BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus is not GOD

Your problem is that Jesus was fully God and fully Man, and with being fully man came temptation. God in heaven cannot be tempted, but Jesus could. The Son decreased his power and memory so he could become man. He remembered just enough so that he could tell parables and had just enough that he made miracle happen. And what about John the Baptist's baptism of Jesus? God said "This is my son whom I love. With him I am am well pleased." Son" son, well, gee, what you think this mean's? God's son. Well, my argument is this: you can become one in the Father if you believe. This next bit is untrue. I prove it by the Holy Spirit. "And the Spirit of God descended like a dove" Obviously, since the Holy Spirit is doing something different, isn't he God as well? Then God is 3 as well as 1. Or at least 2" I'll defeat your other argument with this: The OT prophets spoke of the will of God as God. But now we speak of the parts of God as God as well. Who says God didn't have other friends? God created humanity because he was lonely. He wanted someone to be closer than the angels, who were forced to follow. Son of Man is a reference to Ezekiel. That means he has authority. "God is not man that he should lie" That means that Jesus was not a liar. He wasn't! "Nor the person with great authority that he should repent." Did Jesus ever repent? No! Jesus in that verse meant himself indeed, but in his limited form. For in the transfiguration, when part of his glory was shown to his disciples, that wasn't a man! That was God! No prophet had ever done that! My final bit is this: Jesus' ressurection. He was witnessed after death by at least 300 people, and 6 speak in the gospels and letters of John. In other words, yes, Jesus was lower than a worm in human form. He meant regular man for the rest. For God so loved the world that he gave his only *son* that whosoever believes in (the *son) will not die, but have eternal life. Who can save but God alone? None, for man is lower than a worm!
Jesus is not GOD

About the verses, John 10:30 said "I and the Father are one." This means that he is God. No prophet has ever claimed to be one with their God. Now, in Deuteronomy, it also says "Hear O Israel, the Lord God our God is one." This means Jesus is God, the God of the Old Testament, and God of the New Testament too, as well as over modern times. Maybe since Jesus was man as we are, he got it from the Spirit. But, in Acts it also says he sent the Spirit out among them. Now, if Jesus was only a prophet, how could he command God? He is not, therefore! Did you even read Acts 9? He said "I am Jesus, the one you have persecuted." Now, how could he have persecuted Jesus if Jesus was only another follower of God, and up in heaven? Elijah and Moses were persecuted and tormented no more after death, why would Jesus be unless Jesus was talking about his, not just his Father's followers? Again, Jesus was not praying to himself, but the Father. God is three, as well as one. Jesus was simply communicating with his friend who was far away, in sorts. The last bit is a misconception. Indeed, he is calling himself good and testing the man's faith to find out why he trusts. Jesus never said that he was not good. He never said he was not God.
Jesus is not GOD

Jesus limited himself in human form so he could be as we are, face unknowing like we do, and choose like we choose. Jesus claims to be the Messiah. He also says "Son, your sins are forgiven." to a cripple. This shocked the Pharisees because only God can forgive your sins. He thus claimed to be God. I will quote John "In the beginning was logos. And logos was God and logos was with God." Also, Jesus claimed to be not a prophet, but one with God. This is shown when Jesus does not deny that he is God when Paul calls him capital "Lord" in Acts 9. God is three in one because an angel appeared to Mary and said "(Jesus) will be called Son of the Most High. Prayer for Jesus was a connection to his father, not only supplication, like prayer has become. It's like saying spam is equivalent to an email from your grandma saying how much she loves you. Jesus had human needs as a human being. He was fully God and fully Man.
Jesus is not GOD

He does though. John 3:16 says God's only begotten son (Jesus) was sent to save us. In his own words. That proves it if nothing else. Who else was a contender? No one but a perfect man could. That's why Jesus is. No, that was a clear reference to Moses! Even if it wasn't, he is saying he was before Abraham! Older than Methuselah! And no, it isn't like that for Jeremiah. God was in the planning phases of Jeremiah. Jeremiah will be, but Jesus is and was as well basically. After studying Hebrew culture a bit, I learned that they reserved that use of that certain term to refer to Jehovah. Again with the Father is greater than I verses, Jesus was for some referring to his current time on Earth, others to saying he and God are of united will. And as for ressurection verses, they clearly saw him die, and clearly saw him live! It's just semantics there it's like saying since you said you had a BLT for lunch, it couldn't have been a Bacon Lettuce Tomato Sandwich because of your word choice.
Jesus is not GOD

