BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Oneness of God vs. The Trinity

Con states, " If God was not three in one, then why describe Himself as such?" He also uses Isaiah 43:11 to prove that the Bible says that there is only one God. Both of these statements go against his actual argument, that God is one made up of three persons. Both of these seem to make it sound like a fourth person is speaking for the three persons that are already there. "I, even, I am the Lord; and besides me there is no saviour." -Isaiah 43:11 Using this verse to prove the Trinity is very flawed. If the Trinity is true, then whoever is speaking in this verse (presumably the Father) is saying that the other members of the Trinity do not exist. In the later chapters this same person says, "there is no God beside me" and "I am the Lord is there none else". The absolute only way a Trinitarian could justify this is by saying the "essence of God" said this. If this wasn't the essence of God, then these verses directly contradict the idea of a Trinity. The Nicene Creed is absolutely not Apostolic as it was defined in AD 325. This was over 200 years sinced Jesus' apostles had been alive. This is entirely irrelevant anyway. The apostles could not have consented to this creed as they weren't alive to even hear about it. Matthew 3:13-17 is a commonly used Trinitarian verse. To understand this verse, we have to understand the point of this account entirely. The whole point of this was for John to know who the Messiah was. John obviously didn't know who it was because he said, "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." The dove coming from heaven was a sign from God. Since God was a spirit that could not be seen, He manifested His presence upon Jesus in the sign of a dove. Also, the way John relates it to us in Scripture seems to infer that he alone saw the dove as it was a sign only for him. In Scripture, only the voice from heaven is shown as factual history. So like the sign of the dove, so also was the voice from heaven a sign to the people that witnessed the event. Again, God has manifested Himself to His people in various ways. This does not mean these manifestations are a person in the Godhhead. Question to Con: Jehovah says in Isaiah 45:23 that every knee shall bow to HIm. He also says every tongue will swear unto Him. Wait a minute though. In Philippians 2:10, it says that every knee shall bow unto Jesus. Also, guess what? Every tongue shall swear unto Him. So, who will we be bowing down to? Perhaps, we will all be bowing down to the same person... Jesus. PS: I will speak on Gen. 1:26 next round. Enjoying this!
The Oneness of God vs. The Trinity

I agree with my opponent that God is the same always. But he is one being, who is in three distinct parts. 2nd Corinthians 8:6 and 13:14 say that is one father and one son, and also describe the roles of each. Why would the Bible refer to three separate individuals and one God. If God was not three in one, then why describe himself as such. Also, in Genesis 1:26, God says, Let US make man in OUR image. A single God would not refer to himself in such a way, whereas a triune God would. The Nicene Creed is as follows: WE BELIEVE in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. I refer to the second and final verses in saying that: 1. The Nicene Creed is Trinitarian and 2. The Nicene Creed is correctly Apostolic I do not use this as irrefutable evidence, but wish to point out that to be Apostolic you can be Trinitarian. All Apostolic means is that you agree with the Apostles, not that you are not Trinitarian. To quote the Apostle Peter, (1 Peter 1:2) According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. Peter clearly separates the distinct parts of God but does not say that they are also not one God. In this way he affirms that God is Triune. I wish to close by saying that Matthew 3:13-17 describes each person of God not simply as roles but as individuals. Isiah 43:11 refers to God as one being. Since the Bible is completely true, then both statements must be true simultaneously. (please pardon the use of the Nicene Creed, it was for demonstrative purposes not to prove anything just to explain)
The Oneness of God vs. The Trinity

