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

Jesus is not God because Bible say God raised this jesus[Acts 2;32] and God has made this jesus ,whome you crucified, both lord and christ[Acts 2;36]. In the both passage the title God turned away from jesus. Peter said -God raised up his servent[Acts 3;26].Peter declared -The God of Abraham ,Isac , jacob, the God of our faters has glorified his servent jesus[Acts 3;13].So according to peter jesus is not God but servent of God.If jesus was God , his disciples should havesaid this clearly, instead they kept preaching that jesus was God"s christ.Day after day , in the temple, courts and from house to house they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that jesus is christ[Acts 5;42] The Greek word christ is a human title ,it means anointed , from this verse clearly prove that jesus is not God because if jesus is God they should not continually refer to him with human title like servennt, lord or christ of God.Again Bible say jesus and God seperate being- " My God , My God why have you forsaken me"[Mathew 27;46] if one of them forsook other than they must be seperate entities.In the book of Luke [22;42-43] - Father,if thou art willing ,remove this cup from me, nevertheless not my will, but thine be done. And there appeared him an angel from heaven , strengthening him.'Tthis verse jesus prays to God hence they are two seperate beings of unequal status to the extent thatone has to pray to the other.They have two seperate will, will of jesus is subordinate to that of God and God will must prevail.Jesus being man ,loses heart and weakens and God Almighty ,as the sourse of all strength ,sends an engel to strengthen him. Here I quoted from the bible 1] When the people saw the sign which he had done ,they said-thi is indeed the prophet who is to come in to the world."Jhn [6;14] 2]-But when they tried to arrest him ,they feared the multitude, because they held him to be a prophet,'[Mathew-21;46]. 3]- And the crowed said 'This is the prophet jesus from Nazareth of Galilee.'[Mathew 21;11]From all these verses it proved that jesus is servent and prophet of God not God.
Evolution > Creationism

I'm looking forward for a constructive debate complemented with a mutual learning experience. I'm not sure I understand the title (Evolution > Creationism) other than, according to Pro's first sentence, “… a debate about Young Earth Creationism in regards to age of the Earth and Universe…” I see no debate here with those of faith (aka “Young Earth Creationism”) in any discussion of time (billions of years > seven days of creation), for time is relative. According to time dilation (. https://en.wikipedia.org...), seven days in one timeframe can be mapped to billions of years in another. What brings me to this debate is Pro's last sentence, “Anyone who has an issue with the theory of evolution and wants to discuss it, is more than welcome to come and debate. ” The issue being, as stated by Adrian Bejan, “Life and evolution is the most researched and least agreed upon topic in science today” (. http://www.tandfonline.com...). And on that note, I (Con) supports evolution as physics and will debate any “issue with the theory of evolution” embraced by Pro.
Evolution > Creationism

“I'm [Pro] actually enjoying myself.” Good news! I too find learning as fun. As for your infatuation with “ID” (Intelligent Design) please, less enthusiasm. Your reading of ID in Bejan's quotes, where there are none, seems delusional on Pro's part. I'm addressing science in this debate, the physical laws of nature, the laws of thermodynamics and the relative new discovery in thermodynamics known as the constructal law (1996). Also, I find it disturbing about your claim to Bejan's statement about his “No” reply to the god question when you said, “As for his [Bejan] statement in video, it really does not matter.” On that note, I guess what only matters is Pro's philosophy. As for Pro's philosophy, thank you for sharing a few articles reflecting your stance on “the theory of evolution.” Your version is typical old school classical view of evolution. Relative to the classical view of evolution the best comparative way to describe the constructal law is; what Einstein did to Newton, Bejan has done to Darwin; the evolution of understanding evolution. The incarnation of evolution as physics brings an evolutionary step in understanding this awesome machinery of nature. We are a product of the physical laws of nature trapped within its matrix, there are no exceptions. We are a way for nature to see and experience itself. This law is new (1996) and generating a lot of excitement today over the entire range of science—from geophysics and biology to social dynamics and engineering. The interest is fueled by two trends:1) A voluminous body of knowledge has accumulated, and it shows that features our minds perceive as design (configurations, rhythms, scaling rules) are present in ALL flow systems in nature represented by the empirical repeatable vascularized, treelike patterns found throughout the living universe; similar to the hierarchical branching patterns found in the flow of traffic, social organization, communication, markets, and other human activities.2) Design phenomena are not covered by the known laws of physics before 1996.The empirical knowledge has far outpaced the theoretical framework that is needed to support it. This kind of mismatch is the ammunition and trigger for scientific revolution. Many scientists have offered their own insights into the riddle of design and evolution in nature. To varying degrees these include fractal geometry, complexity theory, Fibonacci's patterns, network theories, chaos theory, power laws (allometric scaling rules), and other “general social and economic models” and optimality statements (minimum, maximum, optimum), as well as Charles Darwin's seminal work and D'Arcy Thompson's magisterial volume “On Growth and Form,” etc., including the few articles Pro made reference to in this debate. I challenge Pro to do a simple “fact check” on the constructal law and observe the tens of thousands of “citations.” Citations that do not include those fringe cult groups' who are also infatuated with “ID.”
Evolution > Creationism

