BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible proves that Jesus was not God!

I would like to make a point that I perfectly match the criteria you are searching for and am eager to rebuttal. 1. John 14:28 refers to the Father and not God. Though if you have a trinitarian view you believe the Father and God are one in the same, then you also believe in Jesus as the son, and the Holy Spirit. You must not have a Trinitarian view and therefore I will debate from the stance of a Trinitarian. Just a few verses later Jesus says, “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." I ask if you believe The Holy Spirit is (helper, spirit of truth) is God or something different?2. In response to Matthew 24:36 Paul clarifies, "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11) This statement is clearly that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The Trinitarian view of God, The Son, and The Holy spirit being one God with three natures fits perfectly within this passage. 3. Psalm 146:3 actually says "...in the son of a man..." with no capitalisation. The Matthew passage Jesus refers to himself as "the Son of man." with the exclusive article and capitalisation. Christ is the only one who refers to himself as the Son of man to my knowledge, and he was speaking as in born into mankind. He was no ordinary man. Jesus Christ is God. 4. Interesting argument. But Jesus was going back to be with Father. That does not mean they were separate, it means Jesus was going back into heaven. If God can be in two place at once why couldn't he separate Himself from Jesus while also being in heaven?Conclusion: Jesus did claim to be God. "54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. John 8:54-58)" Jesus did not even say "I was" He said, "I am." Just as God claimed to be I AM in the Old Testament. Any language that suggests otherwise in scripture is for communication purposes, not disproving the Trinity.
The Bible proves that Jesus was not God!

My opponent must be a Christian that believes the Holy Bible is the infallible, perfect word of God. Obviously they must believe that Jesus is God. My opponents first round will be a response to my posted arguments below. Any forfeit of any round will result in a loss of this debate, voters must take this into account when voting. My opponent cannot introduce any new arguments in the last post due to my inability to respond. Please do not accept this debate if you do not meet the guidelines, or do not agree to the said rules. I hope for a good debate. Argument 1. Jesus is not the same as God. John 14:28 English Standard Version (ESV) 28 You heard me say to you, "I am going away, and I will come to you." If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Conclusion: God is greater than Jesus. Argument 2. Jesus is not all-knowing. Matthew 24:36 English Standard Version (ESV) 36 "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[a] but the Father only. Conclusion: Certainly if Jesus is God then he would know everything, because God is all knowing. Argument 3. Jesus never claims to be God, but he does claim to be the son of man. Matthew 8:20 English Standard Version (ESV) 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." What does the Holy Bible say about the son of man? Psalm 146:3 English Standard Version (ESV) 3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. Conclusion: The Old Testament tells us that there is no help in a son of man, therefore this means Jesus (the son of man) cannot help anybody, therefore he is not God. Argument 4. Jesus was GIVEN power and authority, he did not own it. John 13:3 English Standard Version (ESV) 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, Conclusion: If God is all-powerful and is independent, he needs no help from anybody. However, this is not the case with Jesus, unlike an all-powerful God, Jesus needs help from God; Jesus does not own any power or any authority, rather it is given to him from God. Notice also from the scripture that Jesus came from God and was going back to God, so was Jesus coming and going from and to himself? Argument 5: Jesus never claims to be God. Conclusion: The silence is the proof. Jesus had many opportunities to proclaim that he was God, yet he chose not to, because he was not God. The passages presented clearly show that Jesus is not God. My opponent must deal with all five arguments.
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

Paddy what proof and Evidence do you have that say's Someone can be an atheist, even if atheism were to be conclusively disproven. Paddy you have just shown that no one can be really a Atheist why because for someone to be a Atheist they need to have proof and Evidence that they are a Atheist but Paddy you make that very clear when you said this to me I cannot prove that atheism is 'accurate and correct'. CHECKMATE PADDY
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

Yes, SOME atheists state with certainty that there is no god, but what I said was that atheists don't necessarily say there is no god, so in fact you aren't disagreeing at all. "if you cannot prove Atheism to be accurate and correct then Atheism has being defected right right. lol" I think you mean defeated, and no it doesn't. Absence of evidence does not necessarily make a position wrong. If it did then theism would have ceased to be considered a serious and viable position centuries ago. Even so, atheism is not a proposition (as I have already pointed out) but rather is a position taken in response to the lack of adequate evidence for theism. You refer to atheism as being "madness" because it cannot be conclusively demonstrated to be an accurate position, however I would argue that calling it "madness" is false, as a position does not have to be accurate to be rational. "no one can be a Atheist why because like you said Paddy I cannot prove that atheism is 'accurate and correct'" Someone can be an atheist, even if atheism were to be conclusively disproven. Atheism is a position, it exists regardless of it's accuracy. "Atheism need to have proof and Evidence to be real" Atheism is real. There is no question about that.
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

