BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Adam of the bible was God Himself.

"which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." -Luke 3:38If God had a son, he would not be God himself. Just like if I had a kid named Fred, I would not be Fred. Only in the case of Jesus would that ever make sense to some people (not me, though). "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 2:7Adam was literally made of dust/dirt. He was not God.
The Adam of the bible was God Himself.

We're obviously both as stubborn as mules about our opposing religious views. And no, this:"Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” -Genesis 1:26Does not refute anything. It's your god saying he'll make mankind in his (our?) image.And yes, I claim the bible is false. Because it is. There's no possible way that Mary was a virgin or that Noah's Ark ever happened. "If it's false, how did it fortell Isreal getting their nation back?" Dumb luck. They got their nation stolen and they're gonna want it back.Christians don't follow the Bible or the God written of in it? Really? Is that why the Bible is Christianity's Holy Book? Is that why you've quoted the Bible so many times?(I'm aware of the definition of "omnipotent." But one cannot be omnipotent if one doesn't exist yet.)
The Adam of the bible was God Himself.

I refute my opponents entire argument totally, because the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26 is not the same as when God formed the man to til the ground in Genesis2:7. And yes I have refuted you in past rounds and you ignored the facts. Now my opponent claims the bible is false. Then please explain in your closing why do you debate the bible? Because only a fool would debate the reality of Mother Goose. I refute my opponent's claim that nothing in the bible is true. Because of the Nation of Israel and the Jewish people. If the bible is false how did it fortell Israel getting their nation back? Christian god? Christians do not follow the bible or the God written of in the scriptures. And the word omipotent means all powerful so God did exactly what He said. Your arguement is full of errors, and I see no meaning or secrets.
The Adam of the bible was God Himself.

"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. "Yes, I use Google, but you're not here to criticize me about how I debate or my sources. You're here to debate me on whether or not Adam was your god. Genesis 2:7 isn't the only thing against that. The Christian god is called a "trinity god," because of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I have never heard of any church preaching that Adam was God. And no, you can't say God formed himself. No one has ever formed themselves, and don't give me that "God is omnipotent" stuff. He wouldn't exist, so he wouldn't be omnipotent. My opponent also claims that I suggested that "the land of Havilah was created with no people to dwell there, notice the gold! " I never suggested anything like that! If anything, I'm suggesting that absolutely nothing in the Bible ever happened. My arguments are what I'm suggesting. All you have to do is read them without thinking of a secret meaning behind them.
The Adam of the bible was God Himself.

I apologize, I forgot to provide my sources last round.[1]-https://www.google.com...[2]-https://www.google.com..."So begotten means sex, call it the mystery of God."The "mystery of God" indeed! There is no possible explanation for Mary giving birth and still being a virgin. The only way you could possibly explain it is with "god works in mysterious ways," and that's the worst explanation for anything! yatsar: to form, fashion Original Word: יָצַרPart of Speech: VerbTransliteration: yatsarPhonetic Spelling: (yaw-tsar')Short Definition: formed(http://biblehub.com...)(http://www.biblestudytools.com...)(http://www.biblebigpicture.com...)
The Adam of the bible was God Himself.

I refute my opponents claim that he answered my questions. And formed in Hebrew has a different meaning. And trust me, no one assumed my opponent was is educated in Hebrew. Yes for the ignorant, The Holy Spirit did offer the sperm to Virgin Mary who gave birth to Christ. So beggotten means sex, call it the mystery of God. Who was in Eden the Garden of God? Adam of all of mankind? Or answer the riddle of Christ. How is Christ a son and God of David? Formed=#3335 in Strongs or any Lexicon means squeezing into , the potter. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance earthen, fashion, form, frame, maker, potter, purpose Probably identical with yatsar (through the squeezing into shape); ((compare yatsa')); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively, to determine (i.e. Form a resolution) -- X earthen, fashion, form, frame, make(-r), potter, purpose. see HEBREW yatsar see HEBREW yatsa' Jesus claimed to be the root and offspring of David. Explain that please. You can not....................... Try Adam! Revelation 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Rootof David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the rootand the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
How To Train Your Dragon 1&2 is/are the best movies ever