Really? Well, assumptions must be made. Like assumptions you make that God can not be Man. Why couldn't he? I'm usinh common sense here. Someone doesn't realize that Jesus meant for us to assume! Look at how little he actually taught us about the kingdom of heaven without assumptions. You have to make assumptions in the bible, like you do every day. You assume the sun still shines, that you have food in your fridge, etc. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Sons of God meaning holy ones! This! The word this! Not these are my sons! This is my son! Oh so you can't make assumptions in that he was limited, but you can that he was just another Son of God? Pshhhh, please. But, you still don't answer for the Holy Spirit how he was doing something different than the Father. If God is good, then that must mean it was a d"mon. Also, how could God be against God? A house divided against itself cannot stand! Now, when you say Jesus never claimed to be the Christ, well, you can't say that if the debate ain't over yet. As I told you, he forgave the crippled man's sins. He was claiming to be God. And what about Jesus saying "Before Abraham, I Am!" It was a claim to be God! Son of Man was a reference to Ezekiel one example: Ezekiel 37:1- "Son of man, prophesy against Gog and say: "This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshek and Tubal." The Lord's repentance was not for a sin though. Satan had corrupted his beauty and God was sorry for Israel that he had put a weak-minded man in such position. Well about the disciples, the reason was on the night Jesus was betrayed, he was abandoned by them! Also, if a man appeared to you but only looked like a deceased loved one, how happy would you be? That means at time's end for the "ressurection debunked" And no, this debate is between me and you, not some random scholar. Mr. Schweizer was wrong, I believe. Jesus needed to eat during this time, and only acted like he did to hide from the unbelievers. If they hadn't faith before, why now? He also says those who have not seen him and believe will have a greater reward.
Absolute Morality proves Biblical Creation

Your response that we have evolved in the way we take care of each other and emotional evolution is arbitrary. There is no evolutionary evidence for this. Abortion is all about getting rid of our future. Murder, However, In an evolutionary world view could also be a help. Such as euthanizing the old people so that one doesn"t have to take care of them anymore. Hitler used murder to rid himself of people he didn"t like. Survival of the fittest is all about getting rid of the other species so one can survive. Rape was fine with Hitler, Japan, China, USSR and many other nations who invade other countries because it shows dominance. Lying hurts trust, But in the evolutionary worldview one can use it to advance in the workplace or defeat a political opponent or to cheat on his wife or her husband. In a Christian worldview there are no excuses for murder, Lying or rape. The "atrocity lists" invariably include the death penalty passages from the Mosaic Law. But these are made into capital offenses, So someone who is killed because of disobeying these laws is being executed, Not murdered. You might complain that capital punishment for these reasons is unjust, But the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is unjust. 1 Samuel 6:19-20; 2 Samuel 6:3-7: This involves the deaths of some Israelites who looked in the Ark of the Covenant and the death of Uzzah when he touched the Ark. Numbers 4:1"20 has very specific instructions for moving the Ark, With the explicit warning that anyone who touches the Ark or looks in it will die. Multiple instructions had been disregarded in both passages before anyone died; the people moving the Ark were not even Levites"and only Kohathites were supposed to move the Ark. The Ark was moved on a cart instead of on poles carried by Kohathites. God actually showed incredible mercy in only killing those who actually touched and looked into the Ark. This is an example of God upholding His holiness; He had to draw the line somewhere. Babies when they die go to heaven. The young Midianite girls were absorbed into the Israelite Nation. If the you really want to show concern for murder, You could start with all those murdered by atheistic/evolutionary regimes: 77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields. Also, The millions of could be children through abortion. I have a lot of counter scientific evidence for the same evidence, But it would lead to arbitrary answers. https://creation. Com/rape-and-evolution Interview with two evolutionists about rape.
Are Veterans Getting The Appropriate Medical Support

We will be arguing to see what most people think about Veteran medical support and if it is the appropriate way to treat our Veterans or if it is not. Con is against the government's current medical plan for our Veterans, Pro is for the Medical Plans. There is a text that I will be bringing into this debate straight from a Veteran themselves "No, veterans are being EXTERMINATED. I am a combat Veteran, I have been trying to get my benefits for over 14 years now. It's a waiting game, the VA trys to wait you out until you die. Or they put you on so many meds that you become a zombie and stop fighting for your benefits. The VA is lying and veterans are dying. The VA is a huge corrupt agency just like our government where all upper level managers ( compare to SENATORS) become rich off the backs of veterans. Hell the VA pays their employees bonuses to deny veterans their benefits. Does this sound like fair treatment? Secret waiting list to EXTERMINATE veterans, recently a report of 307,000 combat veterans died waiting to be approved for benefits. Hello and wake the hell up Americans, if our government treats our veterans like this, they won't hesitate to treat other Americans eg. (White Christians) any different."
Bowling is a sport

