BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pure Capitalism With Basic Needs vs Marxist/Social Socialism Dbt 3

I simply hope to, in this third debate, find an opponent who will not forfeit the debate. To begin, I will repost my opening statement: "I will argue for the advocation of pure capitalism with the only socialism being in the providing of very minimal needs to those who need it (i.e. Education, Food, Water, Shelter, Healthcare, etc)." As for Round 2, I will probably post my argument from the other two in hopes of finding a counter-argument.
The idea of a Perfect society

Sorry if this debate was disappointing to you. But you haven't really put down any argument at all either. You just criticized my argument, and that's its. No facts, no disagreeing with me, not even one sentence about why you're statement is any better. As for saying a perfect society can exist, ask three different people you know if they think the world is perfect ;or if there country is perfect; or even their neighborhood. In order for something to be perfect, every one has to think its perfect or else its blemished. It doesn't matter who tries to better the world nor if someone tries to worsen it, every city, state, province, country, village, and territory will have some sort of problem, doesn't matter if its humongous or microscopic, and that stops it from being perfect.
The idea of a Perfect society

: ) But back to the main point, there will be never be perfect society because the word "perfect" can so many meanings. Does it mean every one has good luck and there is no such diesease or famine? Or does it mean that you get what you want and every you hate suffers? Even if you establish what a perfect society is, think about how people are racist,sexist, or homophobic. Around 38% percent of the american population are homophobic, and even though caucasians are the bread and butter of the United States, there are still white supremacy groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations. Just those 2 facts alone can keep the United States from perfection and there are so many others that just like them. Even though America tries to deny it and say only a few people are racist or homophobic, its the one of the most hate-filled countries in the world and always will be.
Military Aid to Israel

Military Aid to Israel is completely illegal under U.S. and International law, given Israel's egregious violations of human rights and international law. The following is a small sample of the many reasons why military aid is illegal. *Israel's over 500 000 settlements in the West Bank, violating a World Court Ruling in 2004, UN security Council resolutions 446 and 465, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions and even admitted to be illegal by leading the Israeli architects of settlement policy such as former Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. The World Court made clear that any state aiding the maintenance of these settlements is in contravention of international law. *congressional legislation banning military aid to regimes with undeclared nuclear weapons *Israel's record of "torture... prolonged detention without charges and trial... flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of people," according to the State Department, making military aid illegal under U.S. law given the Foreign Assistance Act, the Arms Export Control Act, and international law under the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Whatever you think of the Iranian regime - which hasn't invaded any of its neighbors, unlike Israel which has done so repeatedly under false pretexts - military aid to Israel is flat out criminal. Iran's nuclear program - the bogeyman my opponent offers in support of military aid - is far less egregious than Israel's. Whereas U.S. intelligence agencies deny Iranian attempts to develop a nuclear weapon, and deride the notion it would ever risk obliteration by using one, Israel has 200-300 nuclear war heads, and on several occasions, e.g. the 1973 war, had almost prompted a nuclear war, through the U.S. Of course Israel's nuclear weapons program is completely closed to even minimal international inspection, being a non-signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and is illegal given repeated UN general assembly resolutions calling for a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East
The devil possibly doesn't exist as an evil conscious supernatural being.

Hmmm, are you familiar with the concept of creationism? I mean, I don't quite understand what you meant by your previous argument... Creationism is the belief that one should read the book of Genesis, and take it all literally, as in Adam and Eve were the first humans which God magically created out of nothing etc... If that is what you meant by creationism then yes, I agree it is a bit silly to take the Bible literally. :) Aleister Crowley said this in one of his books: "One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad." I love that guy. :) Although I am not a silly ol' creationist, I do believe there must have been some sort of force, an energy, which created matter from non matter. Was it God? I don't know, I believe the word God is very abused. Such things which we cannot explain we attribute them to God or we say science has not found the answer yet. Also I do believe there is a possibility for life after death, whether It's heaven, reincarnation or maybe both - I don't know, but I truly hope consciousness exists after death. These things cannot be proven neither right nor wrong. It is the big mystery of life. The great question every man asks himself. Can it be answered? Unfortunately not. But one day, we shall all find out what awaits us beyond the gates of death, whether we like it or not.
The devil possibly doesn't exist as an evil conscious supernatural being.

