BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You cannot disprove the trinity as per the Hebrew Scripture

1. the Hebrew Bible gives zero implication of a plural unity, but it does quite the opposite, insisting that there is only one. Yes, but one group is still one even if there is no implication to plurality. Thus they can twist scriptures and feel like they are still monotheist. 2. Unfalsifiable hypothesis! Flying spaghetti monster walrus hippopotamus hybrids! Unfalsifiable indeed! 3. Philosophical impossibility Yes and that the great mystery of the lie of the trinity! Because Jesus taught it, it must be true as per the Non Testament, so even if not logical, they will tell you "god is too complex for us to understand" If the father and Jesus are equal, how can one be a servant of the other? god the son, even if coequal is in submission to the father in his human nature.
You cannot disprove the trinity as per the Hebrew Scripture

So let's just put all of that aside. You know, the fact that 1. the Hebrew Bible gives zero implication of a plural unity, but it does quite the opposite, insisting that there is onlyone2. Unfalsifiable hypothesis! Flying spaghetti monster walrus hippopotamus hybrids!3. Philosophical impossibilityI found something new and original. The Bible refers to the Messiah as "My (G-d's) servant." (like in Ezekiel 34:23). If the father and Jesus are equal, how can one be a servant of the other? Also, philosophy-wise, servitude is a physical corporeality. G-d is incorporeal, thus they cannot be One.
You cannot disprove the trinity as per the Hebrew Scripture

How can we disprove that the angels are actually a bunch of flying spaghetti monsters who ride on balloon rainbow unicorns which in turn are riding on flying walrus / hippopotamus hybrids which are dressed like George Washington and his friends with those white socks and weird wigs?? Sounds ridiculous right? A FORTIORI: I just made an unfalsifiable hypothesis which the Bible does not seem to have anything against. You would admit that this is not what the angels look like at all. In that case; HOW MUCH MORE does this apply to the verses of the Bible which take such great pains to explain that G-d is one and only? Why would the Bible even bother to write that at all? Perhaps it should have never touched the concept of oneness. Or better yet, why not just state explicitly that G-d is three, which somehow makes one? Say that the concept of the trinity does not exist. Now, in the 21st century, a rabbi or priest steps up and makes a claim that G-d is actually three, which are one. According to the Bible, G-d is one and only, and that there is no savior but Him. Therefore, this rabbi or priest would be removed because the Bible says that there is only One G-d. Even if he says that these three are actually one; that's regardless. G-d is ONE which composes ONE. Not THREE which compose ONE. Besides for this, we also have the philosophical evidence against the trinity. The whole doctrine is moronic. It is stupidity, and there are clear and faultless proofs against it. 1. Unfalsifiable hypothesis 2. Not even a hint of implication in the Bible. 3. Philosophical inaccuracy 4. The Bible itself says that there is only One and ONLY G-d. If you will say that the three equal one, then I can say that there are four or five gods which equal one, and you won't be able to disprove that. Or, perhaps you can call me crazy and tell me to look at the verses which take such great pains to elaborate on the fact of G-d's oneness.
You cannot disprove the trinity as per the Hebrew Scripture

Even if the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh or "old" testament), it is impossible to disprove it. I would like to show how. Now my opponent needs to be Jewish and needs to prove that G-d is ONE and that the trinity is not biblical. https://upload.wikimedia.org... Round 1 - Rebuttals Round 2 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 3 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements (One round can be FF if there is not enough time but try your best to avoid it) Hebrew Bible only must be use to prove you argument.
siht daer nac uoy fi ylno tpecca .tnemetats siht dnatsrednu tnac stoidi

siht daer ot enoyna hcaet tnod esaelp. nwo rieht no tuo ti erugif nac ohw ees ot tnaw I tcellretni fo rettam a sti eveileb I .tnac emos dna esae htiw siht daer nac elpoep emos
Religious 'God Talk' is fooling no-one.

