BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America's political system is immensely flawed

First and foremost as this is the last post I would like to say, job well done. Secondly I made no secret that I copy/pasted some of the site's work, hence the [1], But I thought it was way more moral to actually tell people I copied some work, rather than what you admitted to just now: that is copy/pasting in the morality debate without citing it. 1. I feel as if you have conceded that you were wrong, such is the ill clarity of your argument. Or are you suggesting that America should be a democracy? Something which is actually more dangerous to liberties than the electoral college and the two party system (allegedly of course, I stand my ground they are the most beneficial towards providing public liberties). 2. Once more you show no poll, no statistic that people are unhappy with these two partied. Secondly it is perfect if the two parties pass along their ideas as their own. This solves your problem, as the two partied would take account of public opinion, or amend themselves, something I mentioned when I stated how these third parties often have lobbying goals. You have also not spoken of what you want to be done with the Democratic and the Republic party. It seems your problem is more with these parties than the american political system. You had to show (the onus) that the current system does not fulfil the needs of a political system: a. stability, b. legislation. In both you have failed miserably. If the voters wanted another party coming to power, they would have done so. It would be a slow process where they would start voting more of third party people into Congress. 3. So the only refutation to my copied argument (which I did so providing a source, and did so only because I could not argue better than Posner (A Harvard, and Yale law graduate, alongside being a Justice), is that it is copied? You do not address the problems I pointed out in my points, and you do not give alternatives to them. You must understand that we must be utilitarian and think about this from the least harm perspective. The least harm is guaranteed to us by the electoral college (see above post). 4. These individuals do have a moral binding to their constituency, that is why their constituency chooses them. It is extremely rare that they do not vote for who their constituency wants. Yes, it has happened, but oh so rarely has it. Instead the Electoral College has many benefits. I think the debate ends where you concede that you have nothing to go on but your own opinion. Not to mention you did not refute the problem correctly, and of course that you did not fulfil your onus probandi. You provided no alternative, rather gave a terrific rant. For this and more vote con, Thank you, Ajab PS. Lincoln was a third party president, even if he was republican. At that time the Wing Party had control so Lincoln was responsible for making Republicans what they are.
America's political system is immensely flawed

Dear Ajab. I've had a lot of fun in our previous philosophical debates, but now I think it's time we took it to a new topic. I found that you were in a few debates before, disscussing the U.S.A. I thus took the liberty and created a new debate in which I pointed out a serious issue. The flawed american political system. Now note, I am not from the U.S.A. I am from Slovenia, so the information I was given might not be 100%, but after hearing it from several reliabe sources, I had no choice but to accept what it really is. So here are my arguments: 1.The two-party system: Now, I understand that in a country as large as the U.S.A. there has to be stability, so no crazies like the Nazi Party of america can ascend to power...But at the same time, this defies the teachings of democracy in the past. Democracy: Demos Kratein-People's rule in greek, was founded in the golden age of Athens-Cleisthenes. It was a political system in which the majority would decide who their leader would be, choosing from anyone (except women and slaves). In time we evolved from that-the abolishment of slavery and the suffragette movement, but the principles of democracy stayed the same. However, in the U.S.A. the system was jeopardized by the two parties-Democrats and republicans. If we take a look at all the countries around the world we see the two-party system rarely and even then it's not as explicit as it is in the U.S. My main problem? It limits the right of the masses. If they are given a republican who is, say, lazy and a democrat who is a hypocrite, do they really have a just choice? 2.The electoral college. This is the largest flaw in the entire system. The president is not elected by the people, but rather by a select group of lobbyists and influental businessmen. Again, limiting the primary elements of democracy. I see some people's point when they say it helps less populated states cast their vote, but what if not all the people in those states agree? What if the entire state is against it? The vote is still cast and no one cares. That means that even if a candidate were to receive 1% from the voters but received most of the votes in the college he would still be inaugurated. See my point? These are my two main arguments. Please refute them and make your own. Thank you :D -Benjamin
The Bible is unnecessary to the Christian faith.