Yeah well, have you ever heard of the "Tulpa effect"? When you believe that something is real it becomes real in your life. A Tulpa is a thoughtform, a being created from the collective thoughts of separate people. Oh but this being is not a conscious one at all, he doesn't have his own consciousness. I've had many spontaneous sleep paralysis and out of body experiences, and I can say to you one thing, these beings are real, I've seen them, and heard them, and felt their touch. But they only exist because you create them with your own fear and negativity, It's their food, without it they cannot exist, just like you and I cannot exist without water. The devil was even real in all my 16 years of existence on this planet (yes I am really just a teenager), but I decided to break free from the insanity, becoming responsible for every mistake I make and knowing this as a fact. No one is in control but you, so how would an evil spirit have effect on your life so badly that you constantly make mistakes? Although I do believe there could be some conscious evil spirits, (yes I am a theist) there is definetly no such thing as a master of them all like The Devil or Satan. From all the near death experiences I've read about, none of the people who died and were in the spiritual world have seen any devil. But there was always like this angel that guided them, some sort of being of light. One boy asked the being of light the following: boy: Where is The Devil? angel: Do you think God would allow that? If I made you god for one second what would be the first thing you do? boy: To destroy any Devil! You see? This is a good site to get some real info on this subject - http://www.near-death.com... I believe that this Devil being could actually just be people's own psychological guilt and fear resulting from desires. " Carl G. Jung, a near-death experiencer and the father of analytical psychology, defined the "devil" to be the dark aspect of human nature which exists solely within a person's mind. Jung called this dark nature the shadow archetype and said it represents the negative ego personality and qualities which are painful and regrettable. When we have dark thoughts or engaged in negative activity, we may experience guilt, fear, and anxiety. Jung believed the shadow archetype is made up of those aspects of our lives which we try to repress. But this repression may sooner or later result in their manifestation. For example, if someone is brought up believing that sex is dirty, they may end up becoming promiscuous because they had repressed this aspect of their nature. What such a person is doing is trying to embrace the darker aspects of their life which is previously forbidden to them. While Christianity believes that evil is in opposition to good, Jung saw evil as that which needs to be recognized and in some ways embraced in order for a person to remain psychologically balanced." Eckhart Tolle in his book The Power of Now says that we create these beings called painbodies, and how they feed on our, well, pain.
Being Christian is better than being Atheist

I would like to say some things. 1. I never said Atheists are worse than Christians. For example: Mahatma Gandhi. He was a great man, even if he wasn't Christian. I know he isn't Atheist, but he was still not Christian. 2. I know some Atheists are good people. But this debate is about how we(Christians) have the better afterlife, not how we have a better life(Which some of us have pretty horrible lives). That is all.
Being Christian is better than being Atheist

To start things off, I would like to state that I am a Christian. Just because you don't believe something, doesn't mean you can go around dissing it. If someone were to argue that all Christians are just going to end up in hell, I can guarantee you that we would both be angry. On this Earth we aren't meant to say "Hey Atheists, you are a terrible person" I mean yeah some of them can be real jerks, but so can anyone else. God put us on this Earth to "correct" those who are willing to be "corrected", but if someone just doesn't believe, whether it be the language or how they grew up, we can't go around call them names. Jesus didn't come to Earth to call people names, he came to Earth to teach. Nobody on this Earth is better than anyone else. I can guarantee you that there are some people who say that they are Christian, but then go out and bully other people. Do you remember the story of Judah,? He was Christian, but he turned Jesus in for money. Saying that Christians are better than Atheists is like saying the iPhone 5 is better than the iPhone 4. Yes the iPhone 5 has some better features, but that doesn't mean that iPhone 4's should be seen as "terrible" and "worse". As long as they both call and text (and maybe play a few games/apps) they are still doing their job.
Being Christian is better than being Atheist

I believe that being Christian is better than being Atheist for several reasons. 1. If you die and are Atheist and it turns out that Jesus Christ and Yahweh(God) are real, you are going to you-know-where. 2. If you die and are Christian, your family will be able to believe you are in a better place. 3. If you want to see your Christian relatives when you die and are Atheist, expect to be disappointed. That is all.
The American War on Drugs should be ended

Clarification Pro= I will be going over why we should end the war on drugs, what other problems it feeds or leads into, and even suggest alternatives to combat drug use. Clarification of my position= I am not going against preventing people from using drugs I am just going against the methods used and this "war" itself. Con= Usually the Con is the offensive side but in this debate the con will be the defensive. Main reason is obviously because the way the resolution is worded but also because this War is getting a lot of heat recently. Basically prove the war on drugs shouldn't be ended, maybe show its effective since that's mainly where politicians and people are focusing on that it's not effective. I am looking to debate someone around my age around 18 just to see what people around my age think. If no one accepts the debate in the next 3 days I will expand he age rage to 18-25.
Social Trinitarianism is Tritheistic