I wish to continue with my point.If God was physically 'actual' and fitting remotely , any of the descriptions of religions such as Christianity or Islam, then this existence of ours would be different than it is today. I would not be stupid enough to ignore a real and conceivable threat of eternal pain and punishment. My life would be like a pension plan where my 'brownie points' would be returned to an infinite degree. I would be on my knees and never look up, fact.Look at the demeanour and actions of the populace of North Korea. No ambiguity there. Their God is among them and he has a sting in his tail. If he says march then you march with as much fervour as you can muster. You are within arms length of this psychopath at any minute of your live. Isn't this the God that is championed by the far right of these religions, come Hell or High Water!People fart in Church, they scratch, they gossip and that is before they begin to think about their shopping lists. No body is afraid of a God in Heaven anymore, they are more afraid of his Mafia on earth and the hoardes of mindless Zombies that are under their direction and influence.Correct me, in comments if you see things differently. I see no awestruck amazement in the Christian Churches, rather it is more akin to watching people watching a constructed hologram.
Religious 'God Talk' is fooling no-one.

i will take on that morality debate challenge like a hunters its prey belief is religion, is belief in god.. but to be limited unnaturally one would end up religious or be religious.. like running from ghosts or being scared of eating candy "A simple example might be why a person in Hong Kong would pay "100,000 for a bottle of wine and why an avid wine expert would consider it 'a bargain' at that price." this is an example of knowledge vs belief as i see it... belief is love.. opposite would be necessety or resonable love=positive emotion+returning at energy so, shoot 100 dogs.. buy em and shoot em
Religious 'God Talk' is fooling no-one.

Thank You v_spex, for engaging in this conversation. I feel that we could have an interesting debate on the subject of 'morality' where we appear to have real differences of opinion. If you challenge me on this I will gladly accept. Just formulate your ideas and we can go from there. Take for example your final 'analogy'..................v_spex states''i can kill a dog for fun... but i also have to let go of a part of myself to do it.. a part of myself i can only get back by realizing what i did was wrong'This suggests a notion of morality that I personally do not accept as existing. Anyway, that's for another day.I totally get this sentence of yours v_spex,................'' i am saying, if you run from ghosts, ghosts might as well be there.. you would be running from ghosts in both cases 'Religious 'God belief' is a reality and a 'psychic norm, and this God has been made real by defaultI agree. This is why I expressed exasperation in my previous response when I imagined the scenario of the atheist 'chasing ghosts'.We need to explore this 'religious belief' phenomena just as we would explore the psychic hallucinations of a person with Alzheimers Disease. I also agree with you when you say................'rules and limitations put me in a corner, and in that corner you find me defined by them'.This suggests that the psychic 'weirdnesses' of the human , both individually and collectively,can take various forms that are not necessarily religious in nature. These might have 'cross references ' or patterns within them that would be revealing to this 'God-Worship', phenomena that we are discussing. A simple example might be why a person in Hong Kong would pay £100,000 for a bottle of wine and why an avid wine expert would consider it 'a bargain' at that price. I believe that I am an advanced primate with primate levels of adaptability. I cannot attribute anything to myself except opportunism and the self preserving ability to do anything under the correct conditions. I could in theory shoot a dog without flinching or without experiencing remorse. Thank You for spending time on this.
Religious 'God Talk' is fooling no-one.