A correction on your reading my “citation. ” That is, my position on evolution is one being “evolution as physics,” not, “evolution and physics”! The constructal law, like the second law of thermodynamics, are “first principle” laws, or ad initio, whose scope is general and covering a wide range throughout nature where a large set of propositions deducing to sets of theorems, postulates, definitions, or “equations,” etc (. https://en.wikipedia.org...). For example, the constructal law governs all flow systems throughout nature, where the equations of the laws of aerodynamics is a narrow focus on flow for systems in flight. Like the flow of air, the flow of water, electron flow, gas flow, thermal gradients etc. all have their own family of laws deducing to sets of “equations” relative to their domain, at the same time, adhering to the constructal law. The journal article I referenced (. http://www.tandfonline.com...) contains no mention to “Intelligent Design. ” Perhaps, Pro should read the journal again to rethink your claim where the article is “trying to argue for Intelligent Design. ” And on that note, I look forward to Pro's argument. As for “citations,” Bejan's work has over 50,000 (. https://scholar.google.com...). To be fair, Pro could come to an “Intelligent Design” assumption, being that the title of this debate contains the term “Creationism. ” On the subject of “Intelligent Design,” an episode on the Science channel titled, “Through the Wormhole – Did God Create Evolution? – Constructal theory,” covers said subject. This short YouTube segment (. http://www.youtube.com...) may clear it up for Pro by Adrian Bejan's reply to the following question, “To believe in Creationism it [constructal law] would seem like a mark of a Creator? ,” Adrian said, “No. the design is a phenomena, just like the gravitational fall. We do not know why these things happen. All we can do is to summarize these phenomena and those are the laws. ” If Adrian was a Creationist, his reply would be far different. I hope I made my position clear about evolution as physics. I have yet to see Pro's “citation” on the “theory of evolution. ” Please state your understanding of the “theory of evolution” so we can go forward with this debate.
Evolution > Creationism

Hey Con., and thanks for accepting. If you're not a Young Earth Creationist, all well and good; it's just that YEC's (and some OEC's as well I guess) are usually the most outspoken against the theory of evolution - it's why I direct my debate towards them. Anyways, we still have a lot to discuss about this even if you're not a YEC or an OEC. As for the debate about the age of the Earth and universe, I am referring to the debate which you made a comment on somewhat recently, (http://www.debate.org...). In regards to your citation, I've seen your other debate which occurred 1 week ago on evolution, so I did manage to read that source last night. I must say, I disagree with you on this. First and foremost, you state that you support evolution and physics; I've read that source, and may I enquire where's the mathematics in this link? There's one small reference to an equation; there's no working out, no nothing... I find this very weird for a statement in which you make that evolution is physics, because physics is all about mathematics, and this journal has none of it. To exacerbate the issue, this journal doesn't have any citations... At all. There's a certain calibre which journals are supposed to achieve and I'm afraid your reference just isn't up to the standard. It hasn't made any impact at all on the scientific community. What comes next is probably the worst of all of it. To summarise this journal, it's trying to argue for Intelligent Design, whilst trying it's best to not look like ID... No wonder it doesn't have any citations... Intelligent Design was dismissed as an off shoot for creationism [1] - the time for IDers has long since passed. Sources: [1] https://ncse.com...
Bullying should be allowed

