BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Supernatural phenomena as the primary method of evangelization is God's intention for the

Resolved: Supernatural phenomena as the primary method of evangelization is God's intention for the Church. I ask that my opponent: 1) Be a Christian 2) Accept the 66 book Bible as authority for this debate. ï¿½No particular translation will be preferred as being "more authoritative. " I also would like to impose the following rules for the debate: 1) Scriptural references should be copied and pasted into the text of the debate so that the reader is readily aware of what the text says. 2) Being that the Bible is the primary source for this debate, the only outside sources should be original language dictionaries or lexicons. ï¿½After quoting a dictionary, it would be helpful to the debate to include the defined word in the text of the scripture verse. Definitions: Supernatural Phenomena- Any occurrence that is not possible for a human to perform without the aid of the Holy Spirit. ï¿½These include miracles of healing and resurrection, exorcism, supernatural knowledge, prophesy, speaking languages unknown to the speaker and any other humanly impossible phenomena. ï¿½Of course, supernatural phenomena can be performed through the power of Satan; however, that type of phenomena is not a concern of this debate. ï¿½For the sake of this debate all references to supernatural phenomena will imply that the phenomena originated from the Holy Spirit. This will be a "signs a wonders" definition, not a "my spiritual gift is sending get-well card"definition. Evangelization- Leading the unsaved to a born again, salvation experience/status. God's intention- The will of God whether expressed through the words of Jesus or through inspired writing. Church- All born-again believers. ï¿½ My definitions can be adjusted to allow for doctrinal disparities about the wordings. ï¿½The only definition that will not be altered will be the definition of supernatural phenomena originating from the Holy Spirit.
Super Smash Bros brawl is better than Super Smash Bros melee

Brawl was made for a new generation of smash gameplay, not cutting out the competitive aspect...! The gamecube also has very similar graphics to the Wii. Reading is also present in Melee. Brawl is only viable casually. The Melee scene is still going strong, and Brawl? If you google it, it is extremely rare. If you want to play casually, why not play MELEE?
Super Smash Bros brawl is better than Super Smash Bros melee

To get directly to the point, Cutting out the competitive aspect was the reason why Brawl was made! So that everyone can enjoy without separating the vets from the freshmen! Brawl is also much faster paced which means being able to read the other player! That is clearly logic! Using logic you can guess what this person is about to do. Skill means nothing to this scenario! For example: If you are in mid air above falling point, who can clearly guess (using logic) (depending on how logical that player is) that the opponent might try to come and spike you down. (This is also logic! Knowing that your opponent is at your weak point, thus bringing him/her down on the spot) You will see that coming and will attempt to dodge it. There are so many other cases which include logic! Also, you are contradicting yourself when you say: You could play Melee w/o wave-dashing and L Cancelling, and it would almost run like Brawl! If you play that way, then, why not just play brawl?! You could use that skill from melee and embed you logic into it! this will make things two times better! In brawl there is no option you play competitively and casually! Unlike in melee, you can choose only one. That is why I believe brawl is better than melee!
Super Smash Bros brawl is better than Super Smash Bros melee

We are talking about Brawl at the current time - Online play has been shut down, so that is out of the question. Melee has L-Cancelling, wavedashing, and requires more skill. Here the thing: It can also be played casually! You don't have to play like this. Without these techniques it is almost as slow as brawl - Cutting out the competitive aspect just takes out half of the game! Brawl is a game that requires reading, which is admittedly a skill, but Melee has that, but much more. You could play Melee w/o wavedashing and L Cancelling, and it would almost run like Brawl! Brawl had two characters clearly above the rest of the cast: MetaKnight and Ice Climbers. Melee at least had Marth, Sheik, Captain Falcon, Fox, Falco, Etc. Melee can be used both competitively and casually and still be a good game.
Super Smash Bros brawl is better than Super Smash Bros melee

