BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Issue of the Trinity

My opponent rises no contradictions or problems concerning the Trinity. The Trinity in fact indicates that even should Christ die in the flesh, God is still omnipotent. These questions, all ending in question marks, are as much rhetorical questions as questions of doubt. "...how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? ~ A man who does not buy a poor farmers land so that the town people do not hate him thereafter, acknowledges Gods personality, whether he accepts the truth behind his glorious mercy or not. Thus This man IS calling upon God, even though, there he puts no faith. ~ also, a child knows not that God will take his penny and make his wish come true, But his heart speaks to God and God listens. How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? ~ You do not have to hear politicians are corrupt to see it. Likewise who do not have to see perfection to know we have not attained it, but that we can strive for it. How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? ~ This is difficult, because they would surely hear so much else to confound them. But a man who is wronged then knows that Wrong is indeed wrong, and they then hear God and that the ways of God are righteous. Whether they listen, because a crowd of confounding fools is hard to cope with is regardless, because the man does hear with the lack of a preacher. How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? ~ All man, sent or not sent, preaches his heart in his actions. Helping others, speaking with social or charitable aspects, playing youthfully. All these things one does naturally, and only when Corrupted does man fail to do them. A corrupted man does not lay way to indicate the Holy Spirit is not a real force that lives in People creating a communion with God through Jesus. However, a corrupt man, lays before him and behind him a path that clearly shows that he walks int he darkness and that no light goes out before him or after him. And thus he is an example of a failure. And through a failure one can see all of that personals faults without him being able to hide anything.
The Issue of the Trinity

Christ's Teachings are not in our hearts to begin with, however with Bible training his teachings come to be in our hearts. "...on the other hand, be training yourself with godly devotion as your aim." (1 Timothy 4:7) We also need to read/hear them as the Scriptures say: "...how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!" (Romans 10:14) Another problem with the trinity doctrine is that Jesus was dead for three days and then raised up. Do you believe that God was dead because I sure don't. Also, Jesus was raised up- do you believe that the dead can raise themselves from the dead because I sure don't. The Scriptures say that the dead aren't conscious of anything.R39;"For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all" (Ecclesiastes 9:5) Finally, you have never once given proof anything you have said, while I have given proof everything I have said. which do you think is telling the truth?
The Issue of the Trinity

Christ's Teachings are in our hearts. We have no need to read or hear them, we know them innately, as we discern right from wrong. Loving what God loves and Hating what God hates, does not occur because you know what God hates and loves, but because you see the wisdom in these things without being forced too. However it is logical to seek an understanding of the properties that might lead to God loving or Hating these things. All these emotions are innately there for those who are not corrupted by atheism. And for those who are corrupted, the book offers no relieve of enlightenment for they are blind to it's pages. His teachings are preserved for our benefit, not because they are the most profitable means of attaining an understanding of him. Justly; The Trinity develops no issues. God is comprehendable, beyond comprehension, and is the act of comprehending.
The Issue of the Trinity

The very meaning of being "Christian" means to follow Jesus and be "disciples" or people who have accepted Jesus' discipline. How could we follow his discipline without his teachings? Our faith is based upon his teachings, and those teachings have been preserved in Scripture for our benefit. Thus, Scripture is a mandatory component to our worship of his and our Father. Basically, we cannot receive Christ without receiving his teachings, as he put his sweat, tears, blood and life into the ministry that he so fervently taught.
The Issue of the Trinity

In all of your argument, you never once used a Scripture to prove that what you are saying is Biblical. Please give me a Scripture from the Bible as Christianity is supposed to be based on the Bible. Also, when Jesus was baptized, God's voice came from the heavens saying that Jesus is God's son the beloved, the one that God had approved. (Matthew 3:16) Something else, the Scriptures clearly state that Jesus is the only begotten son, that no man has ever seen God, and that Jesus explained God. "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. For we all received from his fullness, even undeserved kindness upon undeserved kindness. Because the Law was given through Moses, the undeserved kindness and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ. No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father's side is the one who has explained Him."
The Issue of the Trinity