Well, Pro forfeited again, so I will just summarize my previous arguments. So, bullies are trying to make themselves feel superior by disparaging others. Although this may not seem good, people who need to vent their anger should be given the opportunity to do so. When one changes their perspective, they can see that if bullies weren't given a chance to vent their anger from their own problems, they may resort to violence to deal with their problems. How different the view on bullying is if you look at it from the other side! As previously stated, I have had experience being 'bullied' and have also been the bully in some cases. This is obviously not good, but being a bully is easy, and bullies need easy jobs like that. Also, my friends and I have all gotten past the initial aggravation of bullying and have learned to deal with it. We now no longer feel sad or get affected, because our defenses have been trained all these years. In many cases, people are coerced into violence {See my address of the Columbine Shooting in Round 2}, and this is of course present. But one cannot use those examples and say that bullying leads to violence. SOME people resort to violence, but those kinds of people would be violent in any situation. In conclusion, the argument I have supported and stressed is that how one reacts to bullying is very important. The way I did, the way I saw others do, is the way that everyone should. Simply learn from the experience, stand up to them, and not let them tear down your walls. If students reacted in a better manor to bullying, rather than resorting to violence, leaving school, etc, I don't see a problem with bullying going on, as long as the student knows how to handle it. This is why, rather than have talks in school about why bullying is wrong and kids shouldn't do it, there should be talks in school about how to HANDLE the bullies. The seminars should teach kids how to stand up to them, and how to make them stop. If kids were taught how to react, and how to grow from their experiences, bullying would not be a problem, but rather an effective way for kids to learn and understand how the world works, a world that isn't always perfect. Thank you. - Shadow-Dragon -
Bullying should be allowed

You give some good points, but the fact of the matter is, there is a difference between simple teasing and bullying. Bullying, for many people, can cause detrimental affects to their well being. Bully victims are between 2 to 9 times more likely to consider suicide than non-victims, according to studies by Yale University. 28% of U.S. students in grades 6"12 experienced bullying. This means that 28% of students (possibly more) are 2 to 9 times more likely to consider suicide as a way out. Research indicates that persistent bullying can "lead to or worsen feelings of isolation, rejection, exclusion, and despair, as well as depression and anxiety, which can contribute to suicidal behavior." "Special needs students; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) students; students who are overweight; and students who are perceived as "weak" are the most likely targets of bullying by others." This means that if you are "different" then someone else, or don't meet the criteria others assume you must, it's OK to be bashed for it. I'm considered weak, does this mean that it's OK for someone to bully me? Bullying does not only affect mental health, but grades as well. Each day about 160,000 students miss school because of bullying or because of their fear of being bullied. That is 160,000 kids who are living in fear to the point where thy can't bear to walk through the corridors of school, and better their education. Now, what about the bullies? By bullying, they are putting themselves at risk as well. About 87 percent of students say school shootings are motivated by the desire to get back at those who have hurt them. Perfect examples of this are Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Eric Harris was a psychopath and probably would have ended up hurting somebody anyway. But what about Dylan Klebold? Klebold had been bullied for the majority of his years at school. He suffered from depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. A distraught Klebold was easily manipulated by Harris. I am not saying that Klebold wasn't responsible for his actions, I am simply saying that if he wasn't bullied, there is a possibility that the Columbine Massacre would not have occurred, and 15 people (including Harris and Klebold) wouldn't be dead. The point of this, is that some of us aren't equipt to handle this. ome of us are on the breaking point. Some of us don't know if this will be the day we can't take it, and end it all. There are other ways to better independence and self confidence than to put others down, and have to endure being brutalized.
Bullying should be allowed

Bullying should not be allowed, whatsoever. Bullying has been proven to cause severe mental issues, such as depression, anxiety, isolation, even suicidal thoughts and/or actions. As I would prefer to keep this argument based on facts, I'm going to write about my experiences. I'm thirteen, and I have been bullied since I was five years old for many reasons. My race, being the main one. I'm white and hispanic, and I am not excepted by the hispanic community... I live in LA so that's difficult to escape. Others include the fact that I'm much younger than everyone else in my grade, I don't break the rules, I don't dress very feminine, etc. I attempted to kill myself for the first time when I was eight years old... That's pretty young, don't you think? Well, I guess I started getting bullied from an early age. My second attempt was when I was eleven. I still get bullied to this day, and have been forced out of my school because of it. My GPA, which usually stood at a 4.2,has now dropped to a 1.2 because my depression, and fear of going to school. Beyond my sad little back story,I would like to get back to the detrimental effects bullying has caused in many cases such as Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris of the Columbine Massacre, Amanda Todd, Rebecca Sedwick, and many more. They all suffered depression, anxiety, and many other disorders as the aftermath of bullying (except Eric Harris who was a born psychopath). I, myself, suffer depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and violent black outs. There have been situations where my bottled up rage towards my attackers have caused me to black out and become aggressive... When I was seven, I was dragged into the girl's bathroom and began to be beaten by other girls, some from my grade, some from grades above. My head was slammed against a toilet bowl and a wall as I was kicked and punched repeatedly. Four years later, a girl who had been bullying me since I was eight (and her little group of friends) came up to me and cornered me, yelling at me, and pushing me down. They began kicking me in my ribs, and bam, flashback. I don't remember what happened, my mind had gone blank, but after watching school security footage I realize that I probably could have killed that girl if teachers wouldn't have pulled me off of her. This not only shows that bullying puts the bullied child's life in danger, but also the bully's life. Bullying should be treated the same as harassment is in legal terms.
The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States