The entire basis for my opponent's argument is flawed, because he seeks to make his own assertions about those who believe in Social Trinity; assertions that misrepresent the Social Trinity. My opponent argues that mainstream Christianity should reject the Social Trinity, because it is a polytheist interpretation of the religion and therefore not compatible with Christianity. The inherent flaw in his argument is that the Social Trinity takes an absolutist view on the meaning of omnipotence. An absolutist view of omnipotence basically means that whenever the question, "can God do x," is asked, God can do it; even if it is logically impossible. So the answer to all of my opponent's questions are yes, because the God that the Social Trinidadian believe in can do even the logically impossible. [1] Furthermore, anyone that believes the stories in the Bible is taking an absolutist view on God. God was able to part the Red Sea, do things that went against his divine nature, and still the Sun in the sky. The biblical God could make a square circle, make 2 + 2 = 5, and even defy the laws of nature. Is it really a stretch of the imagination to believe that he could also be three people at the same time, if one has accepted that God can do anything? I urge a vote for Con for the following reasons; 1) My opponent seeks to apply logic to God, which is impossible, because the God that Social Trinitarians believe in can perform logically impossible feats; like being three people at the same time, parting the Red Sea, and performing deeds that go against his divine nature. 2) My opponent fails to make a compelling case for why mainstream Christianity should reject the Social Trinity. His main argument is that the Social Trinity in polytheistic, but I have made it clear through my arguments that the Social Trinitarians apply the absolutist view on omnipotence to their God, something which mainstream Christians have already accepted. 3) My opponent's assertions and arguments are based on his interpretation of an interpretation of the Holy Trinity. He misrepresents the Social Trinity, where as I have provided sources and have properly presented the actual views of Social Trinitarians. I thank my opponent for a stimulating debate. [1]http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
Social Trinitarianism is Tritheistic

My opponent seems to want to disregard every one of my arguments based solely on a faulty and impossible definition of divine omnipotence. My opponent would have you believe that omnipotence means the power to do the logically impossible. To show the absurdity of such a notion, I will ask him three questions regarding God and logic. If God can do the logically impossible, can He both exist and not exist at the same time? If God can do the logically impossible, can He make a rock so large that He cannot move it? If God can do the logically impossible, can He make another God who is eternal? If my opponent says yes to any of these questions, it shows that no argument could convince him of anything for he does not acknowledge the basic laws of thought. The Bible would be completely meaningless if my opponent were right about logic as every statement in the Bible could be and not be if God so chose it. How would we be able to say anything about anything? My opponent has failed to show how the Social Trinitarian formula is anything but tritheistic. He thinks he can succeed by merely claiming God can be one God and three Gods at the same time in the same way because God can do what is impossible. But as shown above, omnipotence is the ability to do all things that are possible. My arguments were not answered but were instead cast aside without any rationale.
Social Trinitarianism is Tritheistic

Applying Logic to God My opponent agrees that there is a God and did not contest that God is omnipotent, yet he still tries to apply human logic to God. The defining characteristic of omnipotence is the ability to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible; therefore God can be three people at the same time. Believers in Social Trinity believe that there is only one God, the only difference between the traditional Holy Trinity and Social Trinity is that in the Social Trinity the three persons each retain separate consciousness, but they are still one God, because God is a social and omnipotent being that is able to achieve a perfect union between three people. My opponent's mathematical and logical equations can not be applied to God, because he can do the logically impossible. God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if he really wanted to, because he is an omnipotent being. I will close this rebuttal by reiterating that the core belief of Social Trinity is that the love between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit allows for the existence of one complete God.
Social Trinitarianism is Tritheistic

I think we can both agree that there exists only one God in three divine persons and that Christians have historically worshipped one God. My contention is that the Social Trinitarian interpretation of God, advanced by philosophers such as William Lane Craig, J.P Moreland, and especially Richard Swinburne, veer completely into polytheism. I stated their formulation in the second round. I believe that there are three main ways in which the Trinity is formulated. The first follows the Athanasian Creed, which without further clarification of the premises, is logically contradictory. It is as follows: 1. The Father is God 2. The Son is God 3. The Holy Spirit is God 4. The Father is not the Son 5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit 6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit 7. There exists only one God F=G S=G H=G F≠S F≠H S≠H ∃!G This formulation is logically contradictory and therefore cannot be true in any possible world. The second formulation is what I think most Christians would adhere to but possibly in another set of words. 1. The Father is God 2. The Son is an aspect of the Father 3. The Holy Spirit is an aspect of the Father 4. The Father is not identical to the Son 5. The Father is not identical to the Holy Spirit 6. The Son is not identical to the Holy Spirit 7. There exists only one God F=G As Ah F≠S F≠H S≠H ∃!G OR 1. The Father is an aspect of God 2. The Son is an aspect of God 3. The Holy Spirit is an aspect of God 4. The Father is not identical to the Son 5. The Father is not identical to the Holy Spirit 6. The Son is not identical to the Holy Spirit 7. There exists only one God F=A S=A H=A F≠S F≠H S≠H ∃!G These, I believe, are the most popular formulations of the Trinity. If we look at the human objection to the Social Trinitarian view, we see that it does not invalidate this popular formulation like it does the Social Trinitarian view. For example, we cannot say: 1. Peter is an aspect of Peter 2. John is an aspect of Peter 3. James is an aspect of Peter 4. Peter is not John 5. Peter is not James 6. John is not James 7. There exists only one human P=A N=A S=A P≠N P≠S N≠S ∃!H It does not have the same problems as the Social Trinity does. Again, let us examine the Social Trinitarian formulation. 1. The Father is God if an only if the Father is a being of the divine nature 2. The Son is God if and only if the Son is a being of the divine nature 3. The Holy Spirit is God if and only if the Holy Spirit is a being of the divine nature 5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit 6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit 7. There exists only one God Gf Gs Gh f≠s f≠h s≠h ∃!G This formulation is polytheistic as I stated in the second round. Yes, God is not constrained to our physical reality but logic is a system that is true in every possible world. God cannot do the logically impossible and God's being cannot be logically impossible. I await to hear my opponents rebuttal mostly to the information provided in round 2.
Social Trinitarianism is Tritheistic