I accept. God is a Trinity. Son ~ the uniformed perfect of God's preference in the identification of his Infinite being. Father ~ Imperceivable limit of Gods Glory, unassociable with his Personality because of it's extensive awesomeness and imperceivable aspect. Spirit ~ The union of Peoples to the Infinite Father through Christ Jesus. For Christ Jesus lives in us, only through Faith do we know him, and only through him do we attain God. Thus God is one and only one, yet he is beautifully and truthfully the Trinity.
The Issue of the Trinity

The Bible shows that God is not a trinity in many Scriptures. For example, John 1:1 has to be changed in most Bibles to say that "the word was God" instead of giving the true meaning of the Greek text. Also, 1 John 5:7 has been changed to show that the trinity is true, but the most authoritative texts do not include anything relating to the trinity. This means that John 1:1 is an example of something being taken away from the text, and that 1 John 5:7 is an example of someone adding to the text, as there is no proof in the Bible that God is a trinity, so trinitarians had to add to and take away from the true text of the Bible in order to say the things that they do about the trinity. Basically translators of most translations fool people into thinking that there is a trinity when no such evidence exists in the Greek texts.
Should SAT/ACT scores be required for college admission

The SAT/ACT has to stay in one form to be fair to all those who take them and an equal measure of difficulty for the colleges to judge them by fairly. Although these tests are challenging for the students that take them they are a measure that ultimately helps a student get into a college or university. Thest tests enable the student to show another reason why they should be accepted to college and are a fair way for all students to be measured equally by colleges.
Should SAT/ACT scores be required for college admission

Some colleges understand this and are now test optional for the application. However this option it omitted for certain majors like nursing. The reason for this is because after four years of school the college student would recieve their bachelors degree, however they are not yet a nurse and need to pass the boards which is an eight hour standardized test. The SAT/ACT test that is taken in high school is a reflection on how well one would do to pass their boards. In this case the SAT/ACT is crucial to the college and the student. I don't think it is right to make it required for only certain majors to take the test and all students should take and submit their scores on their college application.
Should SAT/ACT scores be required for college admission

There are other aspects that are valued in a college application, such as rigor of classes, GPA, and activities outside of school. The SAT/ACT's only help to narrow down the selection as a way for a student to show how well they can answer logic questions and skills they have learned throughout high school. The SAT and ACT even test different areas to help students that excel in different areas, including the set up of the test. These scores can help as a positive asset to a students application, not negatively.
UN Security Council Reform (specifics in argument)

Thanks for the debate maxh. Eliminating the veto power of the US, China, and Russia will quickly lead to a complete fracturing of the UN. China and Russia would undoubtedly withdraw from the United Nations completely if a "veto proof" decision were foisted on them that they didn't agree with, such as a resolution to force China to further re-value their currency. The US may not withdraw, but it would further attempt to circumvent the UN. In the past, when the Security Council would not approve our "police actions" (Kosovo, Iraq), we just ignored the Security Council completely. As the US increasingly "goes around" the UN, the entire organization will be de-legitimized because it will become clear that they hold no actual authority when most of the major world decisions take place through other mediums: wars/peacekeeping is operated through NATO, major decisions are made through bilateral talks, rather than through the UN general assembly; sanctions are imposed by the OECD, not the UN.
UN Security Council Reform (specifics in argument)

Reform plan: -Eliminate the permanent seats held by the US, China, the UK, and France -Institute "rotating permanent seats", that is, seats permanently assigned to regions, with the specific nation in the seat being elected amongst the region for a term -Increase the number of non-permanent seats to twenty The elimination of the permanent seats held by the UK and France is particularly important as those nations are not necessarily representative of the views of the European Union as a whole. By replacing the current permanent seats with regionally-assigned permanent seats, representation from all regions is assured.
Fun.

