero social skills. More and more students are in the need of moral guidance from sources outside the family home. In the world today the school has to teach morals. If schools only teach academic subjects, then the student will only be partially educated. I think it is not only proper but absolutely necessary that students be taught proper behavior and a clear distinction between that which is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. And it is a wrong assumption to assume they will learn it at home.
Moral Education of the child: Whose responsibility? - School(+) or Parents (-)

Parents are responsible for moral education of their children as it's their moral duty, first of all. As a rule, they got used to leaving everything to school, to teachers, because it will give them possibilities to blame, but they, and no one else should be the first step in education and upbringing. Everything is taken from the family, and moral standards are not exception to this rule. Certainly, if parents lack some features and knowledge, they can take some pieces of advice, ask for help. It's known that child-rearing is not an easy thing, but I think, parents should do everything - possible and impossible, for their children and their moral education.
Moral Education of the child: Whose responsibility? - School(+) or Parents (-)

Children are often asked to learn wisdom by osmosis - watching adults make decisions. And you proved it by writing "he/she absorbs all the best things". However, rather than leave it to chance that children may be able to watch and emulate good role models, school can teach them. First of all let's look what morality is. Morality is viewed as the "system of rules that regulate the social interactions and social relationships of individuals within societies and is based on concepts of welfare (harm), trust, justice (comparative treatment and distribution) and rights" (Smetana 1999). Relationships play a key role in the development of the moral aspect. Where else but at school the child can get the experience of social interactions and social relationships in its various forms? And a classroom is a small society with patterns and rituals, power relationships, and standards for students' behavior and academic performance. Teachers are responsible for the teaching of the importance of honesty, right behavior, the respect of the right of others, the acceptance of responsibility for one's actions. The curriculum schools are currently teaching is undoubtedly filled with opportunities to engage students in thinking about character and values. And of course the teacher should not just teach morals, he should live it. The new generation is continuously bombarded with the information which they are unable to sort out wrong and right, good and bad, moral or immoral. In preparing students for their roles in society, the development of desirable characteristics or moral values cannot be overlooked. If teachers avoid this responsibility, in the future there will be more deviant behavior problems in society.
Moral Education of the child: Whose responsibility? - School(+) or Parents (-)

I totally agree, that schools and teachers will always be involved in teaching morality, as education itself can't be divided into teaching morals and giving knowledge. But parents are the first teachers. They show us how to do this or that, what is right and what is wrong and so on. They give a start. Of cause, not every parent knows the kid and his/her problems totally, but I'm sure, that parents have such a possibility, as they guide and support the child along his/her life (not taking extremes). Family is that base and surroundings, where a child feels (let's hope for the best) love, support and help, and in such an environment he/she absorbs all the best things. Just in such situation it is possible to teach him/her morality. But certainly, family couldn't give everything. To get a success, parents and teachers should work as a team, supporting and supplementing each other.
Moral Education of the child: Whose responsibility? - School(+) or Parents (-)

I can't agree with you on "parents know their child like no one else" . Parents THINK that they know their children. There are so many things they don't know about their kids only teachers know them. School is a big part of a person's life and teachers spend a large portion of the day with the students, often more than even the children"s parents do with their kids. Therefore the teacher has enough opportunity to educate children not only in important academic subjects, but in character and values as well. School teachers are very influential and significant adults in the lives of children starting from the pre-school years. I totally agree that children have a tendency to copy. For example, young children often idealize their teachers and also try to emulate their behaviour. As the teachers are their role models so they can easily influence. Many of the students turn up to their teacher for the very personal problems which they could not share with their parents because of fear, respect or afraid of being snubbed. Besides being a source of knowledge and truth and facilitator of learning, a good teacher works endlessly to foster the desirable characteristics of students. Whether we like it or not, schools will always be involved with teaching moral behavior.
Moral Education of the child: Whose responsibility? - School(+) or Parents (-)