I'm looking forward to this a lot. I will start my opening argument by stating that I am an Apostolic. Basically, if you don't know what that is, I believe in the doctrine that was set forward by the Apostles. However, I do believe the rest of the Bible to be completely true. I believe in Deuteronomy 6:4 which states there to be only one God. ("Hear O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:") I do not believe that this one God is separated into three persons. I do not find this mentioned anywhere in the Bible. I do find that in Galatians 3:20 it states, "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. It seems quite simple to me. If the Bible says that there is one God that just tells me how many Gods there are. If the Bible says God is one that would indicate how many God is. So, not only is there one God, but the one God is one. Rebuttal You state that Matthew 28:19 is a perfect example of the Trinity. I would be inclined to persuade you otherwise. You see, Matthew 28:19 is a great example of who God is. It shows us who the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost actually are. Let me explain a bit better. We can see more clearly that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually just descriptive titles if we diagram the sentence partially. So here we go! This shows the noun that the other prepositional phrases are modifying. (Below) This shows that Father is a descriptive title that modifies the noun. (Below) This shows how Son is also a descriptive title that modifies the noun. (Below) Finally, Holy Ghost is also shown to be a descriptive title modifying the noun. (Below) This clearly shows to be pointing to a name. It points to a person who embodies all of these titles. (Hint: Corinthians 2:9) Well, let us make this easy on everyone and figure out in what name the apostles baptized. Every time in the Bible, the apostles baptized in Jesus Name. Acts 2:38 says, "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ. " We also see that in Acts 8:16, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. " It cannot get much simpler than this. Jesus is the Father of Creation. He is the Son in Redemption. He is the Holy Ghost in emanation. These describe who He is. He does not morph into these persons over time. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. P. S. If you cannot see the photos, check out my photo album labeled, "Debate Oneness. " Thanks.
The Oneness of God vs. The Trinity

I am an Anglican who agrees with the belief that God has three parts yet is one God. Matthew 28:19 reads "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,", which is a clear reference to God himself being of three parts, and many other verses mention the same topic. Seeing as you used your first round to list rules, I will keep my introductory statements brief. Many verses in scripture refer to God as being of three parts, and many others refer to god as one individual. Since the Bile is completely true, that means that while there is one God, he is present in three parts, and that those parts are all equal, but fulfill different roles. It also can be explained in this diagram: http://overviewbible.com... and is mentioned in many different verses.
The Oneness of God vs. The Trinity

This is a debate concerning the Christian God. In this debate, we share the burden of proof. I will be arguing for the side of Oneness theology. If you accept this debate, you will be arguing for the opposition, Trinitarianism. I would like that a Trinitarian would accept instead of a "Devil's Advocate" such as an atheist or any other form other than a Trinitarian. Any Trinitarians are welcome although I prefer someone that has foundations in the King James Version Bible who is Protestant. Rules are listed below. If you don't like my rules, then please do not accept. 1. We will use the King James Version Bible and/or the English Standard Version only to prove our points. Any other form of literature such as the Apocrypha cannot be used. Basically, sola scriptura. 2. Do not make this debate about nit-picky things like grammar messups that the pro/con uses. That can make a debate lose it's whole point and is decided by the voters anyway. 3. We will be debating on the matter of the Godhead: Oneness vs. Trinitarianism. Please do not move this debate to other topics. 4. Have fun! <--- (cliche rule)
Melon is better than gelo

I think gelo is better than melo,melo shot one half court shot and made some 3s ,now he is shooting a lot 3s and half court shots and he is not making any he has missed 20 3s in a game.Gelo is better because he is a all around player he can get rebounds,shoot,pass drive and even post up good.That is why I am against this argument I think gelo is better than melo.
resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

Unfortunately the only argument that my opponent has offered the entire debate is that he thinks poor churches should get tax exemptions because they need the money. That argument is lacking in any substance or sources. The rest of the debate, my opponent has spent his time either agreeing with most of my points or playing a game of semantics. My argument still stands that ALL CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EXEMPTIONS REMOVED and I will clarify my argument one last time. I believe it is dangerous to link, in any way, a person's faith with government. If governments are providing tax exemptions to churches, it leads to manipulation in various ways. For starters, if one political party is pushing to increase exemptions, it could (and does) lead to churches using their power to sway voters... and when a pastor/priest/minister tells someone that they had better vote a certain way, too many people will blindly follow. My opponent agrees with me that too many churches make far too much money. My thoughts are that rather than just draw a line in the sand and say if you make $_____ per year then you don't get tax exemptions, I would cut all tax exemptions and put it in the churches hands to help each other out. Instead of one baptist minister owning two million dollar mansions while another baptist church can barely maintain 10 parishioners, why not share that money amongst the churches? They all work for the same God, right? If we draw a line in the sand in order to determine who can and who can't get tax cuts then that will just promote loophole finding and ways of reallocating money so that they fall just under the line. It happens all the time in businesses across America and really, religions are just businesses. To recap this debate, I backed up my initial arguments with relevant sources while my opponent offered none. I debated my side of the debate at hand while my opponent tried to counter with semantics and spent most of his time agreeing with me, offering next to no actual argument to support his side of the debate, aside from "a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations". Please consider all of this when voting, and don't just vote based on whose side you agree with. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate.
resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