I'm CON. I say reading is bad. The reason I say this is because reading makes you think. When you think you realize that life isn't perfect, maybe even for you you realize it sucks. Millions of people kill themselves every year. You know why that is? Reading. They thought about how suckish their life was, and they died. Look at ants, or pigs, their lives suck, but they never kill themselves. We ought to aspire to be like them, and that means not reading.
Socialism or Communism can work well (I know their different, But it depends what you do)

Your first point: You can't leave. You've got your facts wrong. One could travel (whether for work, Or vacation or emigration) whenever they liked, Even though it was a bit difficult. However, The Cold War and WWII dominated much of USSR history. At wartime, It is completely normal for governments to not allow people to emigrate. All countries (America included) did this at some point. However, There were exceptions of leaving during wartime, And in that case not all your family could leave. However, This applies to most countries, No matter if they are Communist, Capitalist, Or neither. Your second point: Sharing is caring. I don't see your point here. You're saying that there is this farm here and everyone owns it. It is only natural for everyone to get their share. Your third point: Nobody gets richThis is a very big misconception of Communism. Due to popular beliefs, There have been many videos and documents talking about how everyone gets the same pay. But that is not true. It is completely untrue that everyone gets the same pay. I hate it when people say that, But don't read the actual laws of the Soviet Union. An average doctor in the Soviet Union makes four times the amount of money than Stalin himself! Point 4: We don't make decisions, The government doe. Are you sure there was no incentive to work hard? What is your proof? Most Soviets actually liked Communism against their previous government (which was before the revolution). The abolishment of the Soviet Union wasn't even by vote. They did a vote, Which ended up in about 70 something percent of people who wanted to keep Communism. However, The Soviet Union was abolished because of other reasons, Such as the danger of other countries. This goes to show that Communism did have a wide popularity. Point 5: CorruptionThere was corruption, Yes, But not that exxagerated amount of it that you say there was. Bribing was common in the time of the Soviet Union, Even in other Capitalist countries. An example, Before you ask it, Is in France, Where living conditions were bad after the Nazi invasion in WWII. Bribing others for things like better treatment in school and a boost of their children's grades in hopes of getting into a good university to make more income for their family was normal at the time. Point 6: No freedomFreedom of religion actually was guarenteed by the government. It was simply the fact that many weren't treated nicely and were exposed to the power of words. However, This is the similar case in other countries. Many people are made fun by others because of their religion. Point 7: Big broher is watching. This is a weak point. They could accuse you of hating the government, But they would have no proof or anything against you. Similarly, I could say right now that you killed 10 people and molested 3 of them before killing them and call the cops. Would they put you in jail? Probably not, Because I have no real proof or logic behind my accusation. Even if it were some government official doing it, They will still need proof. Back to you bro
Socialism or Communism can work well (I know their different, But it depends what you do)

Ok, Let's start out with a couple of reasons communism doesn't work. 1. You can't leave In the USSR people weren"t allowed to leave the country. If someone left, The government would interrogate their whole family. If they returned, The person was jailed indefinitely. 2. Sharing is caring Private property didn't exist. Any land was everyone"s land. For example, If someone owned a farm, Everyone owned that farm. Whatever was grown on that farm was taken and redistributed "equally. " 3. Nobody gets rich Nobody could get rich. Everyone had to work pretty much the same jobs and earned the same amount of money. Pretty fair, Right? At least until someone realized that they could do the bare minimum and make as much as someone working their hardest. There weren"t any incentives to try hard either. No matter what you did, Your position wasn"t going to change. 4. We don't make decisions, The government does Nobody got to choose the job they wanted; they were essentially just assigned a job wherever they were needed. Once again, There was no incentive to work hard. 5. Corruption There was a ridiculously high amount of corruption. Bribes were required for even simple tasks to be completed. Parents could even bribe teachers to improve their kid"s grades. 6. No freedom There was no freedom of religion, Mainly because there was no religion that was legal. There weren"t many other freedoms either. 7. Big brother is watching There was a constant feeling of "Big Brother is Watching. " People that said anything against the government vanished mysteriously. If someone didn't like you, All they had to do was accuse you of hating the government. Those are some of the main points. Your floor :)
The Simpsons is more entertaining and funnier than Family Guy

yes your first point is true... there is no time period. But what you must have misinterpreted is that that the old Simpson's weren't more entertaining than family guy. Yes they laid the pavement and all but they most certainly are not funnier or nearly as clever. I think the Simpson's is a great show but lets face it, the majority of america's youth would much rather watch family guy. besides on a not so serious note, you can't beat stewy the baby! i mean come on! Yours Truly, Rockaholik35
The Simpsons is more entertaining and funnier than Family Guy