Brawl has great graphics, game-play, and a lot more music. It also has more character, and online play. Not to say its melee is bad it, was mind blowing at it's time. However, this is not that time anymore. It is the time of the gamer! Many people don't have that skill needed to play games, or those fast fingers that click those harsh sticky buttons. That is why Nintendo has embedded Logic into the new/now getting old game called Super Smash Bros Brawl! Now all gamers can play Brawl without the fear of loss. You could use logic to help make up for the lack of skill. However, in melee, mostly skill is required which doesn't give a chance to the smart yet weak people. This is why Brawl can be a better choice for most people to have fun with. You don't have to have skill, you can use logic. And if you don't have the logic you can use skill. If you have both, use both!!! Its just like having two feet versus having one foot in the human body. You can't go too far with only one foot, but with two feet, you can alternate and adapt thus being able to go farther than any gamer/man has gone before!
confederate statues shouldnt be in places of honor

i' m not sure if you're thinking i'm saying we should take them down ourselves without their consent, cause i'm not saying that. i'm saying they should come to that conclusion themselves. the only other thing i can really make out you are saying is that it's disrespectful to not have the statutes. what about all the blacks who were forced into slavery, and their ancesters, where is their respect? and you didn't tackle the hitler point, should germany have hitler statues up in the name of respect or whatever? why not if you say no and how is it different? how not just have this stuff in a museaum, why does it have to be out in places of honor?
confederate statues shouldnt be in places of honor

Even if we don't believe in some of the reasons they fought, they're still Americans, and died for what they believed in. When you disrepect someone's ancestors because you think what YOU believe is right and there's is wrong? That is disrespecting America. Our roots are our roots, and we can't change that. So if you think I'm going to sit here and watch you disrespect other Americans because of their beliefs, you're dead wrong. Buckle up, it's going to be a wild ride...
confederate statues shouldnt be in places of honor

confederate statues should not be in places of honor the civil war was about slavery, plain and simple. if you look at the reasons stated for the war, it always went back to slavery. only in the abstract was it about states' rights, and there has been a misinformation campaign to retrospectively say that's what it was about. research history and you will see the truth. so do we want statutes of men who led the fight for slavery? maybe in the same way we'd want a statue of hitler, maybe at a museaum, but not out in public spaces of honor.
confederate statues shouldnt be in places of honor

washington was known for lots of other good things in history. the confederates were only known or their relbellion against slavery. and most people in history had poor thoughts about certain things, but that don't mean we can't draw distinctions. and you didn't really argue why it's not disrespectful to africans and right minded people who don't believe in slavery, you just went down a slippery slope. if you could actually try to defend your position on the merits instead of a slippery slope, youd have more merit to your position. it doesn't look like you can do it, though. you are getting too distracted in the arguments about letting localities do what they want. of course i dont disagree it's up to everyone in their own districts, but as to whether you or me would want them up, that is what we are arguing. so you didn't really draw a distinction about hitler. if you lived in germany would you want a statue of him up in places of honor? how do you draw a distinction? one believed in genocide, whereas the people you are defending in honor believed in slavery. both major atrocities. i dont care nor is it relevant what polls say about the stattues. this is just you v me in whether the deserve to be put up. we don't have to disregard history by removing the statutes. we can have those statues in a museaum or have other ways of remembering history. and there's a difference between remembering history and putting evil doer statues up in places of honor.
confederate statues shouldnt be in places of honor

There are a couple reasons that your argument is flawed. First, you say that it is disrespectful to the African American community. However, what about George Washington, or other members of the Founding Fathers? Most, if not all of them, owned slaves. By your logic, we need to take down those statues from public honor, as they disrespect that community. By this logic, most of our history from before the Civil War would be taken down, as most of those people in our history owned slaves. Second, you claim that, by MY logic, we should have statues of Hitler out in the public. Apparently you can't tell where Hitler lived. That problem would be up to Germany and other European countries, not America. However, I can say that there is a difference between everyone universally agreeing not to display something, and one part of the country agreeing, while other parts disagreeing. Now, as for my arguments, there are a couple reasons why removing Confederate statues from public places of honor is not going to happen. 1. They're lawfully protected. Several states with these statues have already enacted several laws in order to rightfully protect these pieces of American history (1). They are also not coming down in national parks, like Gettysburg, where these people fought and died for what they believed in (2). Meaning that these statues, especially in these states, will be very hard, or even next to impossible, to remove. If you want this to happen, you're going to have to argue with them, not me. 2. Not as many people as you think support removing them In fact, most of the polls out there show an overwhelming support to NOT remove them (3). In fact, the only poll that removing them gained a sliver ahead of not removing them, was when they worded it differently, saying that they would be "relocated" to museums and such. So, your proposal is not as endearing as it seems 3. Slavery is part of our history. While I do not support the idea of slavery, it is an important part of our nations history. As I said above, many of the important figures in the formation of our country owned slaves. Removing statues just because of their racist undertones is only destroying the history in which the people on the statues fought, and most likely died in. This will not make the modern world a better place, and would only blur what happened in the past to form this country. ( just an FYI, Abraham Lincoln only created the Emancipation Proclamation to aid his support, not because he felt that slaves were being treated unfairly (4)) Sources: 1. https://www.google.com... 2. https://www.google.com... 3. http://m.huffpost.com... 4. http://www.historynet.com...
You can not prove there is a God

