BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The bible is repulsive

" Well, Actually the death sentence is currently justifiable murder, No matter age, Or gender. If the court believes that the crime is worthy of a death sentence, Killing that person is justified by law. " - I don't want to get into a debate about the death penalty but the a " loving and forgiving " God giving the death penalty on sinners isn't exactly loving and forgiving. Besides as I already previously stated, Fighting fire with fire only makes the fire grow bigger. - Also just because it's legal does not make it right, That logic could be used to justify the absurd laws in North Korea or in Cuba. " I believe God the Father, In the Old Testament, Was laying down serious groundwork for all the people that would be born from the New Testament on. He wanted to show the serious consequences involved for each person that would break many of His basic laws and commandments. " - So you do agree that many of the teachings in the old testament were repulsive and immoral. " If you look very closely at the times that He would release His wrath and anger, It was always justified. " - Exhibiting wrath and anger on your enemies is never the answer and here's why. How can people take the Bibles " forgive your enemy" or " love thy neighbor", When the teachings of God and the Bible directly contradict that by slaughtering innocents just to kill a couple of sinners. Killing innocents in ANY circumstance is REPULSIVE. " God destroys all humans with the exception of Noah and his family because everyone was so wicked and evil back at that time. " - Assuming that this story is real which I doubt, I find it hard to believe that EVERY single human minus one family were all wicked and evil. Moreover we once again come back into the argument that killing every almost every single human is not loving or forgiving. Plain and simple drowning everyone in the world minus one family is REPULSIVE. "If God was a mean and evil God, Then He would have also killed Noah and his family " but He did not! " - Wow so out of the millions of people alive at the time, God saved one family. I guess that excuses his genocide as he still spared one family! But in all seriousness what about the times when God massacred tons of innocent and righteous people? The holocaust is the purest example of this, Many of the Jewish people whom remained moral and righteous were sent to gas chambers including the elderly, Women, And children. The mere fact that God has slaughtered millions of people throughout history, Is REPULSIVE. " He is defending the Jewish people from their enemies who are trying to attack and kill them. " - What about the holocaust? You could make the argument that eventually helped them, However regardless the all powerful God STILL allowed for millions of innocent Jews to be slaughtered. Which is REPULSIVE. To summarize God has directly or indirectly allowed millions of innocent people throughout history die, And since the Bible is Gods teachings, This makes the Bible REPULSIVE.
The bible is repulsive

I am not exactly an expert on the Bible but have read through it multiple times. I congratulate my opponent on a well-done argument. However, He has left out a couple of things. -Because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, Their pregnant women ripped open. " (Hosea 13:4, 9, 16 New International Version) I am not going to pretend to know the will of God but I will try to explain this chapter. God is a loving and forgiving God but also a just God. If you read the entire chapter, You would have gotten a bit more context. They were offering human sacrifices and making idols even though they knew the God was the only God. How did they know that? It says in Hosea 13:4, But I have been the Lord your God ever since you came out of Egypt. What happened in Egypt? They were slaves in Egypt for many years until God decided to take them out of Egypt. That is when Exodus 14:21-22 happened. 21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, And all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, With a wall of water on their right and on their left. God did a miracle and split the waters so they could walk through. That would be significant evidence for God being the real God. Rebelling against God means 2 things. 1. You know there is a God. 2. You are purposely going against Him. They also made human sacrifices, So God could have wiped them out for that. I would just be like the death sentence for murder. " And in those days the tribe of the Danites was seeking a place of their own where they might settle Because they had not yet come into an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. . . . Then they said to [the priest], 'Please inquire of God to learn whether our journey will be successful. ' The priest answered them, 'Go in peace. Your journey has the Lord's approval. '. . . Then they took what Micah had made, And his priest, And went on to Laish, Against a people at peace and secure. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. . . . The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. " (Judges 18:1"28 NIV) To be honest, I do not quite understand this one. I will talk to my pastor later this week. "See, The day of the Lord is coming " a cruel day, With wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated. " (Isaiah 13:9"16 NIV) He is referring to the end times when Jesus will come down and be the ultimate judge. He will send anyone who didn't believe in him to hell. God is a just God and will not let sin into heaven. Jesus changed things between the old and new testament. Using the old testament is not a good argument. I challenge to find a repulsive verse in the new testament. In the new testament, It is all about love, Compassion, And Jesus Christ.
The bible is repulsive