I'm sorry if I'm coming to the dance a little bit late. I was a bit distracted by ABC's broadcast of the National Tidly-Winks Association Championship Series. And, I don't have a lot of time to make my argument, because NBC is rebroadcasting the Major League Jarts World Series and following that up with the Professional Donkey Kong League "Princess Cup" Finals.Bowling is a recreational activity that requires very little modification for paralyzed goats & retarded quadriplegics to participate (gutter "bumpers"). Even the esoteric scoring system, which used to set bowling apart somewhat from other drunken activities, is all but gone, and now all the game requires is a beer, a cigarette, the mental capacity to come up with a funny name to put in the "computer", the endurance to wear used shoes for 2 hours and the wherewithal to remember which ball is yours and which fingers go in which holes in that ball.If you believe that's a sport, I've got a bridge to sell ya.
Bowling is a sport

Bowling is a sport because it fits the standard definition of a sport: an activity in which players use physical ability to complete a predetermined task in a manner that intended to be competitive and fun.It is irrelevant that many bowlers are in poor physical shape, although, I'll point out, most skilled bowlers are in fact in excellent physical shape.Bowling requires a measure of strength to throw the ball, no matter how little, it is intended to be competitive, and it is fun for the majority of people that play it.I will note for the record that I myself have a 217 Sport Bowling average, and a 240 regular pattern average. I also lettered in 6 sports and activities in my high school career all four years: American Football, Academic League, Academic Decathlon, Tennis, Soccer, and Water Polo. I know sports pretty well. In any case, I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that by definition, bowling is a sport, as per standard definition. Thank you for participating.
Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory

Thank you, instigator for providing the resolution. I accept all the proposed terms. CommentsI'd like to confirm whether the the embryonic dust cloud theory follows as the popular scientific consensus that a planetary system is created from a nebular of ionised gas where denser and more compact regions form the precursors to a planetary system's celestial bodies. I'd also like to ask who coined "Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory" as I don't want to be unintentionally misrepresenting a scientist's work which may slightly differ from the widely accepted theory.
Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory

The Embryonic Dust Cloud theory attempts to explain how a planetary system is formed. It is defined as a cloud of Gas and Dust, which orbits a parent star. Within the cloud of Gas and Dust, planets form (from the dust itself). This is thought to occur through gravitational forces. (Dust particles collide to form rocks, rocks collide to form planetoids and this build-up continues over a large period of time until a planet is formed through a slow, progressive, evolutionary progression. )Roles: I will argue against the establishment of this theory. My opponent will defend this theory. Since we are debating a theory, let us admit that ultimate proof is lacking, therefore the burden of proof is irrelevant. Rules: The opponent may include broader definitions of the dust cloud theory but must provide a source that speaks directly about the embryonic theory. I do not wish to discuss splinter theories that have departed the original model. The comment section is off-limit to both debaters until the debate has finished. After the 5th round is completed, both members may start corresponding in the comments. Both persons agree not to post any extended arguments in the comment section while voting is still occurring. To begin research for this topic, start here: . http://www.sciencenews.org... Credible sources may not include direct bias against a belief system. (I will not draw evidence from creationism web-sources and my opponent may not use references which attempt to directly discredit the Genesis account of creation). Scientific Journals are preferred sources, but College level research papers and media reports will suffice. Absolutely no use of Youtube material will be allowed. Round 1- AcceptanceRound 2- Evidence/Counter EvidenceRound 3- Rebuttal/More EvidenceRound 4- Rebuttal/More EvidenceRound 5- Closing Arguments. No new evidence or arguments to be formed during this round. Absolutely no character attacks. Argue objectively, respectfully and purposefully. Voting:If you do not read the debate, do not vote. Do not vote on bias. Vote on the substance of the debate. Do not. .. . (I repeat). .. do not vote out of reprisal.
Should Supreme Court Justices decisions be subject to be overturned

As I mentioned previously, Constitutional amendment are difficult to pass for a reason, and that reason is stability in government. It is the same reason the Constitution's framers wanted an independent Judiciary. Our system of government is stable and it works. Take as an example the Roosevelt administration. In the early thirties FDR stacked the court with those of like minds, yet the National Recovery Act was deemed by this court to be unconstitutional. An independent Judiciary is critical as a check on political power. Let's not tinker with something so important.
Should Supreme Court Justices decisions be subject to be overturned

While you are right, The subject that I asked ,"Should Supreme Court Justices decisions be subject to be overturned was the question and that few amendments have succeeded, " I found that, Throughout the history of the Constitution,....only.... 27 changes have been made through the Amendment process. Amendments are not easy to pass...." U.S. Constitution Online Liberal Supreme Court Justices have been able to find through their reading into the constitution, rights that weren't originally written in the constitution by the authors. The fact that the constitution has proven so hard to amend enforces the point that Supreme Court Justices with life- time appointments, are the final arbitrators of what is constitutional and what isn't without any concern for their positions. I wrote in one of my posts,"There's a Intellectual elite group in this country that are set apart and unique from all other human beings. What sets this elite group apart, its this groups unique job security which defers upon them the ability to be more authoritarian granting them an absolute power over society since they have no fear of losing their positions...."If these Supreme Court justices didn't hold life-time positions needed amendments to the constitution might have been easier to have passed and the Supreme Court Justices wouldn't feel so free with their liberal interpretations of the constitution. Since their word on what is constitutional and what isn't, and since these Supreme Court justices are subject to the same prejudices and political bias that all other humans are subject to, their decisions should be reviewed by another body and subject to repeal by that body.
Should Supreme Court Justices decisions be subject to be overturned