Truly, not every parent is good, but there are no ideal people, even among teachers. Children have a tendency to copy. They could copy not only from a real person, like parent or teacher, but also from a character. Parents are usually people, whom children see day after day, they are usually close to each other, and the process of "copying" would be much more easier. Parents know their child like no one else, and for them it should be easier to find that key to open a child's heart and soul. Normally, people, who became or are going to become parents should be ready to take the responsibility. They can and should use different books, movies, stories from their own experience to teach and bring up their children. And moral education is just that very case, when not even parents, but the whole family should participate actively.
Trinity

I'm afraid my friend that you have just wasted your final round. I made a quick reference to the NLT, comparing the translation of the two. & I have quoted the KJV this ENTIRE debate. I have provided multiple KJV quotes to assert my claim, you have YET to provide a concise assertion, rebuttal, or any substance for this debate, and have ultimately failed to back your claim. Your waste of a round to render my previous round void, is simply your vain attempt to avoid my assertions and a claim that you cannot disprove. However, if it will please my opponent, I will drop the single reference to the NLT. However the rest of the points I have made in the previous round, with the exception of the NLT, still stand and your attempt to void my previous round has only left you unable to disprove my claims and ultimately offered you a complete failure to prove your point, and therefore a complete failure to win this debate.
Trinity

If you will remember I gave you a choose of versions and you choose KJV not NLT, and because you began this argument with it to try prove scriptures teach Jesus was born or made by God I will regard your entire argument as irrelevant Please stick to the debate we agreed to. I hope the readers of this debate will understand that because ANsmith violated an agreed standard of the debate her entire argument for this round should be considered irrelevant. Maybe we can get back on topic in the next round. You must show the Doctrine of the Trinity is false by using the KJV Holy Bible as evidence. Saying Jesus is made or born you must prove that from KJV Scriptures, so far you have given circumstantial evidence. Begotten can have more then one definition, you must prove Jesus was not a deity before He was "born" and in the beginning Jesus was not here.
Trinity

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son..." 1. Although we will continue to use KJV, the NLT (a simpler KJV) defines begotten 2 mean the 1 and only Son of God. Not God himself. God loved us SO much that he gave HIS SON, because as a parent that would be very painful hence the significance. If God created Christ as an extension of himself, then this verse has no significant meaning. Also, in the time of the King James Bible, the term begotten in all forms literally meant offspring, & is used over & over again: Heb 11:17 - By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: & he that had received the promises offered up his only BEGOTTEN son... Mathew 1: 2-16 - Abraham begot Isaac. & Isaac begot Jacob. & Jacob begot Judas & his brethren... To name a few. In the KJV, the word begotten is consistently used to refer to a parent/child relationship. This consistency proves my point that Christ is the literal son of God. Not God himself. He was begat of God.
Trinity

In Acts, seeing the two is the plain and simple Doctrine of Trinity. GOD is the Three. When you say God you are saying Trinity. I will explain more in answers to your questions. 1.I do not say (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) I say Father, Son, Holy Spirit) please stay inside what the Doctrine of the Trinity teaches. 2.They are one, this is called the Trinity. Is Duet. 6:4 wrong?Please answer this question first. Begotten. Do you understand the Greek and English languages? Running in English can mean person running or machine running, two totally different things. Begotten-monogenes (in Greek) has three possible meanings. only-born;sole;only child. begotten can mean only child just as easy as it can mean only born. Your use of this word could be enough to prove your point IF the rest of Scriptures were left out. Begotten in Greek can also mean genno (Greek) procreate.But this word was not used in Jn 3:16, monogenes was used. Your whole argument hinges on Duet 6:4.Please explain.
Trinity