Not that this is bad or anything but hey I'm just a sentimental person obsessed with tiny details. Anyways I will need to clarify a few things before we start, - I am NOT against religion in and of itself, I understand religion has been a positive outlet for many people which I've seen firsthand from several of my friends who are all nice and respectable people. - While I do believe the bible is repulsive, What I learned from the last debate I had on this topic with kill shot, I don't believe in the bibles complete eradication what I simply believe is the bible should NOT be used as a moral compass for reasons I will address in my next argument. - I will put aside my atheist beliefs for this debate and pretend for the sake of argument that God does in fact exist. - Finally, The conclusion I and Kill Shot came to was while the bible is false and immoral, It should be studied as its apart of our history and for various reasons in academia. If anyone is interested in the debate it is one of the first debates I did on this profile, I will try to link it below but since debate. Org is so broken I may not be able to do so, So no promises. - The last point I would like to address is that I am specifically going to be tackling the first testament and not the new testament and here's why. From what I've gathered through looking through forums and articles, The new testament is NOT comprised of first-hand accounts but rather a reinterpretation of first-hand accounts while the old testament is first-hand accounts. Assuming this is true, I am going to trust the old testament more as it is likely more reliable. One could make the argument that the old testament has also been reinterpreted and possibly misrepresented through the years as well, This is sadly true and we will likely never have a definitive answer. Even so, I would argue while the old testament could be misinterpreted, It is likely the closest we will ever get to Gods teachings. So to summarize this paragraph, I will be using the old testament in my argument with little from the new testament. - With all of that out of the way, I am ready to discuss with you the repulsive nature of the Bible.
Apple have conned us into buying stuff such as ipad air's

sori m8 I gutta go now coz evry model in the world iz askin me 2 fuk dem cos im the best theyve evr hud nd dey say dey fuked u and u got da smalest dik in da world nd dey hud to tuss u of wiv twezers cos it wuz so small. anyway I gotta go fuk dese biches cos they addicted 2 mi cok lyke it were herion lol c u l8er wen I kill u in ur sleep cos me nd Obama r drinkin beers 2gever nd plottin how 2 kill u lol #gudnite
Apple have conned us into buying stuff such as ipad air's

tori blak is dead m8 smaked her in de head wiv me slonger now she a goner, lol@me naaah lol@u for not being able to poo vcause mens willies are allways in yr bum fig hed, go play ur stupid eyepad bet u got bitcoin billionaire cus u figoot #thiskidclearlylikebitcoinbillionaire
Apple have conned us into buying stuff such as ipad air's

lol @ u cos evry gurl I fuk vaginha breakz her body in half cos my winky iz too big for dem so I just ave a house made of titys nd bum cos vaginha breks evry tyme it sees my dik and lol @ u cos mi dad is best m8s wiv Obama nd Obama will nuke ur house u dikead #toriblakissukinmeoffwileiritethis
Apple have conned us into buying stuff such as ipad air's

lol ur such a skrub ur 13 nd on dis webzite nd im 12 nd drinkin beerz and avin sex wiv 2 supa modelz while I rite this nd my dad az put c5 in ur house nd will blow u up if u keep chattin zhit. btw ive foked 100000000000000000 gurls with mi xbox1 nd u probz just cri wiv ur ps4
CALL OF DUTY WAW is the best call of duty

while I agree COD MW2 is a great game I still think COD WAW is the best 1. COD WAW had better weapons then MW2 with much better sound effects. COD WAW had guns such as the BAR, PPSH(personal favorite), huge variety of bolt action weapons, MG-42, and many more. MW2 did not have many choices as far as snipers and it had a lot more quick scoping. COD WAW was also more unique where as MW2 had many of the same weapons as COD 4. THE FLAMETHROWER? 2. I agree with you that the ending and story was much better but COD WAW had much cooler environment and had a cool feel to it. Most of MW2 was spent in the desert, the rain effects in COD WAW where also really nice. I enjoyed the environment of COD WAW more then MW2 3. I don't really think sales reflect how good or bad a game is. 4. what do you mean by cool settings?
CALL OF DUTY WAW is the best call of duty

Pro I will be defending the position that COD WAW was and still is the best call of duty ever made. I would like my opponent to begin by stating his main reasons why he does not think it is the best in his opening statement, following this we will debate for the next rounds then finish with closing statements GOOD LUCK 1) ZOMBIES great maps 2)graphic gritty has a unique look to it 3) fun campaign 4)memorable characters
Ballot Initiatives in General

Ballot initiative defined - "a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can force a public vote on a proposed statute, constitutional amendment, charter amendment or ordinance... It is a form of direct democracy." http://en.wikipedia.org... "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson California's Proposition 8 results: Yes - 52.2% No - 47.8% http://www.latimes.com... Put the pieces together. Please respond.
In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind.

