BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Soul is a living person in the bible

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7 Many people see a "soul" in the bible as the what the Greeks saw it as. The "Ancient Greeks used the same word for 'alive' as for 'ensouled', indicating that the earliest surviving western philosophical view found the terms soul"(wikepedia) The bible never refers to the soul as a dualistic definition. THe bible claims that God made the body from "dust"and his"breath" and that made a "living soul" which means a living person.
Soul is a living person in the bible

Nadlor has forfeited. I'll make a brief case for the duality of soul and body. When Adam became a "living soul," that does not mean he became a soul when he started living. All living humans have a soul. The soul is created when the human is, at fertilization. However Adam's creation was different. He was not conceived in the normal way; he was made from the dust of the earth. Therefore God had to breathe breath into his nostrils for him to live otherwise he couldn't survive. When he started living he had a soul. Paul taught that our soul is separate from our body. In 2 Corinthians 5: 6-8 that while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord. But we will be pleased to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. Also, Jesus gave the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, who were dead and in the afterlife, Lazarus in Abraham's bosom and the rich man in Hades. Then when the Lord returns, the dead in Christ will be raised first (1 Thessalonians 4:16). Our soul will live on while our body is buried in the Earth, and at the end of time we will be raised to live in the new Heaven and new Earth.
Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

Firstly I would reccomend posting sources for those precise definitions. No offence but the term "it depends on what your definition of "is" is" comes to mind. Secondly, I would argue that the entire point of human systems and values is to measure and effect in terms that we dictate, therefore the very fact that we can place meaning on whether something is more beneficial to mankind or more beneficial to everything except mankind automatically implies that there are things we will have to sacrifice for the sake of the natural world. Thirdly, considering the second point, precisely how much would you argue that what is effectively selfishness would aid mankind before it begins to hinder it? We could cut down every tree in existence for wood, but in turn our oxygen supply would be vastly diminished. We could mine every resource to extinction, but in turn would be faced with resource wars against ourselves. We could take everything and leave what we do not take to suffocate on poison air and drown in the sewage that is the leftovers from our society, to do that we would ultimately gain temporary but total Anthropocentrism because reality would become all about us. And it would kill us in the end. Biocentrism, as you called it, interpreting reality from the perspective of everything except humanity is probably the only reason we haven't eviscerated this planet entirely. What few programs we have for environmental preservation have biocentrism at their core, and the only reason that businesses that rely on natural resources are still in business is their capability to find or create new sources of income from renewable materials like wood. Note that the companies that do not rely on renewable materials for their income, like for example oil companies, do not care for biocentrism and instead argue for your Anthropocentrism. You can throw definitions, official or arbitrary, around all you like. In the end it comes down to a simple question of how selfish humanity truly is. If we want to survive then we'd better make sure we're not as selfish as we like to say we are. Nature is a series of scales. Each scale has two weights. Predator and prey, carnivore and herbivore, life and death, male and female, hot and cold, and so on and so forth. Removal of one weight, or even affecting the mass of one weight too much causes the scales to tilt to the other end, which removes the balance of specific natural sects such as predator and prey. It's called the balance of nature for a reason. You seem keen to argue that humanity is automatically more important than the rest of the natural universe solely because you happen to be human. Would you agree if you were a shark? a koala? a penguin? a heap of moss on a rock? a sperm? Of course not, you would lack the sentience to do so, but if you had that sentience, I sincerely doubt you would agree. We take, in my opinion, too much from this world as it is. To argue that we somehow deserve to have even more is frankly insulting.
Debate.org should end all censorship on the site.

You say: "Well people should have the right to debate what they want. What I propose is for these debates to be "flagged" instead of deleting. Meaning, when you click to view the debate, you will have to go through a window that warns you that it contains offensive language or some arguments depict graphic images. How does that not solve the problem?" "Flagging" debates IS censorship, and if that's what you believe, than you have deviated from your thesis and I have won. "Flagging" a debate is like censorship based on personal preferences, but it IS still censorship. That could work, actually, but I stand by my quota system. If we set the quota at 20, that would pretty much make it tamper-proof, because if you have 20 people who aren't happy with the result, than you can tip back the scale of the debate. I've never seen a debate with more than a 20-vote margin. And you say that people would try to delete a debate simply because they're losing. While, that could happen, but if I was running this site, I'd still put it in the Win/Lose stats, even if it was deleted. You say: < > That may be true, but it would still take twenty votes to delete it. And, I just had another brainwave: arguments should be screened for offensive language by a computer before ever being posted. I've seen this on other sites. I mean, I can stand a few "Hells" and "Damns" but if it gets any hotter than that, ot insulting, than it should be deleted. In summary, "ending all censorship on the site" would be a bad idea. It would lead to a lower debate quality and make it possible for a select few members to run roughshod over the rest of us. This is really a personal issue for me, because I have myself been a victim of this over-the-net personal insulting. A Harry Potter forum I write in (http://www.amazon.com...) was spammed TWICE by someone we dubbed a "troll" who was abusive, insulting, and generally unpleasant. The forum basically shut down because people didn't want to put up with that crap. Finally, after a few weeks, I emailed the people who ran the forum (it was on Amazon.com) and after a few MORE weeks they took care of the problem. THEN it happened again. But seriously, that is what happens when ALL censorship is removed. Thanks for the debate, blond guy. Sola Gratia
Debate.org should end all censorship on the site.