i agree with much of what you say.. i will try to explain further what i mean as i see it, magic is real by physical implication of mental effects.. make belief is like disecting a brain, or adding false brain parts operating on false brain parts.. a false amygdala.. a false emotional response system.. so its like i am saying, if you run from ghosts, ghosts might as well be there.. you would be running from ghosts in both cases black=b lack=closed eyes=death see=life=know=true if i am thoughts in my mind, i turn a ball in the air while the ball stays in the center, i have memory of how to use my body and turn my hand to be able to do that.. a mental emotion can use peoples mind, and take over its memories fully.. which case the person has died, and is still walking around.. but one can go into nature and stop following limitations.. and yet its hard to stop smoking or quit christianity rules and limitations put me in a corner, and in that corner you find me defined by them __________________________________________________________________________________ a pattern.. not sure you can shoot me, stab me, piss in my coffe, rape my wife in front of me then, but i will be there, i will be there chaining you behind walls, as you try to go back to the way it was before, i will be there screaming at the velocity of your crimes for you to kill yourself and you will listen then. no matter how much one tries to change the past, it remains unchanged for one to have a past i can kill a dog for fun... but i also have to let go of a part of myself to do it.. a part of myself i can only get back by realizing what i did was wrong
Religious 'God Talk' is fooling no-one.

I think I kinda see your argument and I see it as being consistent with my own observations on these things.(Maybe, you are just playing with me here?)God is in people's head and he lives and rules there in many cases. He can be a worm that eats memories removing both good and bad from our emotive consciousness. We can also institutionalise ourselves to this voodoo that is God worship. Much of religion is day to day repetition and conditioning. I think you are saying that these people have 100% 'spooked themselves' and in the past I might have conceded this point. Now, however in 2016? Are you serious? Why are they almost indistinguishable from your average God fearing atheist? Why can Gandhi not figure out Christians??? ps I assume you meant to write habit and not habbit?
Religious 'God Talk' is fooling no-one.

I do not believe in the Jewish God, the Christian God, or the Islamic God. Jews do not believe in the Christian God. Who is this 'Allah' fella? Islamic fanatics despise the Christian version of Divinity. Let us all display honesty on this matter. When a person states that God has 'spoken to them' they are regarded with suspicion and rightly so. T.V. companies, business and Global trade markets make no provision for this thing. Political conflicts and wars carry on regardless. The fact is that this theological 'waffle' is fooling none of us. Nobody believes anyone on this. There are no miracles.There are no resurrections.There is no magic.There are no spirits, saints or Angels.There is no Hell.Humans have no everlasting spirits...............We need to just collectively 'put our hands up', accept that we have all over-indulged ourselves in this pretentiousness. We need to find more productive undertakings for our time and talents. (As if this was ever going to happen!)Religious 'God Talk' is fooling no-one. It is ficticious nonsense that we indulge ourselves with.
The giants got the better of the Eli Manning Phillip Rivers trade

The resolution states that "the Giants got the better of the "Eli Manning Philip Rivers trade", which specifically refers the two players themselves. I will now solely compare these two players, and address other factors later in the argument. In Eli Manning's career, he has made 3 Pro Bowl teams and has a quarterback rating of 81.2. In Philip River's career, he has made 5 Pro Bowl teams and holds a quarterback rating of 96.0. The stats do not stop there. Philip Rivers has a pass completion percentage of 64.4, while Manning's is only 58.5. Rivers has thrown 104 career interceptions, and Manning 171. Though Manning does have 8 more career touchdowns and roughly 3,000 more yards, Manning has played in 21 more games than Rivers, more than a full season, and given River's season averages, Rivers would surely make up the deficits. Rivers has a current salary of $10.2 million, while Manning has a pricier salary of $13 million. In the trade, the Chargers also acquired Nate Kaeding, a kicker with a field goal percentage of 86.2, and also a 2x Pro Bowler. They also acquired Shawne Merriman, who had 45.5 sacks in his career (the majority with the Chargers) and was a 3x Pro Bowler. I believe that in my argument all I must do to win the debate is prove Rivers is a better quarterback than Manning, which I have done. To add to my argument, I have provided to extra examples of how the Chargers got the better of the 2004 draft trade featuring Philip Rivers and Eli Manning.
The giants got the better of the Eli Manning Phillip Rivers trade

In the 2004 NFL Draft the NY Giants did not get a better deal than the chargers, for a few key reasons. 1. Eli Manning is not a better QB than Philip Rivers. 2. While the Giants received nothing but Eli Manning, the Chargers also received Nate Kaeding. 3. While the Giants received nothing but Eli Manning, the Chargers also received Shawn Merriman. Good Luck.
Smoking should be banned in all public places