Rebuttal:C1) My opponent is asserting that in order for God to have glory, we must have free will, and some must therefore go to hell. First, there is nothing inherent in my argument that refutes free will. I am simply saying that God has a will too. and there is nothing so sacred about our will that God, for the sake of His own glory, would let us walk unwittingly into eternal torment. As a good father would do, He would intervene and do whatever He can to save us.This in no way whatsoever diminishes God's glory. in fact, saving ALL mankind increases God's glory. What could be more glorious than for EVERY knee to bow, EVERY tongue to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord? I would argue the exact opposite of my opponent, that the only way for God to receive the MOST Glory is for Him to save everyone. And there seems to be an inherent flaw in my opponent's argument, that "For God to truly uphold his glory he must allow us free will in some sense, and save some and let the others perish." He seems to contradict his very argument by asserting "God made some of us knowing that we were designed to go there (hell)." How can we have free will if God "Designed" us to go there? Where is the free will in that argument? Or in the case of God "hardening Pharoah's heart" and "raising him up for the very purpose of destroying him?" If free will is so tantamount to my opponent's argument, he flat contradicts himself in C2.C2) I've already asserted that my opponent's entire argument in C1 is contradicted by C2, but for the sake of the debate let me address this point seperately. From a hermeneutical standpoint, most of the time God is referring to a nation, He uses a human to personify that nation (Israel is actually Jacob, Pharoah is Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar is Babylon, etc). In this case, Pharoah is representative of the nation of Egypt. Now it is clear God destroyed Pharoah (Egypt) to glorify Himself, as my opponent has asserted. But let me draw your attention to a future verse revealing God's eternal heart for Egypt.Isaiah 19:22&25 The Lord will strike Egypt, and then he will bring healing. For the Egyptians will turn to the Lord, and he will listen to their pleas and heal them...For the Lord of Heaven’s Armies will say, “Blessed be Egypt, my people.""God's judgments are meant to ultimately RESTORE. Yes, He tears down, but He will rebuild. Yes He punishes, but He will forgive. Yes, he tore down Pharoah, but He hasn't written Egypt off for eternity. --So in summary, I have refuted my opponent's claim that some people must perish eternally for God to have glory, but rather God is MOST glorified in the salvation of all, and have shown that, in this sense, my opponent's two arguments directly contradict eachother. I have also shown that God's judgments are meant to bring correction and restoration, not eternal damnation. Pharoah and Egypt are great examples of this very point.Vote Pro!!!!
In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind.

1. It is God's redemptive purpose for the world that all men be saved and that no man perishes. 1 Timothy 2:3&4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth2. God is sovereign and fully able to ensure His plans are fulfilled.Job 42:2 I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.3. Therefore, all men will be saved. 1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.In light of the above reasoning and evidence in Holy Scripture, we must attempt to interpret the hell related verses through the lense of Universal Salvation. Which, upon doing so, leads us to the conclusion that Hell is meant to be a place of limited, however harsh, corrective punishment used to bring people to repentance and faith (even post-mortem). That the words "ever-lasting, eternal, forever" when describing hell are not inferring an unending length of time, but a long duration or specific period of time. This is evidenced by a study of the Hebrew and Greek roots Olam, Aion, Aionios, all of which in various parts of scripture are used to denote varying periods of time. That an understanding of hell as a place of corrective punishment is consistent with God's character (as revealed in Scripture), while damning people to eternity apart from Himself is not (reference the entire story of Israel - a stiff necked and rebellious people who by no merit of their own are given grace after grace after grace, even after very harsh judgments and punishments). That Jesus Christ intended to save the ENTIRE world, not just some, not just a fraction, but all of it. He meant to reconcile "All things" to Himself, and His act on Calvary accomplished just that. Anything less would be undermining His redemptive act, undermining God's sovereignty. and misinterpreting hell and punishment verses our of their redemptive context. Looking forward to hearing your case Mikal.
In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind.

Resolved: In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind. Assumptions: This assumes you believe in the traditional Christian faith, the authority of the Bible, and the Deity of Christ. Defintiions:Save: To translate them into a place of ever-lasting goodness. Mankind: Every 100% human being (not counting hybrid angels or clones) Format:Round 1: Acceptance OnlyRound 2: State proposition only (no rebuttal)Round 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Defense - Address the opponent's rebuttalRound 5: Closing statements (no rebuttals)If you haven't given this topic much thought, please do not waste time in accepting the challenge. I genuinenly want a great debate here.
In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind.

There is nothing really left to say as the primary syllosgism I used remains unrefuted P1) For God to save everyone hell would have to be not eternal P2) Hell is eternal C) God will not save everyone, because hell is eternal In order for the resolution to be upheld my adversary would have to show that hell will come to an end. If you view my last round, I clearly cited and stated sources that showed the words that translate from Greek/Hebrew to English as forever, in fact mean forever. This is covered in depth in R4. The primary example I used which was not even touched was the translation of Aionis which literally means without end, never to cease, ever lasting. This was used to describe hell in original Greek and Hebrew bible and cited in the proper context. My adversary fails to even touch on this point at all Most of my other contentions went non refuted as well.
In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind.