In Acts, Steven is preaching to the people while they are stoning him to death, he looks up at the heavens and sees God and Jesus Christ (2 personages) and is filled with the Spirit. So if Steven sees God and Jesus Christ, then that means that 2 of the 3 entities are in two different places. So two questions being: 1. how can they be one (God, Christ, and Holy Ghost are considered "God") if they are in 2 places? 2. if they are one, then why would God waste his time to manifest himself in this way? There is no logical explanation unless they were 3 separate persons. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" - John 3:16 1. John says VERY CLEARLY that Christ is a BEGOTTEN SON of God. He is the BEGOTTEN son, he is the SON BORN of God. He isn't just the son of God, he's the BEGOTTEN SON of God. So to say that they are one in the same, DOES NOT make sense. Based on THESE TWO SEPARATE VERSES, the Trinity is 3 completely separate persons, but ONE in purpose
Trinity

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Because the first verse is clear there is ONE God and the other verses I posted are clear there is more then One there is NO other explanation then the Doctrine of the Trinity. One verse CAN not cancel the other or else all would be for not. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. One God in Three, the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Trinity

First let me begin by thanking you for your participation in this debate. I hope we will both leave this debate learning something we did not know before we began. I chose 5 rounds because it seems the first tow rounds are about clearing up meanings and such and leaves less room for debate. I am not sure if we have the same understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. It might help if you go to NewAdvent.com and study the doctrine on Trinity so that we are both well informed about this debate. I can give you a quick overview of the Trinity. The Godhead is made up of Three separate but completely equal "persons". Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All God and all together ONE. Not three Gods but One God in Three Persons. The Father is God, Jesus (The Son) is God and the Holy Spirit is God. And in Truth the Doctrine of the Trinity is a Catholic Doctrine and the Protestant sects kept the Doctrine when they separated from Her. I hope this clears it up a bit.
Trinity

considering this debate is 5 rounds long, this round will just be my introduction and my acknowledgment of my opponent. First I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate, I am looking forward to it. I am using KJV. By the Protestant teachings, the trinity is 'Father, Son, Holy Ghost', and believed that they are the same person. They are all "branch offs" if you will, of God. This is what you mean by "Trinity". I look forward to this debate..
Trinity

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity a Scriptural Doctrine? Scriptures- Protestant 66 Book Holy Bible Version- KJV or NIV. Choose one and then stick with it. I will give the contender the choose of version. I will give Scriptural proof that the Doctrine of Trinity is a valid Doctrine. No straw men please. Waste of time and characters. Either version of Protestant 66 book Bible is reliable source for information is this debate.
the christian trinity is an illogical idea

Pro, the scoop of flour is only part of the bag of flour, just as the Son is only part of the Triune God (Trinity), however, the scoop of flour is BY NATURE %100 flour just as the Son is BY NATURE %100 God. My point is that once you understand Christian language about God you'll see there is nothing illogical in the Trinity concept. By saying the Son is fully God we DON'T MEAN that he is the ENTIRE BEING which we know as the triune God, or Trinity. We only mean that he has all the characteristic in his nature that make him worthy to be called God, such as being omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, eternal, etc. Just as if I were to call you %100 human, I would not be claiming you are ever single human on the planet, only that you share their nature. The fact that the Son and Father and Holy Spirit are each part of a being called God, does not mean that each one of them cannot be FULLY God when the word God is used a a different sense other than a reference to the entire Trinity, namely, DIVINE NATURE. As for the quantum world, I don't have to prove its true that this can apply on our scale, only that it won't be illogical. If its not illogical for one thing to be in more than one place on the quantum scale, why should it be illogical on our scale? And why would it be illogical that a God with infinite wisdom and power would be able to even defy our limited understanding of the laws of physics?
the christian trinity is an illogical idea

"Pro misses the point here. A scoop of flour is not part of flour, its %100 flour."actually con misses the point. it may be true that the scoop and the bag are both flour. but the scoop is still part of the bag. it would be incorrect to say the Son is part of the whole, at least id suppose that is inaccurate. con argues the quantum points indicate that three and one in principle can be a logical statement at least at the quantum level os itmight be true at our level. i dont contest that it might be true, i just contest that you havent shown it to be true, and with the info we have it at least sounds like the trinity is contradictory.