What my opponent says is true - for a standard cigarette. With an e-cigarette, the problem can be averted.Smoking an e-cigarette is technically smoking. It contains fewer chemicals than the normal cigarette does, and it releases a tiny amount of smoke. This greatly reduces the risk for the smoker and the people around them. With the e-cigarette, is it really necessary to ban smoking in all public places?E-cigarette smoking can also help the economy. They are taxed, and this helps generate money for the economy. With little health risks, the e-smokers don't have to make the economy lose the medicare bills, resulting in a net gain. With places like the US in debt, can we really afford to lose this, given most smokers smoke in public areas?Illegalizing e-smoking has a down-side. Addicted people would still smoke in public places, defeating the purpose of illegalizing it. Cigarette taxes would go away, removing the economic support it brings us. Is illegalizing smoking the best thing to do?
Smoking should be banned in all public places

Smoking should be banned in public places. Smoking causes a major health concern not only for the smoker, but for the people around, too. About 53,800 people die from 'secondhand smoke.' Secondhand smoke is smoke from a cigarette, cigar, or pipe that is involuntarily inhaled, especially by nonsmokers. Some 126 million nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke involuntarily every year. There are over 4000 chemical compounds in secondhand smoke; 200 of which are known to be poisonous. Do we really want our children, our family, our friends, and us to be exposed to secondhand smoke? http://www.no-smoke.org... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Smoking should be banned in all public places

I will define a few things for this debate. Smoking: to draw into the mouth and puff out the smoke of tobacco or the like, as from a pipe or cigarette. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Banned: the act of prohibiting by law; illegalizing. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Basically, I will argue that smoking should not be illegalized in public places, while my opponent will argue that it should be illegalized in public places. With that, I hand over the next round to Pro.
Scientist have the moral duty to point how stupid are pseudosciences.

What the Witch doctor has done to manipulate your sister is disgusting. I, as an avid fan of science and the scientific way of thinking avidly agree with you on that. She should definitely be stopped. HOWEVER, LAWYERS and POLITICIANS are the ones with the moral duty of making things such as practise of voodoo medicine and witch doctor methodology of treatment illegal. It is NOT THE MORAL SUTY of a SCIENTIST to poke their nose into it, only to alert the people who decide what is allowed and what is not and then leave it from there.To me, a scientist's role is simply this; to find truth and only worry about the proven and 99.99% certain in this Earth and the rest of the universe. They should not concern themselves with other's work (unless they look to it for information or inspiration) especially not to say "YOU ARE STUPID STOP THIS!" in fact no scientist of any kind is stupid, there is nothing stupid about reaching a conclusion only HOW ONE reached it and to regulate this is the duty of the makers of the law in terms of medicinal practises and legal credential requirements to carry out medicinal treatment in first place.In my view instead of worrying your sister that her belief is wrong (trust me I know form experience this only makes them hate you) you should instead say "the witch doctor is probably very good at what she does, but I as your loving brother am also very good at what I do and know and that is clinical medicine and non-magical science. Please try my loving ways before hers, I'll even help you pay for it." I know form experience of dealing with VERY religious people in real-life debating that to disprove something one avidly puts faith in is near-impossible unless they are weakly believing in it in the first place. Instead, you should merely state that although their belief is definitely true you can only offer nurturing and advice from what you know and/or are good at. Try my methodology and you will realise that pointing out stupidity as opposed to encouraging cleverness is not the moral duty of the scientist.Thank you for this debate I can definitely empathise with your issue with the sister and how this inspired your outlook on this debate. I VERY RARELY appreciate my opponent's views publicly but definitely I would probably have your exact views if anyone I loved was falling for such a disgustingly unscientific trick. However, I have realised that pointing out flaws in others is less productive than merely pointing out a lack of flaws and trying to avoid any mistakes in yourself.
Scientist have the moral duty to point how stupid are pseudosciences.