"If someone knew they were losing a debate, that would seem to imply that all the arguments were made and that it was in voting. Therefore, they would be cursing in the comments, and comments are easily removed." No, some people can just tell when another has a better argument or when they're convinced. I could send out random challenges and if my opponent doesn't forfeit the round, that's it! I go cursing like crazy in my next argument and it's out of the way! < > That could cause people to vote to remove the debate if the side they like has the least votes. < > Well people should have the right to debate what they want. What I propose is for these debates to be "flagged" instead of deleting. Meaning, when you click to view the debate, you will have to go through a window that warns you that it contains offensive language or some arguments depict graphic images. How does that not solve the problem?
Debate.org should end all censorship on the site.

I don't know what the current censorship policy is on debate.org exactly, but removing ALL censorship would not be beneficial, and would certainly reduce the quality of debates going on. Your main objection to censorship is bad language, I assume. Personally, I don't have a problem with minor profanity, but when it gets really bad I draw the line. My ideal solution would be a system where people who disliked a debate would have an option to vote "remove debate" somewhere on the debate page. A server would keep track of a certain number, say twenty, and then delete the debate after review by a debate.org employee or something. How does that sound? I'm loath to remove all censorship because, let's face it, there are idiotic debates out there, and my idea would, I think, perfect the voting system and make this site a true democracy, so to speak. Let's be honest: there are debates on here that are not suitable for the ten- and eleven-year-old members I've seen in the lists, such as: (http://www.debate.org...) (http://www.debate.org...) If someone knew they were losing a debate, that would seem to imply that all the arguments were made and that it was in voting. Therefore, they would be cursing in the comments, and comments are easily removed. So, what do you think?
Debate.org should end all censorship on the site.

Here is some proof of censorship on debate.org: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... So, first of all, if they want to censor out specific parts they can do that. But canceling a debate? If someone feels they are losing a debate they could just start cursing like there's no tomorrow and get it canceled. Furthermore, the people on debate.org should be mature enough to handle some graphic or "offensive" language if it's proving a point. Anybody disagree? Any takers?
Welfare and other public entitlement programs should be abolished in the US.

Again you say "how can we" as if the lives of all Americans are dependent on welfare. All Americans are not dependent on welfare- only a few are. You also act as if welfare is the only option. The better option would be getting a job. Getting a job will easily pay the few bills a poor person should have. You asked me to give you "One" reason why welfare should be abolished. I have already given you many, I spent a while giving you a full fledged argument. Although it centered upon your central argument, the argument about food- I included many reasons, many more than one in fact. I would make a longer post, but you don't give me much to work with. I work for a while on my responses and you reply with one run on sentence, apparently not giving me the respect to acknowledge my argument. While some of you might not exactly agree with my opinion here in this debate, I trust members of this website will be able to look at both of our arguments objectively and decide who actually won this debate. The person here who took the effort to attempt to make a logical argument, or the one who relied entirely on emotion.
Welfare and other public entitlement programs should be abolished in the US.

I would again like to welcome my opponent and hope he takes up this debate. I will make my opening argument short and sweet again, as I am new to this website. I hold the view that all welfare should be abolished, as well as entitlement programs. The minimum wage should no longer exist, and we should not cater to the poor as if they were our children. Any attempts at helping the poor are good in heart, but generally create unfair advantages and harm the poor more than they help the poor.
secular morality is superior to biblical morality

Lets look at this from a pragmatic point of view, See what works and what does not work. One of the greatest secular laws is the universal declaration of human rights which includes everyone born on this planet. Religious laws do not includes everyone, Making the religious the biggest violator's of human rights. Secular laws can be changed, Revised, Edited or improved, Unlike religious laws which are dogmatic and based in ancient belief, With no concern for improving the human condition. Making secular morality superior to biblical morality.
secular morality is superior to biblical morality