To maintain a level playing field I have not read my opponent's opening arguments, and my opening argument will not address any of the points he made; I will refrain from doing so until the rebuttal round. Some things must be resolved before I continue with my opening arguments. 1) God exists. 2) God is omnipotent and omnipresent. With that resolved I will continue with my opening arguments. First we must establish that the Holy Trinity has always been three persons in Christianity, but those three people are the same entity-God. This is known as a "mystery" of Christianity and has been a core believe of it's followers for centuries. This has never made Christianity a polytheistic religion, because they recognize that each part of the Holy Trinity is a piece of God, even though each piece is it's own person. [1] Social Trinity does not change anything about the Holy Trinity, it only seeks to apply the lessons and philosophy of the Holy Trinity to mankind. Just as God is not complete without the three persons in the Holy Trinity, so too are people not complete without their family and community. If I were to explain the Social Trinity in logical terms it would be like this; The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Son is not the Father. The Father is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Son. There is only one God. I will go further and explain it in mathematical terms; 1x1x1 = 1, rather than 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. As you can see the logic behind the Social Trinity is that there are three persons, but they are one God and cannot be complete without each other. This is still monotheism, because there is worship of a single God and not three separate Gods. [2] Thirdly God is not constrained by our physical reality. We can love and possibly even know everything about a person, but we can never be that person and ourselves; God is omnipotent, so he can be more than one person at the same time. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. [1]. http://www.sundayschoollessons.com... [2]. https://rdtwot.wordpress.com...
Social Trinitarianism is Tritheistic

Social trinitarianism is the theological belief that God is a society made up of three individual minds of the same nature, the divine nature. I will lay out their argument and why I consider it to be tritheistic. 1. The Father is God 2. The Son is God 3. The Holy Spirit is God 4. The Father is not the Son 5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit 6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit 7. There exists only one God Here is the argument in symbolic logic Gf Gs Gh f≠s f≠h s≠h ∃!G Now as we can see from the symbolic logic, the social trinitarians are not making identity "is" statements but rather predicate "is" statements. This means that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the predication of the divine nature. Instead of "The Father is God" meaning "The Father is identical to God", the social trinitarian claims that "The Father is God" means "The Father is a member of the divine nature". While logically coherent, it runs into tritheism for there are three ontologically distinct beings of a common nature. To show how the social trinitarian formulation is polytheistic, let us examine an argument concerning ancient Greek deities. 1. Zeus is a member of the divine nature 2. Poseidon is a member of the divine nature 3. Hades is a member of the divine nature 4. Zeus is not Poseidon 5. Zeus is not Hades 6. Poseidon is not Hades 7. There exists only one divine nature In symbolic logic Gz Gp Gh z≠p z≠h p≠h ∃!G Both social trinitarians and Greek polytheists use the same logic. Yet while the Greek polytheist is logically consistent in claiming that there are many gods, the social trinitarian claims only one by equivocating "God" with divine nature. If we are to accept this, why not claim that the Greeks were monotheists who just believed in one God in 321 persons. To just ram my point home, let's use one more example. This one is of three humans; Peter, John, and James. 1. Peter is human 2. John is human 3. James is human 4. Peter is not John 5. Peter is not James 6. John is not James 7. There exists only one humanity Hp Hn Hs p≠n p≠s n≠s ∃!H Again, we see that "is" is used as predication, not as identity. This leaves us with one conclusion. Social trinitarianism teaches three gods of one nature.