The truths of Christianity were originally revealed OUTSIDE the Bible. Jesus didn't exist just in a book. People practiced spiritual gifts before Paul ever even thought about them. These real-life revelations are simply recorded in the Bible. To box them in by saying they are exclusively obtainable through the Bible attempts to limit the unlimitedness of God. He is called the Living God for a reason. His ways and ministry did not end after John 21:25, which interestingly enough, says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." There is far more to Jesus, and consequently Christianity, than the Bible. I believe the flourishing of the Church for 300 years without any canonized literature is ample proof that the Bible is not necessary to faith, although it can certainly help. It seems to me that you disbelieve the possibility of divine intervention. The Holy Spirit Himself teaches us ALL things. That is even a biblical concept (John 14:26, 1 John 2:27). This is not a circular argument because I use the citations as corroboration, not mere proof. The reasons these words were written down is because they were experienced in real-life. The author(s) interacted with God firsthand. There is nothing, logically or biblically, that suggests that we cannot either. With the absence of the canonized Bible (the first of which contained more books than today's largely accepted Protestant revision) for 300 years, I believe it is appropriate to reason that the Bible is certainly beneficial and good (considering reasons for its canonization), but is not necessary. Paul the Apostle is one example. Although he had an exposure to some extent, he was completely opposed to Christianity as he was introduced to it, without any sign of future change. His conversion happened in the middle of a road with Jesus saying, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? ... I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:4-5). He then proceeded to the city without consulting anyone--Christian of not. The book of Acts is filled with accounts of conversion without the Bible, although concepts present in the Bible were preached. The reason people can convert to Christianity without the Bible is because absolute Truth begins in the Person of Jesus. The Bible is not absolute truth--Jesus is. Interact with Him. The Bible does not need to be exalted to the sasme level of divinity as Jesus.
The Bible is unnecessary to the Christian faith.

I agree to the definitions of the terms. My first point will be this: though the Bible is good, beneficial, and helpful, it is not necessary to the Christian faith and this is primarily exemplified in the 300 years before the New Testament was canonized. Although Paul and others quoted Scripture occasionally, it was always used to corroborate a point being made, not prove it. For instance, on the day of Pentecost (as recorded in Acts 2), when foreign languages were being spoken by the congregation, Paul quotes Scripture to corroborate the event as prophetic and Spirit-induced, rather than the result of drunkenness. But this quotation in no way proved that this specific event was Spirit-induced, but it supported the claim. Paul's conversion experience in Acts 9 (and many others like it, including my own) is also a great example of this. In the account of his experience with the post-incarnate Christ, Scripture is never mentioned, but Paul instantaneously makes a decision of faith. This supports the point that the Bible, though it is good and useful, is not NECESSARY to faith. Jesus needed not to say "Paul believe in me AND the Scriptures," because Jesus is far greater than the Scriptures. As a sub-point, the Holy Trinity is not, has never been, and never will be Father, Son, and Holy Bible. I have found that the modern church largely turns to the Bible more than the Holy Spirit Himself. I'll end with this quote from Bill Johnson: "It's difficult to expect the same fruit of the early church when we value a book they didn't have more than the Holy Spirit they did have." Just to clarify and finalize, I am not saying the Bible should be thrown away. I am purporting that, though it is a potentially helpful tool, is not necessary to a genuine Christian faith.
The Bible is unnecessary to the Christian faith.

I will accept the challenge. I would like to take this opportunity to define key terms:Christianity: the monotheistic religion that derived from the idea that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was the Messiah foretold in the Jewish tradition and the "Old Testament". Jesus is considered by Christians to be the Son of God but also the Savior of mankind who atones man to God through his sacrifice. Bible: the normally accepted Old and New Testaments. While there are some books that not in all Christian sects' versions of the Bible, the common books will be considered for this debate without the requirement of apocrypha etc.The teachings of Jesus are outlined in the New Testament of the Bible. The stories from the Synoptic Gospels as well as the letters and various pseudepigraphs of Paul and others in the New Testament outline the relationship between man and God and Jesus.While additional concepts may have been added on by philosphers and subsequent councils to firmly establish the nature of Jesus these will only be utilized if they can be clearly shown to have a provenance in the Bible itself.
The Bible is unnecessary to the Christian faith.