How To Train Your Dragon: This movie is an excellent adventure comedy about a clever young Viking who trains a dragon and develops a forbidden friendship with him. The plot was beautiful, you could relate to the characters and their conflicts, you could see a world from another angle. The animation is beyond compare, and the flight scenes could even make AVATAR jealous! The dragons were creative, the settings were unique, and the dialogue one of a kind! By far, one of the best movies ever!!! How To Train Your Dragon 2: How about you just watch the trailer and see for yourself?: NO WORDS NEEDED
How To Train Your Dragon 1&2 is/are the best movies ever

-_-... ok now I KNOW you didn't click the links... Fine, HER'S A OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: It has been five years since Hiccup and Toothless successfully united dragons and Vikings on the island of Berk. While Astrid, Snotlout and the rest of the gang are challenging each other to dragon races (the island's new favorite contact sport), the now inseparable pair journey through the skies, charting unmapped territories and exploring new worlds. At the beginning, Hiccup is pressured by Stoick to become chief, but Hiccup (who isn't quite ready to do so) rebels by flying away from Berk and exploring new lands.[3] When one of their adventures leads to the discovery of a secret ice cave that is home to hundreds of new wild dragons and the mysterious Dragon Rider (his mother), then the two friends find themselves at the center of a battle aganst Eret the Dragonknapper and Drago Bludvist to protect the peace. Now, Hiccup, Toothless, Valka (Hiccup's mother), and Valka's Dragons must unite to stand up for what they believe while recognizing that only together do they have the power to change the future of both men and dragons with the help of the Riders of Berk. Source: http://howtotrainyourdragon.wikia.com...
God Exists

I am a Catholic looking for an Agnostic/Atheist to debate the existence of God. Not particularly the God of the bible, but just a God in general. God: The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. Exist: To have actual being; be. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Arguments. Round 3: Rebuttals and Secondary Arguments. Round 4: Rebuttals and Final Arguments, Questions. Round 5: Rebuttals, Answers. No trolling. Forfeiture is an automatic disqualification. Usage of Ad Hominem merits an instant loss of conduct.
Evolution is not supported by science or evidence

Thank you for responding. I like to get to the point, so I didn't make it too long. First of all I would like to talk about what is said about pseudogenes. An article[1] in Discover magazine, Hirotsune's team at Saitama Medical School in Japan entered a fruit fly gene into a mouse embryo that would disrupt the pseudogene for makorin1 which is a gene that controls kidney and bone development. When the mouse was born, it had severe kidney and bone deformities and died within days. However, the makorin1 gene hadn't changed! Pseudo genes are not evolutionary leftovers, but serve a very important role. Second you talked about two branches fusing to form something like mitochondria in cells. However, animal cells rely on mitochondrion to make adenosine triphosphate or ATP. Without ATP a cell cannot live. Any biology textbook states this. Cells without mitochondria would only make 6% of what they would use[3], so without them cells would have a hard time. However, mitochondria would have had to of entered eukaryotes the moment they existed, or there would be eukaryotes that do not have mitochondrion, but there isn't.[4] Yet, that is illogical. Third, there are mechanisms to fix mutations in gene duplication. The polymerase works during gene duplication to proofread and fix any errors in DNA[2](The source was the most straightforward one I could find). Mutations like color blindness do not go on for countless generations, but is eventually fixed. The way genes are duplicated is actually an amazing process and really make sure there are no errors, though some get through, they fixed over time. Mutations aren't really a good leg for evolution. They can be fixed quickly over generations and also beneficial mutations occur far less than bad ones. Lastly, I believe the biggest problem with evolution is the lack of transitional forms. It was even stated in Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species. We have not found a single transitional form. Also evolution requires trillions of morphological changes, but every single kind of animal has the same anatomy. You never see a dog or cat or monkey with anything new. [1]http://discovermagazine.com... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu... [4] http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu... (see mitochondria)
We should reduce homework