My opponent is obviously confused about the resolution so I will post it again. Resolved: remove tax exemptions from ALL religious institutions in the US so I will add a observation to clarify what this means Observation: Basically all the con has to do is to show why not ALL churches should have tax exemptions removed definition of all: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of Just incase my opponent is still confused. I set this resolution like this on purpose (its based off a congress bill) but anyway all con has to do is show why not ALL churches should lose tax exemptions. In other words I can just say only rich churches should have tax exemptions removed but not poor churches or vice-versa. So yeah I agree with pro that rich churches shouldn't have tax exemptions, but I believe poor churches should so they can become a bigger church. As I pointed out a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations. As I pointed out I go to one of these churches and we survive due to tax exemptions which is why I believe on RICH CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EMPTIONS REMOVED. Rich churches only use 3% to 10% of tax exemptions for charity anyway and they use the rest to get things like pools and basketball goals that other business have to pay taxes for but poor churches don't so I belive they should be allowed to have tax exemptions.
resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

My opponent has just spent most of his last round argument agreeing with me and providing information to support my argument, with an end note that poor churches should still get exemptions because they need the money. I would argue that the church money should be spread out within each faith. If a baptist church in one region is struggling, why not get aid from the multimillion dollar baptist church across town? Why should it be up to the government to aid one failing church when others of the same group are doing far more than surviving? My opponent actually failed to address any of my arguments in the previous round, aside from the ones he supported, so my arguments still stand, awaiting rebuttals. I will clarify one argument that I made that I believe needs to be addressed. There is no one faith that accounts for the majority of the population. Christianity cannot be counted as a single faith, since groups like Catholics, Protestants and Mormons all fall under Christianity and they are all run by completely separate organizations. And even under Protestants, which is the largest group in America, there are so many divisions that disagree on so many fundamental issues. So why would the majority of non-believers of any specific faith want their tax dollars going towards funding a religion that they disagree with. Especially people who are directly impacted or even attacked by members of those churches, like homosexuals or women who get abortions. If the government funded a group, using your tax dollars, that stripped rights away from you, would you want to keep paying for that group? If church groups want to spread their word around, they need to do it with their own money that they collect. It should not be up to the government to ensure that churches have enough money to keep spreading the word. That money should go to more important things like scientific research on health and climate that offer evidence, proof and results rather than a promise of eternal salvation that can never actually be confirmed as a real service beyond helping some people feel less nervous about death, while terrifying many others with a threat of eternal damnation.
Conditional Immortality is Biblical

Precursor to round 5: my thoughts may be quite scattered during my arguments this round. I apologize for this. I've let time get away from me and now find myself with not quite as much of it left as I'd like to form my thoughts. I'll dedicate this last round mainly to addressing some Bible passages used by Con in round 3 and throwing a few more out there myself. I'll end with a very brief final look at Socrates arguments. What does "Hell" mean: A lot of the New Testament of the Bible was written in Greek, which leads to the reason why the term "hell" is found there. There were several different terms (Hades, Sheol, Gehenna) which were all translated in English as Hell. This was a bit of a mistake, as each of these words has a separate meaning attached to it. These can be found, I believe, in any dictionary. Eternal "Hell" verses: I believe that many of the verses presented by Con (Mark 9:43, Jude 7, Matthew 25:41, 2 Peter 2:4) have been misinterpreted because 'Natural Immortality' has become such a common presupposition. None of these verses mentions people/souls surviving for eternity. Some of them mention eternal fire, but not the eternal survival of those thrown in the fire. Socrates again! 1, 2 & 4. I don't think there's much more I can say regarding these points. 3. Con stated that "The idea that a soul survives death without eternal existence is a far fetched notion that isn't found in the traditional view of the soul, nor Conditional Immortality as far as I'm familiar with." This is, in fact, the whole point of Conditional Immortality. The soul survives the death of the body and then either lives or dies, depending on where you end up. I want to thank Con for a great debate! I appreciate him sticking with this debate and it's drifting topic.
Conditional Immortality is Biblical

