BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
does the god of the bible exist

Kalam cosmological argument. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore the universe has a cause The first premise is frankly common sense. The second premise is supported by the big bang theory, and the second law of thermodynamics If the universe, all of space time and matter, has a cause, then that cause must be spaceless timeless and immaterial, as if it were not it would have to effectively cause itself. There cannot be a "natural cause" of the natural world: as there must be a natural world in the first place for there to be natural causes. Fine tuning of the universe for life 1. The fine tuning of the universe is due either to chance necessity or design 2. Neither chance nor necessity 3. Therefore design. The sheer fine tuning of the universal constants required for even the possibility of life is incredible. If the level of entropy in the early universe had been different by even a single part in 10^10^123, there wouldn't even be the possibility of life.[1] Chance is not a valid explanation, as the odds are too astronomical for it to have been due solely to chance. Jesus tomb was found empty by his women followers 3 days after his death: Had the tomb not been empty, it would have been highly unlikely that the jewish rebuttal to this claim to be that the disciples stole the body. Instead they could have just checked the tomb. Secondly, women were not regarded as valid witnesses during this time, and thus it would be highly unlikely that they would write it so the women were the ones to discover the empty tomb. I will elaborate in my next round. I would like my opponent to state which premises he rejects and why. sources; ][1] Penrose, Roger. 1989. The Emperor"s New Mind. Oxford University Press. P. 344
When young, children should learn that the primary colours are red, blue and green.

My argument rests on your argument stating that only RGB should be used, while that is not the only color scale.If you look at RYB and CMYK, you'll notice something. Cyan is close to blue, magenta is close to red, and yellow is... well, it is itself. RYB is an approximation of the CMYK scale, where CMYK has a higher gamut range (meaning it can produce more colors). Therefore, it would be more appropriate to teach that RYB is an approximation of CMYK, and is therefore more capable of producing a wide array of colors.Furthermore, your argument is trying to compare two different things. RGB is an additive scale, while RYB is subtractive. Subtractive scales are ideally used for printing on white paper, since they deal with reflected light. Additive scales are best used when the light is being projected instead of reflected off surfaces to produce colors.I also argue that it is near (if not completely) impossible to mix pure cyan or magenta with standard RYB paint sets. I would encourage you to attempt this at the risk of your sanity so you can see how difficult it is to do this.Physical artwork still has a place, and it would be foolish to replace education of a subtractive scale with an additive scale. It would, however, be more acceptable to use a more accurate additive scale.
When young, children should learn that the primary colours are red, blue and green.

Before I begin, I need to update the definition of primary colours: for the purpose of the debate, we will only be referring to the visible spectrum of light and colour. First, I will explain why not to use red, blue and yellow as the primary colours: You know how people say that blue and yellow make green? It isn't entirely true. When colours are mixed as pigmentation, subtractive colour mixing is used, not additive. Often, a non-pure blue may be used, which contains traces of green, thus subtractive colour mixing works. The colours cyan and yellow both contain the colour green. Let's take a look at the RGB scale for yellow and cyan. Yellow: (255, 255, 0) Cyan: (0, 255, 255) The first number represents the amount of red in the colour, the second, green, and the third, blue. If you notice, both colours have a pure green inside. This can be demonstrated by using cyan and yellow highlighters. When mixed, the colour green is produced. Now onto the colours red, green and blue. I will begin my arguments with the RGB scale. Using this scale, any and all colours in the visible spectrum can be created. Don't believe me? You're probably using a monitor with three kinds of pixels: red, green and blue. These pixels can increase or decrease their brightness and combine with nearby pixels to form colours [1]. Next, this may count as a rebuttal, but I felt that this fit in as an argument: let's compare the CYMK (magenta, yellow, magenta and black) scale of colour. CYMK uses subtractive colour mixing and is used in our printers. Please see second source, as this is a visual argument [2].As you can see, the colours look more pure. This is the end of my arguments. Over to Con. -=Sources=- 1. http://www.xaraxone.com... 2. http://thinkpro.net...
When young, children should learn that the primary colours are red, blue and green.

Hello, I will be arguing that children should learn that red, green and blue are the primary colors, not red, yellow and blue, as demonstrated by the RGB color model. -=Debate Parameters=- Topic: When young, children should learn that the primary colours are red, blue and green. Pro: Luggs Con: whoever accepts this debate Category: Education 5 Rounds Voting period: 1 week Arguments: 3 days Character limit: 8,000 characters All votes need comments (RFD) -=Definitions=- When young: This will refer to the beginning of elementary school, so somewhere from pre-kindergarden to the first grade. Primary color: the colors that combine to make all other colors. -=Rules=- Avoid fallacious arguments No semantics All sources must be quoted. Simply posting a source link is not enough to represent an argument. No arguments in R1, only acceptance of debate parameters, rules, etc. No more new arguments in R5, only rebuttals and closing. Cite sources. Disobeying a rule results in loss of conduct.
Resolved: In the US the Death Penalty is just in-and-of the principles of punishment.