Before I start I will say that I am a Christian. So I'm sure my views on life are way different than your views. I will try to not be biased and stay open minded. I understand what you are saying about heaven or hell, But if heaven and hell are absolute truths, Then they are absolute. Many times it may seem like we are threatening, Or bribing, But you have to understand that to us these are very real places that we will spend eternity. When I go out and tell people to repent and put there faith in Jesus alone for salvation, Or otherwise they will go to hell. I am not threatening them. I am warning them. I will admit that many Christians either go out and preach it wrong, Or they are just plain hypocritical, But if they are doing it right, And for the right reasons, They are warning because they love everyone enough to tell them to avoid hell, And turn to God who is infinitely better than anything they have, Or ever could have Now since I wanted to clear that up a little, Now I want to ask a question. Do you agree with jail, Or prison? The reason I ask this is because hell is kind of like Gods prison. This is where he punishes law breakers. The fact that society has jail and prison systems has prevented many people from breaking the laws. Is it immoral that some people chose, Or cannot commit a crime because they were threatened with jail, Or prison? Something else I want to clear up about Christianity anyways. Sure we come to God because we feel guilty and to save us, But afterwards that is not the reason we serve God. After we have been saved by God, We actually serve him because we are grateful, And thankful for what he has done. We learn to love him, Because he loves us. We also learn he wants the best for us. Now I also have a few more questions for you because this debate isn't about Christianity. It is about secular being superior to biblical morality. What if I was to say it wasn't superior? Whos right and whos wrong? If you are right then why am I wrong? If we have no basis for our morality, How can you tell me what is wrong or right? Without a basis, Anything you or I say that is moral and immoral is just an opinion. If your opinion is correct, Why is your opinion correct or more valid than my opinion? What if I was to say you calling that immoral was actually immoral itself? Also lets say that God of the Bible is real for a second, If he is then it would mean he is the standard of morality. Meaning that secular would not be superior to his word, Which is the Bible.
Yehoshua is GOD

A lot has been said about the Divinity of Yehoshua, otherwise known as Jesus Christ, who is believed to be born 2015 years ago. Some say He is God, while some argue He is just a Prophet and a Messenger of God He always referred to as His Father who sent Him. Today, I, Funsho Animashaun, would be focusing on the fact that Yeshua was a servant of God, a Messenger and NOT GOD because Yeshua never had the qualities of God. I would make my arguments based on some qualities of God as explained in the Bible and Quran which are: 1. God is One 2. God is sovereign and does not depend on anyone 3. God was not begotten 4; God has none like him 5. God has knowledge of everything 6. God does not change 7. God never sleeps nor slumbers 8. God is the only One that sits on THE HEAVENLY THRONE 9. God does not lie 10. God can never have His God I would have to drop my pen here and wait for my opponent who is going to make his introductory words. Please before I continue, I would want him/her to affirm the qualities of God I listed above and tell me if he has issues with anyone. If no issue is seen, I would begin my argument using each of these qualities using 3 features gotten from the word THREE: 1: Text 2: History 3; Reasoning
Yehoshua is GOD

1. God is One 2. God is sovereign and does not depend on anyone 3. God was not begotten 4; God has none like him 5. God has knowledge of everything 6. God does not change 7. God never sleeps nor slumbers 8. God is the only One that sits on THE HEAVENLY THRONE 9. God does not lie 10. God can never have His God I would like some clarification of number 10, I gues you are suggesting God would never send a part of him down in human form but just to be sure. Also I will be focusing on proving Jesus is also both 100% God and 100% man and proving Jesus was indeed "gods son" and proving he has godlike properties despite what my opponent claims. I await my opponents argument.
Clothing companies should sell a greater number of wool sweaters