OK Paddy you said Atheists do not necessarily say there is no god. / Me Quote Paddy I would have to disagree with you, some of people do say there is no God,' in this Youtube video all you got to do is go to the comments, and you will see that some people say There isn't a God." or "God doesn't exist here is the link http://www.youtube.com... I Dale believe in God :) / Me QUOTE Paddy you said this to me To answer your question, I cannot prove that atheism is 'accurate and correct' / Me Quote so Paddy that means Atheism cannot disprove God, Atheism has no proof and Evidence for being accurate and correct :) Checkmate / Me Quote so Paddy tell me this if you cannot prove Atheism to be accurate and correct then Atheism has being defected right right. lol no one can be a Atheist why because like you said Paddy I cannot prove that atheism is 'accurate and correct' / Me Quote I say checkmate Paddy Atheism is madness yahoo I would like for Paddy to try to answer this next question I got for him, Atheism need to have proof and Evidence to be real.
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

Atheists do not necessarily say there is no god. Some (myself included) will only go as far as saying the existence of a god is highly unlikely. To answer your question, I cannot prove that atheism is 'accurate and correct' as you put it, simply because atheism is not a proposition to be proven. It is a position taken in response to the proposition that there is a god. The position of atheism is, in fact, merely skepticism. If I were to see some conclusive evidence for the existence of god I would not be skeptical, but because no evidence has been presented to me I am skeptical of the claim that there is a god. In fact, Dale, you complain that we shift the burden of proof, but in fact since we are rejecting the claims of theists, it is not up to us to prove our position. It is up to you to convince us. So go ahead Dale. Convince us.
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

You don't have to be able to disprove god to be an atheist, any more than you have to be able to prove god to be a theist. I don't see how I've shown that one cannot be an atheist simply because I can't provide proof of the non-existence of something. That isn't how disproving something works. The person making the proposition presents evidence for their proposition, and the person rejecting the proposition attempts to refute it. I asked you all the way back in round one to provide some evidence for your proposition and you ignored my request. I already explained to you why the phrase 'atheism is madness' is inaccurate. Please stop saying checkmate all the time. You don't win the debate simply by declaring yourself the winner.
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

Paddy where is your proof and evidence for u disproving God is u Paddy say no u got no evidence that u cannot disprove God then u cannot disprove God thus u cannot be a Atheist because u cannot disprove God that is why on one can be a Atheist a Theist is a Theist define what Theist means Paddy to the voters out there Paddy has failed to provide proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct paddy is not a atheist why because paddy dose not have any proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct Paddy has shown that on one can be a atheist just by saying I cannot prove that atheism is 'accurate and correct' thus Atheism is madness Atheism being defeated, Checkmate Paddy Checkmate Paddy Checkmate Paddy Checkmate Paddy Checkmate Paddy Checkmate Paddy Checkmate Paddy Checkmate Paddy :)
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

I want you to answer this one question: Can someone be a theist without being able to prove the existence of god? I want a simple yes or no, and nothing else. "Atheist have never disproved God that is why no one can be 100 atheist" Nobody has ever conclusively disproven the existence of Bigfoot, do you also wish to propose that Bigfoot must exist because it hasn't been disproven? Someone can disbelieve in something whether it is disproven or not, as I have explained several times. "atheism is a men made thing that has no real proof and evidence of being real " As I have said several times, atheism is real. I am an atheist, therefore it is real. Atheism isn't, strictly speaking, a man made thing. It is just skepticism of a certain proposition. Skepticism is a natural mental function. The definition of atheism is man made, the word is man made, but the position itself isn't. " atheism is one way of conning people into being fearful of not living forever " I would have to disagree. I am an atheist and I am not frightened of death. Most, if not all, atheists I know have no significant fear of death. Theists are the ones who fear death. " you have failed to provide proof and evidence for atheism being real" But atheism is real. If it wasn't you wouldn't be arguing with me. "you have put a big smile on my face by not providing proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct" And you have put a smile on my face by consistently providing proof that you are absolutely clueless about your own debate topic...
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