Sorry it took me a while to respond We have seven hours of school, is that not enough? I know that you won't get everything done during class and might have to finish the rest at home, but it shouldn't take you a couple hours at home to finish it. Teachers should reduce the homework they give to their students. School should not be the center of your life! Some people would/ should rather want to spend time with their families or practice the religion they believe in, rather then work on homework when they get home from school. You're right, other things might be affecting their stress besides homework, but you agree that homework does drive some people crazy. Why not then reduce it and get some of the stress off of the students?
We should reduce homework

Hello mate! It's always great to have a debate :D I think there's no such thing as time issues. I'm a student, currently on high school, so I can debate with some property about it. I know we all have lives out of the school, but when you're studying the school is the center of your life, or at least it should be. It consumes almost all the time you have, your choices about going out with friends, travel and etc need to be made based on it, you can't just travel with your friends when you have a test! It is your priority, not something like learning to play the guitar, something that you can live without, it's an obligation and you need to dedicate a lot of your time to it. Yes, homework takes a lot of time, it is kinda stressing but it is necessary. Homework is a way to reinforce the subject, in my opinion a better way to know if a student is really getting it. You say too much homework is harmful, an I say that less homework is harmful too. Less homework means less practice in the subject, and if you don't use your knowledge you'll lose it quickly. About the anxiety, stress and other psychological questions I think it's not on the homework itself. The school is a kinda hostile territory. You need to go there, you need to get the grades under pressure from your teachers, your parents and everyone, it is really frightening. And, considering that the majority of students are teenagers or young adults, they're in a age when your mind is kinda messed up. You're changing, you start thinking about your future, and all those things that every teenager faces. The student's mind is already messed without school, it's just a part of what drive some of them crazy.
We should reduce homework

Thank you for joining my debate:D I think that we should reduce homework because school work should only be at school. When you get home you should be able to rest. There are already eight ours of school, and a lot of people are also in after school activities which could take up to two-four hours after school. When you get home, you will most likely have to do some home-chores before or after your homework too. Not only does homework take up a lot of time off your day, but it also causes stress on students. I just recently wrote a speech in my debate class and stayed up till around 2am and while I was reading over it I realized that it didn't relate to the topic and had to start over. Thankfully I didn't have to present my speech the next day, but if I did, I would have gotten a bad grade. My point is- homework takes too much of your time and causes stress. In an article I read from TeenInk.com I saw someone say "American students should get less homework on a daily basis because too much can cause a great deal of stress, too much time is required to complete it, and it impacts free time and sleep." He also wrote "Homework related anxiety and stress can affect school work negatively." The link is below You cannot find anything about this author so this might not be a reliable article, but he does make a lot of good points. Sorry this is a long argument http://www.teenink.com...
Anthropogenic global climate change.

I will contend that anthropegenic global climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic global climate change is non-existent.StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 DefenseBurden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.Anthropogenic " Caused by humans" [1]Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person's argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.Round four each person defends their round two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate. Sources.0. http://www.debate.org...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Relationship

Ok recently, I made a new friend. It happens to be a girl and I have a gf. Me and my new friend are not doing anything that affects me and my girlfriend's relationship. The thing is this girl is not that type of person. The problem is one night i was half asleep and i texted her goodnight just simply goodnight text me tomorrow. I also texted my gf goodnight but I wrote her like this: Goodnight my love, sweet dreams text me in the morning and call me at 8 so I can hear your angelic voice. My friend got mad at me for telling her goodnight and got an attitude. Then she saw this story i was writing because i love writing stories and she saw that i wrote i am falling in love with my bestfriend and she flipped out and said we can't be friends anymore. The story wasn't meant for her it was just a story i wrote and she won't be my friend anymore because she fears i will fall in love with her when i am not that type of guy. It has been three weeks and she refuses to be friends again and i keep telling her that it is stupid to jepordize a whole friendship over a story that wasn't about her. Who is in the right and what do i do to repair the friendship from before when she won't give in because her ignorant friends keep teling her things like i am gunna fall in love blah blah blah when i won't. Please help me bby picking for or against and giving me advice should i keep trying or stop?
Keep Marijuana Illigal For Ever Everywhere Under All Circumstances.