"I would agree with all of Cirro's positions if his resolution did not begin with the words "In the US...". This phrase moves the argument from the theoretical to the real world. Having done so, Cirro's fine points are wasted in this debate since he has chosen the wrong premise." My Response: Its not a wrong premise because some ideas of punishment conflict according to region. I picked the US specifically on the fact that, here is where the debate is most widely held. Looking at the US's theories of punishment, the death penalty can go back and forth. I was going to use this later on, however looking at the US specifically our 8th Amendment was created by Beccaria, who I quoted before. Also, the end phrase (in-and-of the principles of punishment.) justifies in the US because the resolution implies the theoretical ideas of punishment in the US. Now, since this has been cleared, I await my opponents full rebuttal and/or constructive. "Does my opponent also take the position that capital punishment has been fairly and justly administered in the US?" My Response: I take the position that the US MAY have administered it unfairly. However, for this debate, I would like to debate principles rather then implications. And now, I stand ready for my opponents responses.
Resolved: In the US the Death Penalty is just in-and-of the principles of punishment.

I would agree with all of Cirro's positions if his resolution did not begin with the words "In the US...". This phrase moves the argument from the theoretical to the real world. Having done so, Cirro's fine points are wasted in this debate since he has chosen the wrong premise. Does my opponent also take the position that capital punishment has been fairly and justly administered in the US?
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

con didn't respond to this: what about someone who doesn't acknowlege they are sinful per prong one. but confess with their mouth that Jesus is lord and that he was risen from hte dead? that is an explicit command for who can be saved from the bible. they might even consider Jesus as God. does con go against, or add and subtract, from the bible? the way con is trying to argue it, salvation should come in reading the bible and doing what it says as if it is inerrant. that way he doesn't have to get tripped up on some specific idea of what needs believed when i can just throw a loop in it like the last paragraph or first post. but then it'd be too vague, cause no one agrees with what the bible means. to be sure, abiding in his word doesn't necessarily mean followng the bible, it could just mean following the spririt. that could be how God structured everything. to be sure, there are plenty who believe most fundamental things but question based on the bible whether Jesus is God.
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

Well as I cited last arguement Jesus saw no distinction between his words and the rest of bible john 10:34-39 and john 5:46 -47. Jesus also said whoever abides in his words has life (john 8:31-37) and some one who rejects Jesus words is obviously not abiding in them. My opponent did not adress this . The implications of these verses are that if some one believes that they are sinner and Jesus died for them but does not believe Jesus is God rejects Jesus testimony about himself and is not abiding in his word. My opponent is also not showing contradictions in scripture we're the bible contradicts itself and is also not responding to the texts that I bring up.Greg Gilbert has a chapter in his and Kevin deyoung a book what is the mission of the church? Which is a great book which I would highly recommend. The chapter is called are we missing the gospel. His thesis is that the bible has different lenses when talking about the gospel . A wide angle lense and a zoom lense . Let's look at the wide angle lense . In Matthew 4 Jesus preaches the gospel of the kingdom it has two main points a) the kingdom has dawned and b) all who repent shall enter it. This is a good example of one of many passages that speak of the good news or gospel in a broad sense.(for more see acts 13:32-33 Luke 4:18-19 ). now for a zoom view. Acts 13:36-43 speaks of the good news as the good news of peace (he is lord of all) to him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins in his name. This is a very zoom lensed view of the good news . Notice however it does not contradict the broad lense at all (for more zoom lensed see Romans1:16-17 1cor.15:1-5and 1cor.1:17-18) . I believe the reason my opponent is confused on what you must believe is because he is confusing these to "angles" of the gospel . (Resources- ray ortlund - the gospel Greg Gilbert - what is the gospel? )
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

so just as i predicted, some christian gives a random snapshot of what they think people need to be saved. did you all know there is a magic four pronged approach to salvation? see con's four points. so con is saying someone who doesn't believe the bible is true will be condemned, per prong four? they can admit they are a sinner and jesus is the savior, but question the bible, and they are condemned? plus while con gave a four prong approach, he also insisted you must believe JEsus is God. that is prong five? they can believe all four of cons explicit prongs, but question that he is God, and they are condemned? unless you were just stating that you believe it is a side issue but clear that Jesus is God? what about someone who doesn't acknowlege they are sinful per prong one. but confess with their mouth that Jesus is lord and that he was risen from hte dead? that is an explicit command for who can be saved from the bible. they might even consider Jesus as God. does con go against, or add and subtract, from the bible?
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