But Paddy I can boast and say because you have no proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct thus therefore you cannot be a atheist no one can be a atheist why because Atheism has no proof and evidence of being real and yet you Atheist cry about wanting proof that God is real when Atheist cannot disprove God the one of the reasons why Atheism is not accurate and correct is because Atheist have never disproved God that is why no one can be 100 atheist No, I can't prove that atheism is correct, but atheism still exists. Paddy if you cannot prove that atheism is correct then you cannot boast about atheism still exists why because Atheism is madness atheism is a men made thing that has no real proof and evidence of being real hahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahaha atheism is one way of conning people into being fearful of not living forever but atheism cannot say that why because atheism has never being proven to be 100 percent accurate and correct Paddy you have failed to provide proof and evidence for atheism being real paddy you have put a big smile on my face by not providing proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct
Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

"Paddy what proof and Evidence do you have that say's Someone can be an atheist, even if atheism were to be conclusively disproven." Atheism is a position. You can be an atheist whether you have evidence or not, much like you can be Pro or Con on a debate here whether you have evidence or not. "for someone to be a Atheist they need to have proof and Evidence that they are a Atheist" The evidence that someone is an atheist is that they say 'I am an atheist.' "but Paddy you make that very clear when you said this to me I cannot prove that atheism is 'accurate and correct'." No, I can't prove that atheism is correct, but atheism still exists.
Resolved: is it morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate Response to rape

Well, I guess my opponent is actually talking about the resolution after all. So I guess I win the ICC debate :). Anyway. Looking at the wording of the resolution we see the words "Morally Permissible." This means that I don't have to talk about the alternatives that my opponent is talking about. He says that they "should" go, but not why. As long as they can go without causing moral instability than it is alright to do the action. The permissibility of the action is just the allowability of the action. This is the burden for me to answer his one sentence. First. There is no evidence in this round proving that police work. If anything, it is harder for a victim to report their abuse to police because of the abuse they have undergone. Secondly. It is morally permissible for the victim to take an action because the con gives no reason why it is impermissible to do so. Thirdly. The victim should have the permissibility to kill an attacker if the immediacy of the action requires self-defense. Many countries use immediacy to justify Self-Defense, and thus we must make these actions permissible because killing is done in self-defense. My opponent gives no argumentation against this. Lastly, if anything my opponent is forcing these victims to suffer through rape and then go to police or others. Again, since the action is immediate, there is no other way to solve the problem. In order not to be violated, the victim must be allowed to use deadly force. For these four reasons, we should see why their simple response of using police or others is completely false and propagates the problem. Because of this we must affirm. Thank You.
God is cruel, immoral and unjust.

Well, anyway, I was intending to argue that we shouldn't focus on God's moral behavior when our own is far more threatening to ourselves and to life on Earth!God is quite difficult with man because he has to be. If man were allowed to do anything he wanted without consequences, without lessons to be learned, man would destroy himself and the Earth . . . and all of God's work would be in vain!God has to be quite cruel to men when they behave badly.
God is cruel, immoral and unjust.

It was fascinating reading your interesting and certainly original take on your idea of "God". Obviously I don't share these views but it certainly was different from what I'm used to hearing. However the title of the debate is "God is cruel, immoral and unjust." This means that the pro side must attempt to show why this is the case and the con side must attempt to show why this isn't the case. Since you actually agree with me on the topic then there is probably not much point in continuing, what do you reckon?
God is cruel, immoral and unjust.