I'm not sure if this is a joke, but my opponents arguments are pretty much reasons why pot should be legalized spun the other way round. There seems to be one main argument in the Pro's case: legalizing pot loses the government money. If the only reason we need pot is money, WE CAN TAX POT INSTEAD OF ILLEGALIZING IT. And, with all the left over money, the government can screw with us in other, new, and more exciting ways to make up for the deficit. This avoids all the harms my opponent talks about, while also legalizing a useful and harmless drug. Anyway, here are 2 reasons why pot should be legalized: 1) Marijuana is very safe compared to alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana claims absolutely zero direct deaths per year because it is almost impossible to overdose on marijuana. Contrast that 0, with the 440,000 annual preventable deaths from smoking and the 100,000 directly achohol related deaths per year. 2) Marijuana provides relief from pain, nausea, spasticity, and other symptoms for many individuals who have not been treated successfully with conventional medications. Many American adults prefer marijuana to the use of alcohol as a mild and moderate way to relax. Americans use marijuana because they choose to, and one of the reasons for that choice is their personal observation that the drug has a relatively low dependence liability and easy-to-manage side effects.
God is more likely to exist than an invisible pink unicorn

According to ym deifnition the pink unicorn is incapable of being seen but sitll if we were to shie light on it it would be pink. The fact that it is trapped alone on a planet without a sun makes it boht invisible and pink (invisible using my deifnitions). You failed to counter this sufficiently. Also, you never once met your BOP in proving God MORE likely, he is either equally or less likely then the unicorn wince you didn't once discuss it.
God is more likely to exist than an invisible pink unicorn

This argument is even more ludicrous than previous thought. But, I will still disprove your argument. You have not yet defined the word "capable" yet, and I feel as this is important since you use it in your definitions and especially the last round. I will use the Merriam-Webster online dictionary that you have sourced to be fair. Capable: having attributes (as physical or mental power) required for performance or accomplishment [1] So let's assume in this odd scenario that a pink unicorn is trapped on some planet that will support its life hundreds of millions of light years away. Are we "capable" of seeing it? Do we "have the attributes required for performance or accomplishment" to see it? No. We do not have the ability to travel that far, and if we did, we would know about it. Therefore, we are not capable of seeing it, it is not visible (invisible), and thus existence is still impossible. I thank my opponent for an interesting take on the Resolution Statement and for following the rules. I thank my judges as well for reading this and making a fair and honest choice, and I strongly urge a Pro vote. Thanks.
God is more likely to exist than an invisible pink unicorn

You accepted my definitions. Now I will explain why the way I have defined invisible and visible enable something to be invisible and pink. Invisible I simply defined as not visible. Visible I defined as capable of being seen. But what if the unicorn is trapped on a planet where it is the only creature in existence. It is INCAPABLE of leaving the planet and thus is INCAPABLE of being seen sine on that planet there are no surfaces which offer reflection. (it's possible). Also let's say that the planet has no sun. So it could be not visible whilst being pink.
God is more likely to exist than an invisible pink unicorn

First of all, the fact that a unicorn is mythical must be factored in at a bare minimum. You say that it could be mythical and likely, so why not make it a factor? Normally, I would have a problem with you claiming that I must use your definitions, but as I have no problem with them, I will not counter them. Let's get on to the main part. Could a unicorn be pink and invisible? Well, if something is pink, it must be so because it reflects pink electromagnetic radiation (light). In order for it to be invisible, incapable of being seen, they would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, it is physically impossible for something to be simultaneously invisible and pink.