Ok pro has missed the point.Pan has an established meaning and theism has an established meaning. Pantheism has an established meaning.There is no established system in which god is everything that doesn't exist. Pro's basically saying what makes pan a valid prefix and theism a word. It's complete non-sense. On pro's example why can't I just switch the meaning of existence and non-existence?Pantheism is a derivation. Of pan and theism and the definition follows. So is there a way to derive the meaning "god is everything that doesn't exist". Well if that prior definition is intelligble, it should be the negation of pantheism, which I think pro was aiming for.So let's say non-panthiesm. Well that would mean god isn't everything that exists, however it doesn't follow that god doesn't exists and it certainly doesn't follow that god is everything that doesn't exist. So there doesn't even seem to be a way in which one can derive pro's definition. So from pro's definition it follows that everything that does not exist IS god. However to say everything that does not exist is anything, is invalid.I just noticed, pro actually concedes in a prior round. Pro says: "You can call things God and then say God exists ". Well that's exactly what pantheism says, so he concedes the truth of pantheism.Recap:Pro fails to establish definition of god.Pro concedes.Pro states red herring, saying I can't prove the Abrahamic god.(which I didn't need to do)Pro arbitrarily changes well established definitions.Pro fails to address my arguments.I render pro's definition invalid.(Once again, god is a vague term that is basically useless, however I have demonstrated the existence of pantheism's vague god.)
You can not prove there is a God

Again so far the idea that labeling God as the universe and me saying God is not the uninverse are opinions, unless you can prove they are anything more then such you can't say one better then the other let alone that one of those views is proof of God. God being the same as the universe is an opnion all he has been able to do is succesfully prove a point of view but not the view itself being true and accurate or anything more then opinion.
You can not prove there is a God

Fact: : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence : a true piece of information. "Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity""At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos"So it is the a fact that under pantheism, god is everything that exists.Your definition that god is everything that does not exist is flawed. Everything that doesn't exist, does not exist, this is true. However you can't define nothing as something.Nothing is necessarily nothing, and therefor can not be defined as anything that is anything. So anything that is something has traits, anything that does not have any traits is nothing, so it is inappropriate to denote anything without traits as anything other than nothing. However I have offered an argument and you have not negated it, you have merely come up with your own, without defending your premises. Also by virtue of the Noll hypothesis, you're argument is not important, considering you have not defended or substantiated your premises.
You can not prove there is a God

What makes those premises more accurate then if I was to say the following? P1: Everything that doesn't exist is God P2: Everything that doesn't exist does not in fact exist P3: Therefore God does not exist. In order to prove me wrong you would have to prove that the pantheistic way of viewing the world is more correct and more then mere opinion therefore cancelling out my view. If you can not do so then they are both opinions and not facts. So there for cancel each other out and you have proved nothing.
You can not prove there is a God

P1) God is synonymous with the cosmosP2) The cosmos existsC) God exists Calling the cosmos God then saying therefore God exists is like saying unicorns are the universe therefore the unverse exists. Syllogism can be reworded as follows:P1) God is everything that existsP2) Everything that exists existC) God exists Again your basically give something a name like unicorn and saying therefore unicorns exist. X is the proposition that god existsY is the proposition that the cosmos exists.X and Y on pantheism is the same proposition. You can call things God and then say God exists but no one could ever prove a living intellegent being who has limitless power and is all knowing, all seeing, all loving, and infinitely merciful exists.
You can not prove there is a God

Pro has failed to provide a definition of god, so I shall define it myself. "Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity" "At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos"P1) God is synonymous with the cosmosP2) The cosmos existsC) God exists Syllogism can be reworded as follows:P1) God is everything that existsP2) Everything that exists existC) God existsX is the proposition that god existsY is the proposition that the cosmos exists.X and Y on pantheism is the same proposition. X`33;`Y--> X`33;X (by virtue of law of identity)Resolution is negated unless pro can negate the law of identity. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://plato.stanford.edu...
keeping fish as pets should not be legal.