Ok, I'll take my opponents definition of voting, however I still win on topicality. Even with my opponents definition, which uses the word preference, it still comes out in my favor. Why? Because, once the government has come up with said mutual agreement, after the debate, all people agree. Meaning, they have the same preference. Thus, they are still voting after the debate period. Link my above idea that even all agreeing is voting because a person's or people's ideas are being implemented from their opinion or "preference". My opponent tries to allude that the method to get up to the end is different because longer debates take place and people agree. THEY STILL VOTE, therefore, voting would still be used in the Us with or without my opponent said plan. Thus, I urge a negation. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States

Ok, so the basis winning basis is topicality and technicalities. I will prove the major point that you cannot vote pro because his way is still voting. "Voting - casting one's preference for a particular measure or resolution." My Response: My opponents definition of voting is so one-dimensional. Voting doesn't always have to based on preference, that's why i gave my own definitions of voting. E.g. Senator Lieberman voted for the Bush Tax Cuts, however he admitted to the press he was personally against them. He admitted that it would help stimulate the economy, BUT HE WAS PERSONALLY AGAINST IT. now with this example in mind, my opponents definition of voting cannot stand. You must look at my definitions. [Definition - Voting] 1. a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative. 2. a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion Now, back to my main point. My opponent's proposed plan is still voting. Why? Because each person is giving their consent to a proposal. They are voting pro or con. Doesn't matter if its reps vs. dems, or everyone together. ITS STILL VOTING. Therefore, you cannot affirm the resolution.
The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States

Nonetheless, my argument still stands. In my opponent's Round 2, he states that voting will still be used, regardless of the better form of law establishment I have proposed. However, he has failed to refute the claims I have made regarding such a new form of law establishment, and therefore I must assume he is in agreement with my proposal. Assuming my essential assumptions are correct, our only point of contention resides in voting technicalities. As my opponent has said in his Round 2, "even my opponents proposed plan is voting," but then goes on to use his own definition of the term "voting." I have already supplied a definition of voting in my Round 1. I will repeat: Voting - casting one's preference for a particular measure or resolution. This definition basically means that the lawmakers would cast their own preference for a particular bill. However, the term "preference" in the definition conventionally is used to describe a state of arbitrary judgement, and therefore does not require the lawmakers to deduce, with mutual agreement, the conclusion to a particular measure or resolution. The definitions I have supplied at the initiation of this debate must be used throughout, as, considering I started the debate, my arguments are based upon their given meanings. Again, my proposed plan of more ideal law establishment does NOT entail casting one's preference for a particular measure or resolution. Instead, a collaboration of logic and deductive reasoning should be used to obtain mutual agreement in the congress, regardless of the personal views put forth (cast) by the politician. No casting (i.e. depositing) of a preference (i.e. individually favoring a choice) is used to establish law, as that does not require mutual agreement and a shared conclusion. As well, voting (i.e. casting one's preference for a particular measure or resolution) allows results contradictory to mutual agreement. This is so, considering the fact that people may prefer different things, on an individual basis, rather than what may be best and ideal for the country. Therefore, voting is a flawed mechanism for establishing federal laws in the United States; because of this flaw, it therefore should not be used. After all of the debating in congress in complete, a moderator (i.e. speaker of the house, for example) would make sure everyone in the house would concur with a bill by asking for further debate. If there is no further debate or points of contention apparent, mutual agreement can be assumed. Again, this process does not entail individual preference, as individual preference may differ from what is best for the country. I await your refutation, and the remaining rounds of the debate.