I think before we start we must agree on one point that the bible is inspired inerrant non contradictory word of God . I believe this must be our starting point. In answer to your arguement. I think the bible is clear. To be saved you have to believe the gospel. I believe Galatians 1:6 implies that there is one gospel that saves and that you are saved through the gospel . So I think the real question we are at is what is the gospel? I think throughout the NT you see many different gospel presentations . But one main message . I believe the gospel is that all because of sin are under Gods wrath but God sent his son to take our sin on the cross and all who believe on him shall not perish. Now you asked what if someone believed that Jesus was lord but not God. I think this is an issue of biblical authority I think Jesus saw no distinctions between his words and the rest of the bible JN 10:34-39 Jesus says that whoever abides in his word has life (JN 8:31-47) and whoever rejects Jesus words about himself as the son of God is not abiding in them . So really loud I'm clear this is what I think you have to believe to be saved . 1. That because of sin you have a wrong relashonship with God and are going to hell Romans 3:23 2. that God sent his son to die for the sins of his people removing barrier between God and Man. John 10:11 3. All who believe on him will have eternal life . John 3:16 4. the whole gospel is from the bible and only the bible I believe that the bible was inspired by God and is there fore completely true
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

Rebuttal 1: my opponent raises the question of whether someone needs to believe themselves a sinner AND that Jesus died for them and rose from the grave . Answer: this is an issue of biblical inerrancy if what the bible says true then they are wrong. But again my opponent raises the question why does it matter. Answer : John 1 calls Jesus the word , as we have seen earlier Jesus saw no distinctions between his words and the rest of the bible so to reject what the bible says is to reject Jesus himself. So to be be saved you have to accept what the bible says and this is what the bible says 1.God created man perfect but man sinned against God putting his wrath on them. Rom. 3:23 2. God loved the world and sent Jesus , the son of God born of a virgin fully God and man, to die for the sins of his people. John 3:16, john 10:11. 3 all who believe on him shall have eternal life. John 3:16
Using a crucifix as a symbol of faith is idolatry

All grace should be given for any spelling or grammatical mistakes made. Moving forward: 1. My opponents point can only stand IF the crucifix becomes the focus of reverence Remember, we are not just talking about focus, but the focus of reverence. If merely extending focus to something means you are venerating it, then my opponent must consider all things focused on, other then God, idolatry. But merely holding a cross as a symbol of faith is no different than putting a rainbow in the sky as a sign of a covenant. It is no different than wearing a wedding ring as a sign of commitment. 2. In the Bible God appreciates many symbols of faith My opponent suggests that there is a difference between actions and physical symbols of faith – and this can account for the passages that I listed. However, you will find that the Ark of the Covenant is a physical symbol of faith. Growing your hair out IS a physical symbol. The bread and wine of the Eucharist are physical symbols. "In particular in the Catholic faith, upon entering the cathedral one is expected to kneel to the crucifix hanging on he wall. " How is this act of devotion any different than King David dancing around the Ark of the Covenant? How is this any different then the rituals the High Priests were commanded to do before they could go before the Ark? The sacrifice of lambs and the burning of incense? How is this any different from Moses building a bronze serpent in Numbers 21:4-9? How is this any different than symbolizing wine and bread? These things are USED to draw reverence to God, not the symbol. 3. Incorrect definition of Idol You may contest the definition, but you are not using an adequate biblical definition of Idol. Within the context of biblical idolatry, Old Testament writers were dealing with pagan god worship. They did not have a crucifix problem. They had the problem of people worshipping golden calves as gods, statues of Moloch, and other such grave symbols of decadence and decline.
Using a crucifix as a symbol of faith is idolatry