At no point have I made any points against the beneficial nature of the Bible or its utility to the faith. That has never been in contention in this debate. The original contention against which I am debating is the Bible is unnecessary to the Christian faith. I am certain there are people who feel many things outside of and beyond the pages of the Bible, but all leverage the teachings in the Bible as the core of their faith. It is our single unique connection to what the basis of the Christian faith is predicated on. Pro notes a point that I have repeatedly acquiesced that faith in Christ is necessary for Christian salvation (the “Christian Soteriology” that I have mentioned in almost every round so far). But my point is that this concept is grounded in the Bible. Jesus himself relies on the teachings in the books and writings that we now know of as the Old Testament and even sees himself as an extension of that and to that end the Bible becomes crucial to the faith. Repeatedly, to make his point, Pro cites passages from the Bible to support his contentions. Which is, in and of itself, very much at the heart of my argument. What Pro (and almost every other current extant Christian) knows about Christianity comes from the Bible.
The Bible is unnecessary to the Christian faith.

It seems as if Con and I are largely on the same page, except that I am vying for a larger focus on the Person of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, rather than things written about them. Con's last argument concedes my point that the Bible is indeed good and beneficial, but it seems as if he doesn't quite understand the nature of the Law as it pertains to Jesus. Let me quote a few more verses to help clarify. Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, not by any belief about the Bible or attempt to uphold "the Law and the Prophets" (although I would certainly concede that it is wise and even logical to view the Bible as good and beneficial): "For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation." Romans 4:14-15 "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:17-26 (key verse: 25) "He made of no effect the law consisting of commands and expressed in regulations, so that He might create in Himself one new man from the two, resulting in peace. He did this so that He might reconcile both to God in one body through the cross and put the hostility to death by it. When the Messiah came, He proclaimed the good news of peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near." Ephesians 2:15-17 "So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Romans 7:4-6 Let me also clarify that "unnecessary" is not synonymous with "useless" or "evil."
The Bible is unnecessary to the Christian faith.

I must again reiterate the definitions which we agreed to in Round 1. Bible: the normally accepted Old and New Testaments. While there are some books that not in all Christian sects' versions of the Bible, the common books will be considered for this debate without the requirement of apocrypha etc. In this case I wish to focus on the Old Testament since that is crucial to the development of Christianity from its roots. Pro states that “Jesus didn’t exist just in a book”, but clearly Jesus was an observant Jew who knew the Law and the Prophets. In fact Jesus explicitly states: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17-18) This means that the Pentateuch and the words of the Prophets which make up much of what is called the Old Testament today were integral to who Jesus considered himself to be. Further as to the works that established Christianity and the existence of the Church for a long period of time without a codified “New Testament” is to point out the very real need of an orthodoxy in the early Church. The early Church was, as Pro no doubt is aware, made up of various factions many of which were following different “non-canonical gospels”. It was the work of early Church “fathers” to determine if these were in keeping with the teachings of Christianity. Take for instance the “Gospel of Peter” which the Bishop Serapion initially allowed the congregation of Rhosus to continue to use until he realized upon reading it that it could lead to heretical ideals[1] (in this case Docetism [2]) This early fracturing of the faith was important enough that a centralized orthodoxy was deemed necessary and indeed many, many teachings and apocryphal writings were cast by the wayside in order to maintain a coherence of the faith that we ultimately have today. As such I maintain two key points: -Jesus saw himself as a part of the Judaic tradition in fulfillment of the laws and the works of the prophets which we know of today as part of the Old Testament and would have, at that time, been extant teachings in the form of the Pentateuch and teachings of the prophets -Early Christianity was crystallized and codified through a long effort of canonization of teachings which ultimately resulted in the New Testament. As such the Bible as we defined earlier is the “instruction manual” and the “meets and bounds” of the faith. What people do with what they gain from this beyond the pages of the Bible is not under debate here and it would be irrational to think people do not feel aspects of their faith outside of the Bible. Just that the Bible establishes the course of the faith’s development and the orthodoxy that lays at the heart of its practice. Ehrman, B., Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, Oxford University Press, 2005 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. vi. 12, treating of Serapion, bishop of Antioch about A.D. 190 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...)
Will Isis cause ww3