I apologize if I wasn't very clear about the parameters of this debate. As Con said "Just because it"s not directly stated in the Bible doesn"t automatically discount it as an idea. To ask the Con to defend this idea from the bible alone, when this traditional view was not strictly born in the Bible, would be an extremely abusive act on the Pro"s part." I agree and, once again, I apologize for being unclear about what sort of debate I was looking for. That being said, I'm perfectly fine with following the direction this debate is going, and will now do so. Revisiting Socrates Arguments: I will address the critique of the critique 1 & 4. Whether or not penguins are perceptible was not the point I concerned with. It was an analogy to try and show that the catagory doesn't characterize the subject. 2. I agree with Con that people retaining their identity in heaven is a component of the traditional idea regarding the soul. What I was saying is that common assumption doesn't make this component true. 3. Fair play. However, I would like to add that simply because the soul survives death doesn't mean it survives eternally. As for Con's side note on my side note: I, once again, have been misunderstood. I wasn't saying that Socrates should be directly sited (I understand the impossibility of this), I was saying that he shouldn't be sited at all when it comes to Plato's dialogues. Greek influence in Christianity. To quote my opponent "The Pro seemed dissatisfied with my reasoning for bringing in Greek philosophy to challenge the logical inconsistencies with Conditional Immortality. He argues that, contrary to what the various biblical scholars/theologians I"ve cited argue, Christian beliefs do come directly from the Bible." What I actually said was that Christian beliefs were BORN from the Bible. They certainly have been influenced by many philosophies, but they did not start this way.
Conditional Immortality is Biblical

I would like to point out that Con essentially stated my victory in his argument. "Pro raises a very important question: where in the Bible does this idea [natural immortality] come from? The answer: it doesn"t." This is a debate about whether or not Conditional Immortality is Biblical. If Natural Immortality isn't biblical, then Conditional Immortality must be. Nevertheless, I shall continue on with this debate and attempt to refute some of the arguments posed by Con. Con stated that "christian beliefs aren't born solely and directly out of the Bible... Several early Christian writers touched on the influence of Greek philosophy..." I disagree with the first part of this statement. I believe that Christian beliefs were born completely from the Bible. However, I don't deny the fact that Christianity has since been heavily influenced by many other philosophies, including Plato's immortal soul theory*. Nevertheless, the Bible has it's own teachings about the soul that are separate from Plato's ideas. I'd be happy to go into detail regarding these teachings in another round, but I'll dedicate my thoughts in this round to Plato's ideas. Refutation of Plato's ideas as listed by Con: "Affinity Argument." He who categorizes things in this manner commits a serious fallacy. The simple idea that the category an object is placed in characterizes said object is easily refuted. For instance, birds are placed in the category of 'Flying Animals.' The affinity argument claims that all birds must therefore, fly. But what about the penguin? It's a bird and yet it does not fly. This is because it isn't the ability of flight that characterizes a bird as a bird. In this example, the penguin represents the soul and birds in general represent those things which are not perceptible. Basically: just because the soul isn't perceptible does not mean that it follows the same rules as other "thought only" objects. "Recollection Argument." The validity of this argument is based entirely on "a common assumption." Are common assumptions a valid base upon which to place truth? History says otherwise. Great numbers of people often assume the same incorrect "fact." This website lists a few of them: http://www.rd.com... "Cyclical Argument." This argument give no actual evidence that the soul survives after it's served as the 'constant' for human life. "Form of life Argument." I agree with the supporting evidence for this argument (three can never be an even number, love can't be hate), but I've already addressed the idea of the soul fitting into the non-perceptible world and my refutation of it in the Affinity Argument section. *this is a side note which doesn't have much to do with the debate, I just wanted to throw it out there. My opponent referenced both Plato and Socrates as sources when he listed the arguments found in 'Phaedo.' It's basically redundant to cite both of these philosophers when referring to Plato's works. There is no evidence that the Socrates found in Plato's writings holds the views shared by the real Socrates. They were probably Plato's personal views that he put in the mouth of the book version of his teacher.