My Opponent can make an argument in the opening round, or just acept it doesn't matter to me. We are supposed to be debating the merits of the people in the two house, please no loophole exploitation (if a loophole exists)We are permitted to ask eachother questions at the end of a round, and if the answerer runs out of space to answer them during his speech he is to post his responses in the comments.Good luck to my Opponent!
sentencing

That might be the case but we're not talking about juvenile hall, we're talking about prison. Someone commits an offense they should be punished fully for the crime they've committed, imposed by a judge. Prisons serve primarily to take the offenders into custody to protect the civilians. What's the use if they're out in no-time? In fact, less than half of all the parole periods are succesfully completed without the convict breaking the law.http://www.urban.org...;
sentencing

Same here but I would like to see your point of view on the topic. My first argument would be over the youth population. Most of the kids who have committed a crime are very young. It is understood and proved that at an early age, it is impossible for children to have the mental ability like that of a normal adult, to plan and execute a crime and moreover to understand the consequences of it. Psychologically speaking, it is said that the problem lies with the parents and not the child. That being said, prison isn't the ideal place for any kid the abuse and excessive use of isolation or retrains can traumatize the kid and all of these are factors that can affect recidivism rates.
Evolution is not atheism

Forfeit noted, arguments extended. Additionally, I would like to clarify my argument above for those who just want the cliff notes version: 1. Evolution = belief that something other than God is involved in organizing a part of the universe. 2. Atheism (as defined by opponent's sources) = belief God isn't exclusively involved in organizing universe 3. Evolutionists believe that God is not involved in one aspect of creation. Therefore they believe that creation is not exclusively controlled by God. Atheists believe that creation is not exclusively controlled by God. 4. Therefore Evolution = Atheism. Oversimplification: The same way that a Catholic and a Mormon can both claim to be Christians, evolutionists who ascribe to my opponent's definition of evolution can claim to be atheists.
Evolution is not atheism

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. http://en.wikipedia.org... Atheism is the position that deities do not exist,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org... Evolution is not atheism. :) I humbly await my opponent's arguments
Rap music.

Err... Okay. Jeez, I have to come up with 100 characters in response. I'll just say that it is wrong to try to characterize "all" of something based on the perceived sins of "some" of something, or to smear the "good" -- even if they are the minority -- with guilt-by-association to the "bad." There are Christian rappers, and there are pro-freedom Iranian rappers challenging their government in Tehran. Search YouTube!
Rap music.

You would have to define what "racism" means, and also define what "promoting violence" entails. I will concede that most non-white rappers embrace "racial identity," which true individualists such as myself consider "racist." However, the more commonly accepted definition of "racism" is about racial superiority. I have heard some "black supremacist" rap in my day, but it is an extreme minority -- less than 1/10 of 1% of the rap I've heard (and I think that's being generous). I started listening to gangsta rap in the fourth grade. Nearly twenty years later, I am completely committed to non-violence and true anti-racism (radical individualism). Therefore, if rap promotes violence and racism, it certainly did not do a good job with me.
Rap music.

1. Not all rap music degrades women. What about a song like "Ladies First" by Monie Love or "U.N.I.T.Y." by Queen Latifah? Not even a majority, or even close to that, of rap music degrades women, but you say it as a blanket statement, as if ALL rap music degrades women, and that's false. I've just proven it to be false. 2. Not all rap music promotes violence. Much of rap music is actually anti-violence. See the collaboration "Self Destruction" from the Stop the Violence project. I've never heard any violent content in any of the Christian rap I listen to. And just because violence may be depicted in some rap music, does not mean it is supported. Early gangster rappers depicted violence in cautionary tales that encouraged kids to NOT join gangs, do drugs, etc. Later gangster rappers did "promote violence," arguably, but that is a very small minority of all rappers. 3. You say Onyx, Biggie, Geto Boys, and Jay-Z ALL "talk about killing people because of their race, gang, and gender." I am not familiar with Onyx or Geto Boys, but I will talk about BIG and Jay-Z. To keep it simple, I will say with 100% certainty that your statement is wrong, because neither rapper ever "talked about killing people" because of their race. If I am wrong, show me where. Point to a song. Post the lyrics. 4. Regardless, even talking about hate crimes is not violent. Violence is the initiation of force against people. No words can be violent, no matter how disgusting they may be. What is violence? Prohibiting free speech by force. Laws regulating speech are premised on the government's ability to use guns on people who violate the speech laws. THAT is violent!