Glad I could sway your thinking over to the right side. :) ISIS is done for. The governments supporting them will not have enough influence to cause enough discontent and fear in order to drive nations and their peoples. Although, if ISIS was better at infiltrating nations and organizations with spies, they would be able to manipulate world events and governments to cause wars and confusion. Yet their singularity in their over all goals is actually self-defeating...which is a comforting thought to our way of life.
Will Isis cause ww3

Will Isis cause ww3 because why wouldn't they seems to be what there going for I mean they've made so people mad like France a Russia which is scaring people to tough positions to tough positions of beliefs. Also on that topic it's not the first Time either. Like allquida and hiltler both started small and gained strength. They also have an advantage through posting things on Twitter and Facebook codes like the Eagle has landed. Thank you
The Trinity Of God Is False

My evidence in this matter, is that no where in the bible does it say anyone seen a spirit. So how can it exist. My argument was that the trinity is senseless. So I have argued and explained myself on why such a situation is senseless for i broke down the trinity and its connections, which concluded to be none. Your not explaining how does the spirit exist. Saying because Jesus sent it, isn't to prove anything. If the spirit can't be proven to exist, then everything about the trinity is false. Almost all books of the bible provides specific and thorough information stating god is separate from the son. JOHN 3:16-"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. MATTHEW: 24:36-"but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven but my father only." These two quotes (along with plenty more) provides that God and Jesus are two completely different entities. NO ONE IS GREATER THEN GOD.
The Trinity Of God Is False

Again, I'd like to point out that the BOP is on the pro. Simply refuting my arguments is not enough for him to win. Jesus is equal to God because Jesus is God, simply in human form. Equal in all ways, except one stays in heaven and one went to Earth. Again, the Holy Spirit is equal to Jesus because Jesus sent his essense, his spirit (which is why it's called the Holy Spirit) to keep humanity faithful to God, who is also Jesus. Again, the resolution implies that the bible is true and that God exists, so the argument about no factual evidence for God doesn't apply to the resolution.So the debate breaks down in a few ways pretty easily:The BOP is on the Pro. Stated it two rounds in a row now, hasn't been contested. He's not providing any sort of argument to fulfill his BOP, he's only refuting my arguments.I'm the only one providing any sort of case. So he's a) not fulfilling his BOP and b) not refuting my case fully.It's an easy con win.
The Trinity Of God Is False

OK, First off, How can Jesus Christ Be equal to God? He can't, their is none greater then god, not even his son (which is actually a prophet). Two, you say the spirit is the same as Jesus Christ, However, Jesus is the physical entity which everyone of his time actually seen, the spirit however, was never seen and does not say, no where in the bible that the spirit was seen by anyone, neither was god. So, If the holy spirit is equal to the son, Jesus, how was this proven to be factual? the trinity is made of GOD, the spirit (who was never seen or proven to exist) and the son (Jesus Christ) who is equal to the spirit. Their is no direct, factual or biblical evidence that proves God equals the son, who equals the holy spirit.
The Trinity Of God Is False

First off, the resolution presumes that God exists, so arguments that he doesn't don't apply to the resolution.Next, the existence of the trinity makes logical sense. God is one to rule above, creater of all the universe. When God needed to give faith to humanity and defeat Sin and the Devil, he sent his equally powerful son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross and defeat sin and the Devil. When he rose again and transcended to heaven, God still needed something there to keep mankind faithful and on track to redemption and heaven, so God sent the Holy Spirit to enter into anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit was just the spiritual form of Jesus, no different at all. Three individuals: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But only one God. I look to my opponent to provide logical proof that the trinity is false, since the burden of proof is on him. If he can't disprove the existence of the trinity, he loses.
The Trinity Of God Is False

Okay, so this last round will be pretty simple. My opponent makes two arguments in his last speech.1. The Holy Spirit doesn't exist2. God and Jesus are seperate entities, thus making the trinity false. R1:Again, the resolution assumese that the Bible is true. So just trying to say that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist is non-topical. We have to pressupose it does, for the resolution. So this argument falls flat. R2:God and Jesus are one and the same. John 10:30 - "I and the Father are one. "Acts 20:28 - "Be shepards of the church of God, which He bought with His own blood. "John 20:28 - "My lord and my God. "And only God dying on the Cross would've been sufficient to defeat death and pay the price of Sin (2 Corinthians 5:21)Thus, the Bible proves that God and Jesus are one and the same.