The rulings from the Supreme Court has pushed progressivism to extreme Lengths permitting individual rights/ freedoms, that permits citizens to act out their most aggressive animal- like behavior in the public square under the guise of "Freedom of expression." The Supreme Court has handed down decisions that have eliminated almost all personal responsibility for behaving civilized towards your fellow man and have promoted the ideas displayed so often today of The "ME" generation, a society now exists where the police are looked upon a the villains and the Thugs are looked upon as the victims of unjust laws. The Supreme court has a lot to answer for to society for the conditions that society finds its self in today and liberal Justices setting on the Supreme Court Benches for life assured of their positions are the reason as no matter how far they venture into extreme progressivism in their rulings they are immunized from having to pay any consequences for the wreckage caused by their decisions. Can we recall America, before the elite liberal Supreme Court justices made everything better....
Should Supreme Court Justices decisions be subject to be overturned

My contention is that the Constitution already provides a way to circumvent the Supreme Court: a constitutional amendment. The point can be made that constitutional amendments are extraordinarily difficult to achieve, and that point is valid, but the framers of the Constitution intended it to be that way. Congress makes the laws. The President enforces them (with veto power). The judiciary interprets them, and granted, these people hold extraordinary power, but the "buck" must stop somewhere.
Should Supreme Court Justices decisions be subject to be overturned

America's courts have always been viewed by politicians as a place where their particular agendas and their ideologies could be used by those in political office to succeed in carrying out their particular agendas without the need to obtain the citizens approval and with this in mind politicians have attempted to stack the lower and higher courts with judges that they felt were sympathetic to their views. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempted to stack the Supreme Courts with his justices so as to assure rulings in his favor when he was in office. But since Supreme Court justices are subject to the same human fragilities and personal political prejudices their decisions need to be reviewed and overturned when those decisions are determined to be faulty that they handed down since those decisions effect the lives of all citizens. England once thought it expedient to have a government body which could overturned the courts decisions, "Judicature Act of 1873 "....in England, the act of Parliament that created the Supreme Court of Judicature ( q.v.) and also, inter alia, enhanced the role of the House of Lords to act as a court of appeal....."Should America put in place the same ability that England once thought proper and expedient to do. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely....Lord Action The Supreme Court Justices are the determiners of what laws America's citizens live under, Justices having their Jobs for life grants then too much power for human being to hold over other human beings.
Atheism is more rational than scientology

Scientology is irrational from an Atheist perspective, as it adheres to central tenants which are at odds with atheism. From the official Scientology website we can see that three of the central truths (tenants) of Scientology are. (1)(a) Man is an immortal spiritual being. (b) His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime and(c) His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized. These tenants do not necessarily directly conflict with Atheism, as Atheism is purely the rejection of belief in a god. (2) However, these central tenants are certainly not rational. Rational is defined as been based on facts and reason, with no emotion or feelings clouding these though processes. (3)If we apply rationality to these tenants, we can see that two out of three are not rational in any sense. Considering point (a), we know man is mortal as there has never been any scientific fact presented for immortality when a person dies. Also, this is similar to the Abrahamic religions (Christianity,Islam) which teach of an after life and this is at odds with atheism. Point (b) is also considered irrational, as we again have no facts which show that a persons experiences extend beyond a single lifetime. This tenant is similar to the reincarnation tenants of Hinduism,which also have gods and are at odds with atheism. Point (c) I would agree is not irrational, as everyone has the ability to better themselves. This does not mean however that Scientology is rational. For example Harry Potter is rational in that it mentions a city called London, however this does not mean magic is rational. However, the irrationality of Scientology does not stop at the belief in an afterlife. Scientology believes that an evil alien overlord Xenu came to Earth and killed millions of people (from other planets) using hydrogen bombs. These souls of these people then clustered around the surviving people that somehow survived the hydrogen bombs, and this is what makes us do bad things. (4,5) I think the best explanation of this is given by the makers of South Park. . http://www.southparkstudios.com... (Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org...)As far as I am aware, there has never been any evidence for alien life forms, I think it is only fair that my opponent has to show proof for alien life if he wants to even contemplate the existence of Xenu. I hand the debate back to my opponent,and cant wait to hear his rebuttals. (1) . http://www.scientology.org...(2) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(3) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(4) . http://rationalwiki.org...(5) . http://www.xenu.net...