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledged that you missed the acceptance part. It causes a slight obscurity in the flow of the debate but nevertheless the show must go on. We will continue with back and forth rounds of argument. In relation to your argument, it is hard for me to respond to your individual points as I understand what you are trying to say, yet it is not really related to the context of the debate. You are focusing more on human hypocrisy. I understand what you are saying when you use human comparisons and you are undoubtedly right on the way we perceive ourselves. However the topic of the debate is not "Problems with the human race". Humans mess up a lot and have done horrible things throughout history yet my point is where is God in all of this? (remember I mean God in a hypothetical sense. ) If God is seen as the creator then he would most certainly be the problem. Why did he create humans as such pathetic, hypocrisy, unjust, cruel and immoral beings as you say? And more importantly why didn't he interfere at some stage? Why would he allow such injustice, hate and violence to exist within the world for so long? If man is vicious, selfish, murderous and hateful then is that not from a said Gods doing? I agree with everything you are saying about the human mindset however if God is the supposed creator then can he not be held accountable for creating humans in such a way? Take an event like the Holocaust for example. Think how everyday thousands of people in concentration camps must have been praying to God for their lives. Everyday for months upon months and they got absolutely nothing. If there is a God then I can't think of anything more unjust and cruel. To have the alleged ability to interfere on all the hardship and pain in the world yet can just stay in a complete mode of indifference. Yes such hardship and pain is man-made but 1) man is supposedly made by God and 2) if a higher being has the said power then how can not interfering be justified or moral? I get what you're saying, I really do. However you have to understand that the title of the debate is not "Humans are cruel just like God".
Mormons are Christians.

No Mormons cant be Christians. The Father,Son and Holy Spirit are one being thus the religion of Christianity being monotheistic. However Mormon believe that they are all separate beings meaning that their religion is polytheistic. This contradicts the very nature of Christianity and goes against what is said in the bible. They don't believe the bible is trustworthy and created their own book. If you don't adhere to the bible or you are suspicious of it you cant be Christian. The Mormon belief says that when we die we all become divine gods. Specifically stated in the bible that we don't even become angels so how could we become a "god". http://www.patheos.com... My source is a theology professor who has studied both the bible and the book of mormon
Mormons are Christians.

I myself, am a Mormon, and as such, I have always heard others tell me that Mormons are just a cult who "aren't real Christians. Now, I am not looking for someone who is just going to tell me that my religion is wrong and that I have wasted my time. I am looking to express my ideals and hear what others have to say about this topic. Good luck, and let's begin. I am going to start by saying that Mormons are Christians because they believe in Jesus Christ. Christian: a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
John F. Kennedy was a good President

Well, this is only about John F. Kennedy, but I find it weird how you like Obama and Roosevelt, but do not like Carter and Johnson. That's odd. Anyway, for the debate. Point 1: John F. Kennedy essentially started the welfare system. John F. Kennedy started today's broken welfare system. The welfare system which today, encourages laziness and contribues to an ever increasing real unemployment rate. Point 2: John F. Kennedy essentially started the Unemployment Benefits system. He also started that broken system. That system again encourages laziness and contribues to an ever increasing real unemployment rate. Point 3: John F. Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis terribly. John F. Kennedy is remembered for making the "heroic" stand with the Cuban Missile Crisis, when in fact, he actually bargained his way out of it by taking US missiles out of Turkey in exchange for the Russian Missiles's withdrawal from Cuba. Point 4: John F. Kennedy let the Russians build the Berlin Wall. The Russian leaders saw John F. Kennedy as a weak president (which he was), and so the built the Berlin Wall. If someone like Reagan or Nixon were in at that time, the Russians wouldn't have built the Berlin Wall then. Point 5: John F. Kennedy's foreign policy is as broken and stupid as Obama's is. John F. Kennedy's foregin policy preached peace and diplomacy when the Russians were in no mood or right mind to either accept or give back peace and diplomacy. It was is lax stance on foreign policy that got the Berlin Wall built. Russia was not a country do be taken lightly. It was a very dangerous time and he handled it terribly. Point 6: "In retrospect, he spent his 35 months in the White House stumbling from crisis to fiasco. He came into office and okayed the Bay of Pigs invasion. Then he went to a Vienna summit conference and got his clock cleaned by Khrushchev. That led to, among other things, the Cuban missile crisis and a whiff of nuclear apocalypse.""The assassination of Vietnam's President Diem on Kennedy's watch may have been one of the two biggest mistakes of the war there. (The other was the decision to wage a war of attrition on the unexamined assumption that Hanoi would buckle under the pain.)": http://www.outsidethebeltway.com.... "I don't buy the theory promulgated by Robert McNamara and others that Kennedy would have kept U.S. troops out. Sure, Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam -- just like Lyndon Johnson wanted out a few years later: We'll scale down our presence after victory is secure.": http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com... was and is a popular president with the public, historians do not rate him especially highly. His tenure was too brief for him to have any kind of substantive impact on the United States, that short record was marred nonetheless by such catastrophes as the Bay of Pigs.": http://wiki.answers.com.... Is there anything else you would like to add that I did not mention