By giving an analytical approach to the topic, it does not specifically name any time period of comparison. It merely states that one television show is more entertaining than the other. To consider a television show, one must look at the episodes that made it most famous and most memorable, for those are the ones that they are interpreted by. Did Family Guy "build the house" by using one joke over and over and over and over again? Is it really funny to use flashbacks that have nothing to do with plot development as a method of humor? Family Guy jokes are certainly funny; however, the television show is not. The jokes can be separated from a show into a couple minute segments, and nothing changes: there are semi-funny unrelated jokes with absolutely no plot. The reason why Family Guy got kicked off television after season 3 was because the Simpsons was still in its prime and able to kill Family Guy's ratings and favorability. The topic states which is "more entertaining" and "funnier". Because I have already established how much funnier the Simpsons is, and how Family Guy jokes have already been used by the Simpsons, the only question left is of entertainment. Family Guy can be entertaining, when the few funny jokes are being played, but the rest of the show's nonsensical dialog and needless filler prevents it from being in the same breath of air as the Simpsons. If anything, Family Guy can be considered funnier than the Simpsons (which it isn't) much easier than Family Guy can be considered more entertaining than the Simpsons. The Simpsons were able to pour out 13 golden years where no episodes received a poor reception from its audiences. Family Guy has barely made half that time, and its episodes have already become hit or miss as much as a Jay Leno monologue. Thanks, The Colonel
The Simpsons is more entertaining and funnier than Family Guy

No disrespect to the simpsons but the CURRENT family guy is much better than the CURRENT simpsons. Yes it is true the simpsons helped lay the foundations but family guy built the house. I still strongly believe that the new family guys are much funnier than the old simpsons. The topic of this debate is which is more "entertaining" and even though the simpsons may have been the first it is definatly not more entertaining.
Gay marriage should be legal

A gay marriage in society is not any different from a Heterosexual marriage. The only difference being that there would be either no male or no female parent. It's the same as a single parent family, but better because the child has 2 parents to take care of them. The lack of one gender does not mean the child will be raised wrong. Good parents will strive to make sure their childs needs are met. A male can't provide anything more than a female can other than the composition of their bodies and same goes for females. There has been research done that shows that children raised with homosexual parents do not have any worse of a life than with heterosexual parents. You say 'The world's kids don't need more broken families'. But gay marriage does not affect the number of broken families. If anything it brings more families together by allowig them to receive the benefits that families get by the government. Research shows that married couples stay together longer than non-married ones. Therefor, allowing gay couples to get married would mean less breakups of families.As for AIDS, Heterosexual couples can transfer aids as much as homosexual couples. By allowing gay marriage you encourage homosexuals to couple up instead of having multiple short relationships or no relationships at all. And when you limit the number of people you have sexual intercourse with you limit the spread of STDs.I don't see how not allowing somebody the same rights as you is 'Coexisting'. For instance, say there are 2 groups of kids. Part of these kids like to play soccer and some of them like to play football. The teachers have allways sold the kids who play soccer icecream, but not the ones who play football. Then one day the kids who play football say they want to buy icecream too. The teacher has more icecream to sell, but the soccer kids say that if football players eat the same icecream as them it will ruin it. So the teacher decides it's better if things stay as they were to make the soccer players happy and the football players just have to deal with it because to 'Coexist' they can't upset the soccer players.In this analogy, the soccer players are heterosexuals and the football players are homosexuals, the icecream is marriage, and the teacher is the government. You can also compare this to Civil Unions by saying that the soccer kids decided that if they called it 'Frozen Dairy Desert' instead, then it would be ok to sell it to them.
Gay marriage should be legal

Why and how is same-sex marriage a good, positive way to host a society? This world's kids don't need more broken families (i.e. divorced parents, stress because of differences/controversy). The world in general doesn't need more exposure to AIDS. Don't we want to "coexist?" Gay marriage sets religious people and secular people even more apart. BOP (burden of proof) is mostly on Pro because he/she needs to provide reasons gay marriage is good for society. I, Con, will only debunk and rebut, and when necessary, I will give arguments. All rounds are arguments/rebuttals.