I'm traveling and typing this on my phone to ensure I don't FF this round so please excuse any typos. In closing, I have made the argument that the Bible does in fact support a universalist view. That it is not unreasonable to conclude that Jesus Christ will in fact save all of mankind. I have made this argument by showing clear examples from scripture that would lead the reader to conclude thus. My opponent made two very clear, yet very incorrect and unfounded arguments: That God's glory is dependent upon humans having free will (which he contradicted himself in his own argument). That Hell is eternal because the bible says it is. I have shown how God could be glorified in saving all mankind, nay how He could be MORE glorified in doing so. And have I shown that the words translated as "eternal, forever, and everlasting" do not in every case mean a literal unending period of time, and that a different translation is at least possible and, in some cases, even more likely the case. My opponent is this unsuccessful in refuting my proposition and therefore I urge you voters to not only vote in my favor, but more importantly, give this topic serious thought yourself. Study the scriptures, look into the matter and you too will come to the same conclusion as I. God is mighty to save. Everyone. He loves us. He died for us. His plan is to save all of us. And this should leave us in such a state of awe and gratitude that we want nothing else than to love Him right back. Thank you for the debate Mikal. It was fun and I appreciated your pov. Vote Pro!!
Tide is better than Clorox

(1) Tide has a better product line. With double caps, laundry + detergent, and Tide + Downy product is their family, they are superior. Clorox has no innovation whatsoever. (2) Everywhere on YouTube you see cancerous user with usernames relating to Clorox Bleach, disrespectful to Tide, who is also bleach and way more vibrant. More Tide Bleach YT accounts would "freshen up" the variety. (3) Tide Bleach gets the big bucks. The company became famous in NASCAR as well.
Affirmative Action

I would like to point out that my opponent had 48 hours to post an argument and failed to do so. So far in this debate, I have argued that affirmative action should be permitted because it is one of the many ways to promote diversity at universities and other policies are already in place that serve the same purpose in the same manner, so it would be unfair to consider affirmative action "unfair" in this case. I hope that all is well with my opponent.
government should implement a 'fat tax'

I. Cross-Examination"because not everyone with diabetes or cancer necessarily did something culpable, like eating too much or being too lazy."So all of the sudden we should tax things that my opponent finds culpable? That makes no sense. Simply because she disliked people eating more than her and not being active does not mean they should be taxed. Next, Pro put words into my mouth by claiming I made such a derogatory statement. I meant no disrespect by calling her argument irrational, I was only stating the obvious.In my opponents next rebuttal, she claims to base her arguments on "good guesses" and "good judgements". This is not evidence, this is opinion.Pro cannot support a claim by saying "but it's so obvious"Actually, her argument was slippery slope. She stated that because people are taxed for being fat, that they will stop eating and being lazy. She draws no line between the two and just assumes that is the case. Where's the proof that it will work? How do we know that people will actually react this way to the tax? Finally, I apologize to Pro if it seemed like I was suggesting her definition was sub-par. I meant to say that it was different than the common conception of a 'Fat Tax'. II. Closing remarksPro continues to lack actual support for her argument.
government should implement a 'fat tax'

"This argument is completely irrational. First off, if we are going to go taxing people for having obesity-related diseases, then why not tax people with diabetes or someone who has cancer? After all, they are increasing health care costs. " because not everyone with diabetes or cancer necessarily did something culpable, like eating too much or being too lazy. con's argument here is completely and utterly irrational. "At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul..." "First off, Pro's understanding is irrelevant, She should support her argument here. An argument that is not supported by evidence can be digarded without evidence. Second, Slippery slope argument being made. Simply because over-eaters would have to pay a tax does not directly mean that they will eat less or be less sedentary." my argument is based on a 'good guess' a matter of good judgment. i highly doubt sales taxes are enough to compensate for the health care costs, given sales taxes are used for so many other purposes. why do i need explicit study support on something so obvious? as to the slippery slope point. what are you even talking about a slippery slope? the point you make after that assertion is not even a slippery slope argument. but as to that point. the tax does not have to cause them to eat less or be less sedentary. it will likely have that effect to some degree, but the main point is that we should be getting revenue to make up for their health care costs. con insists for some reason that his definition of a fat tax is better than the strawman definition he says i used. i didn't give a definition and it's somewhat irrelvant. i'd say either a tax on fatty foods, or better yet or both.... a direct tax on fat people.