Introduction: I am willing to seriously debate against the notion that a crucifix as a symbol of faith is idolatry. I hope that my contentions are not what my opponent would consider semantics. I am merely trying to argue the resolution as stated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Points that need to be addressed: "When one uses a crucifix as a physical symbol of faith, that person is practicing idolatry by using the idol (crucifix) as the focus of the reverence. When a Christian grabs his / her crucifix necklace to gain comfort in times of trial, he or she is in effect worshiping the crucifix, thereby practicing idolatry." 1. My opponent's point can only stand IF the crucifix becomes the focus of reverence. However, when the crucifix is only used as a symbol of faith (as the resolution states), it is neither receiving worship nor focus. A symbol of faith is not equal to worship of that symbol. Similarly, when a stout Darwinist fashions a walking fish on his bumper, he is not worshiping the fish, he is using it to represent his particular ideology. The crucifix symbol is not the focus, it merely draws attention TO the focus, that is, Jesus Christ and Him crucified (if you are a protestant the cross will be empty, representing the resurrected Christ). 2. In the Bible God appreciates many such symbols of faith. For instance, the Nazirite vow in which the adherents would not cut their hair as a symbol of faith to God (Samson is the most notable)(1). The Ark of the Covenant was a symbol of God's faithfulness to the Israelites. David, king and psalmist, is recorded as dancing around the Ark of the Covenant saying, "I will become even more undignified than this!" He was appreciating God's faithfulness, not worshipping the Ark itself (2). Jesus himself told us to practice such symbolism when he established the Eucharist – he said, "Do this in remembrance of me (3)." Such symbols are not objects of reverence, but symbols of remembrance. God sets into place symbols of his glory and covenant with man. For instance, he put into place the rainbow to remind man that he will not flood the earth en masse again (4). 3. My opponent defined idolatry (the worship of idols), but conveniently forgot to define idols. An Idol, by definition, is "a statue or other object that is worshiped as a god (5)." Therefore, it must be shown that object of worship is not merely being worshiped, but that it is being worshiped as a god. This should suffice for now. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you Sources: 1. Numbers 6:1-21, see also http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. 2 Samuel 6:15-22 3. Luke 22:19 4. Genesis 9:13 5. Macmillan Dictionary, see also Dictionary.com's definition under "bible"
Using a crucifix as a symbol of faith is idolatry

To begin I will provide a framework in which I am requesting this debate: I prefer to avoid semantic debates. Please only take this debate if you are willing to seriously argue that using a crucifix as a symbol of faith is not idolatry. I have no wish to debate the relevance of religion. Definition of idolatry: Princeton.edu the worship of idols Worship: dictionary.com adoring reverence or regard My argument is simple. When one uses a crucifix as a physical symbol of faith, that person is practicing idolatry by using the idol (crucifix) as the focus of the reverence. When a Christian grabs his / her crucifix necklace to gain comfort in times of trial, he or she is in effect worshiping the crucifix, thereby practicing idolatry.
Vi vs Geo Round 1 Feverish Rap Battle Tournament

http://www.youtube.com... Lyrics: Yo, it's the merciless Copernicus, certified and murderous You ain't ever heard of this, you certainly could learn from this It's the rhyme sayer, mind bender from the time chamber My lines greater, deadly instrumental like Slayer The hip hop God of cosmogenesis You askin how, so I present evidence Ever since then, I've never had a nemesis Nevertheless, I rip these raps, tippin hats I'm lockin and loadin and flippin these gats Masterin language, no anguish, I'm slangin these raps Intensive scientific experiments prove I'm the best So come and test, and you'll find I'm above the rest, nothin less My astronomical anatomical, library of raps and chronicles The Leviathan deliverin lines that make you die again Wanna live forever, I'll freeze you in my cryogen Rhyme accelerator, my style's hella greater You can come into my space station via elevator Visions of illusory hallucination mind polluted from a deluded nation Population suffers from mass hypnosis and cognitive psychosis I know this, the transcendental power of time gnosis Electrifying rhymes extremely high voltage Discover the secret doctrine from inside the box I keep it locked in I'm mixin new rhymes and beats for this rhythmic concoction My rhymes are infinite, you limited, beyond historical Remote viewing the future, ahead of time like oracle Strollin through the park every now and then with the wisdom of Tao and Zen Too many divisions have been brought upon man I'm the wisest of all among them This orchestrated chaos was designed to rip your face off I've been workin hard for this, it will definitely pay off Explore the profundity of nothingness Hip hop music, I can't get enough of this Let me take you on a serpentine odyssey, no need to act modestly Honestly, these are the greatest times to be alive, unearth the archive Combined the greatest minds, our aim is beyond the mission to survive The fountain of knowledge leaves me reinvigorated Expandin my mind, dogmatic doctrines incinerated Innovative rhymes are prolifically cryptic My journey takes me on the path of the ecliptic I terraform all the galaxies across the cosmos The light bearer, illuminated anthropos My flow is fluid like Venetian, the Druids and Phoenicians The attainment and elucidation of the mysterium Wakin the sleeping masses out of delirium This is the peak of classical literary art Architectually subtle geographical arch Dialect monistic framework of polarity I'm a beast, but please don't be scared of me Ambient serenity, you ain't ahead of me My rhymes are heavenly multiplied by seventy Now let me take you back to the pre-deluvian era One more time, before I unleash Peruvian terror My technique is lawless, flawless with no error This verse is an immaculate galactic shift You've been dismantled can't hold a candle to this