Wool in one of the warmest fibers produced in nature, and its use for clothing should be increased. Companies currently produce a much larger number of sweaters made of fibers that are made of synthetic fibers such as polyester, acrylic, and lycra, as opposed to wool. Using wool for the clothing companies sell would increase the amount of warmth and quality of the clothes. I would like to clarify that wool refers to the hair of an animal, e. g. sheep wool, alpaca, camel hair, etc. Production of clothes out of warmer fibers would reduce a great deal the amount of heat used to heat houses in colder temperatures. This would decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel, lessening, at least in part, the Global Warming Temperatures. In the face of Climate Change occurring at such a rapid rate, everything possible should be done to stop, or at least decrease its severity.(2) The production of warmer garments could cause a potential decrease in emissions which would be very important in this possible dire situation(3). Also, it simply makes sense to use fiber for clothing which is provided in abundance in nature. Synthetic fibers, for example, polyester, are made out of petroleum gas from which are extracted things such as alcohol and constituent acids. This would require much more of resources than the manufacture of wool, and it would therefore make more sense to use mainly wool for sweater garments. The use of power and resources to produce synthetic fibers such as polyester would also be having a great impact on the environment, in which case it would make more sense again to use the fiber which is grown on the backs of animals, whether with human interference or not. Currently, about 75% of sweaters sold by clothing companies are made out of synthetic fibers or fibers which are not wool. Manufacturing more clothing out of natural fibers such as wool would increase the quality, warmth, and wearability of clothing a great deal. Sources (1)http://www.skepticalscience.com... (2)http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com... (3)www.whatispolyester.com/manufacturing.html (4)http://www1.macys.com...
The paradox of the stone is a valid refutation of God.

1. Definition of OmnipotenceMy opponent presents a different definition of Omnipotence. However, in Psalm 115:3, it states "Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him" [1].In Job 23:13, ""But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases" [2].It is repeated that God can do anything that he wishes to. 2. Application of Logic to GodNext, my opponent attacks logic in general, claiming that paradoxes in some instances should mean that logic is totally invalid. This can't really be applied to the presented paradox, since the depth and complexity is different. Logic states that jumping off a building will likely result in pain. I haven't tested it, but I trust it because of simple logic.On the other hand, the paradox that my opponent provided (Curry's Paradox) doesn't seem to challenge the paradox of the stone. This paradox is formed when certain conditions are met [3]:1. The language must contain an apparatus which lets it refer to, and talk about, its own sentences (such as quotation marks, names, or expressions like "this sentence");2. The language must contain its own truth-predicate: that is, the language, call it "L", must contain a predicate meaning "true-in-L", and the ability to ascribe this predicate to any sentences;3. The language must admit the rule of contraction, which roughly speaking means that a relevant hypothesis may be reused as many times as necessary; and4. The language must admit the rules of identity (if A, then A) and modus ponens (from A, and if A then B, conclude B). My opponent also continues to misunderstand the point of the paradox. The true question is different from what is presented (lifting a stone). In the end, the question can be rephrased to "Can God move a rock from one location in space to another that is larger than possible?" or "Is God capable of being incapable?"[4].3. Relevance of OmnipotenceApparently, my opponent doesn't believe that God has to be omnipotent. However, in the Biblical references that I've given, God is portrayed having the qualities of omnipotence. Furthermore, the definition provided in the beginning by the Con was a link to the wikipedia of God.It states "The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence."Sources:[1] http://bible.cc...;[2] http://bible.cc...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The paradox of the stone is a valid refutation of God.

Thank you, vmpire321, for your argument. I have three main objections to my opponent's argument: 1. Definition of Omnipotence My opponent, citing Wikipedia, claims that "God's omnipotence means that he can do whatever he wishes to do." However, if we look at the Wikipedia page in question, there are actually five offered definitions of omnipotence [1], although I believe that the list under "Omnipotence paradox" [2] is clearer and more useful to this debate. The different levels of omnipotence vary greatly, from the ability to perform even the logically impossible to the ability to do that which is logically possible, even down to the ability to achieve inconceivable feats. My opponent's argument assumes the first definition without any substantiation, and it is her burden to explain why only her chosen definition can be accepted as valid. 2. Application of Logic to God My opponent attempts to apply logic to God without substantiation. There are available situations in which, if logic is perfectly consistently, logic basically explodes, my favorite example being this: "If this sentence is true, then this sentence is false." [3] Therefore, logic isn't an end-all solution. Additionally, a stone too heavy for God to lift makes as much sense as a stone too blue for God to lift. God does not try to lift something; he lifts it. There is no check on the weight to determine whether or not the force God exerted was sufficient. 3. Relevance of Omnipotence My opponent claims that "if God is not omnipoten[t], then by definition God does not exist," but fails to establish a definition of God by which it is true, so even if all of her points are accepted, she still has yet to affirm the resolution. In conclusion, my opponent still has some work to do. Good luck, vmpire321. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... A = "If this sentence is true, then this sentence is false" = "If B, then C" B = "A is true" C = "A is false" If A is true, then A. (Law of Identity) If B, then if B, then C. (Substitution) If B, then C. (Combination of Conditionals) A. (Substitution) /and/ If A is true, then A is false. (Substitution). A is true. (Given) /and/ A is false. (Syllogism)