Yes, scientists who believe in certain things such as demonic influences are usually not basing it on evidence but how do you know that based on what they know they are not 99.99% sure of the 'fact' that there are demons? Ultimately it's up to individual scientists not to be pseudoscientists nor advocate pseudoscience in any form or shape. However, is also not at all the moral duty of a scientist, unless their work directly disproves a theory, to poke their nose into other's scientific work and term it 'fake' or 'pseudo'.I think our differing opinion lies in that I think one should have moral duty to do the right thing, not the moral duty to poke their nose where it's not wanted (although I am rather immoral in that sense in my day-to-day life teehee).
Scientist have the moral duty to point how stupid are pseudosciences.

Actually that is not true, science works with probabilities, if something is true with a confidence of let's say 99.99% then you says it is true. It is true in a scientific sense not in a matematical one. And is somethink is false with the same confidence levels then you says that is false. And then if you run further experiments usually the probabilities become evern more extream. Anythink else evil.
Scientist have the moral duty to point how stupid are pseudosciences.

Even thinking demons control us or that magnetic fields can cure AIDs should not be deemed 'pseudoscience' 100%. Nothing is 100% true in same way nothing is 100% false. Anything COULD BE TRUE or COULD BE FALSE!so for a scientist to tell another that they are a pseudoscientist or that their work is false is to break the code of nothing being 100% certain in science and he is actually being IMMORAL to that aspiring scientist by crushing his dreams, and potentially world-changing findings, too early on.
Scientist have the moral duty to point how stupid are pseudosciences.

This time I would appreciate to have a conversation rather than a debate. We agree on something, Scientists, should deliver their findings. I'm not going to say truth, because we always work with probabilities under 100%. They key word is “deliver”. Deliver to who? To whoever pays you? And if that is the case what happen when their work is found though government taxes? Should those scientist share their work with the people who pay taxes? Coming back to the topic of pointing stupidity. I would say that Medicine is one of the best products, science ever made. It cost a brutal amount of money, because medicine have to be design and tested. Once we discover that bacteria, virus, etc exits, we put in the bin the theory of demon possession (at least in the 1 world countries). Pointing that demon possession theories were totally stupid was part of growing up. Science is not just creating new stuff, it also requires to destroy old useless stuff. Going back to the argument about anomalies. It is true that we don't have the answer for every think, but some times we have massive evidence against popular believes or the believe is too stupid to even bother to test it such: placing a magnet in your chest will cure you from AIDS. Please can you explain your last sentence, I didn't get what you were trying to say.
Scientist have the moral duty to point how stupid are pseudosciences.

Scientists have one moral. Find and deliver truth at any cost.The problem with objective truth is this; a subjectively interpreted set of results might be open to error also there might be anomalies (hence quantum physics arguably makes all Newton's physics and basic knowledge appear false ultimately, especially claiming visible light to be a wave and to claim time to exist).A scientist has a moral duty to NOT INTENTIONALLY be a pseudo scientist. They do not have the moral duty to point out the stupidity in other scientist's conclusions, if anything this is immoral and goes against the nature of accepting anything COULD be true in science.
It's Dangerous to Have a Single Government Over Mankind

Didn't I also state this before? How sure are you that a government can be replaced by fools? How sure are you that a government will grow corrupt? First of all, the government is elected by civilians. Civilians with common sense would definitely not elect fools, idiots and dictators to become the government, to rule over a country. Next, we are not sure what will happen in the future, unless someone somehow invents a time machine. We can only predict the future, which is not 100% accurate. One example was the illustrations created by French artist Villemard in 1910 that shows his prediction of the 21st century. He predicted that we would have air traffic policemen, firemen equipped with bat wings for easy access to top floors and roofs during fires, schools equipped with audio books and so on. However, not all of them were correct. That's all from me, hoped you had a good debate with me. :)