BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus is God

I will start out with son of god. What is a son of god or in hebrew bene elohim? In Gen 6:2 we see sons of god and also in job 1:6 The bible describs the son of god or son's as being Angels. So why did jesus call him self the son of God? No man or flesh could call there selfs the son of God without being God which is why the jews tryed to stone him in John 10: 31-33 SCRIPTURE FOR ONE GOD Isaiah 9:6 A child is given and his name shall be called wonderfull counsullor, the mighty GOD, the everlasting FATHER. (this is talking about Jesus) John14:9 He that hath seen me hath seen the father Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: the lord our God is one lord Isaiah 44:8 / 45:5-6 There is no God beside me Isaiah 43:10 I am He, before me there was no god and after me there is no god. (Jesus claimed to be God) matt 1:23 A son is born and they shall call his name Emmanuel which means God with us John 1:1&14 The word was in the begining, The word was God, and the word was made flesh John 10:30 I and my Father are one ( not as one, but are one) James 2:19 If you belive in one God, you do well 1Timothy 3:16 God was made flesh. THE RITE HAND so why did Jesus sat on the rite hand of God? The rite hand of God is a hebrew idiom which denots power and strength. There are 39 ref. in the old test. For example Exodus 3:20 God talks about putting forth his rite hand to strike the Egyptions. Like I said there are 39 ref. that I am not going to go over at the moment. But if the rite hand is a sign of power what did Jesus do? Did he sat on a throne next to God or stan beside God on his rite hand? the answer is no Jesus sat on the rite hand of God he was reclaiming the power. I want to put one thing out there.if you had two sons and one sone hanging off of a thousand foot bluff, would you go save him or would you send your son?
Jesus is God

Alot of people belive that Jesus and God are two diff. beings. I will proove that God and Jesus were and are one in the same. RULES 1. King james version (KJV) Bible: So not get involved or tied up in other translations. 2. BOP is on both 3.Have fun and God bless. ROUNDS 1.Acceptance/ comments 2. Rounds 2, 3, and 4 are for arguments.
evolution not creationism

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged. Five Proofs of Evolution In this article, we look at five simple examples which support the Theory of Evolution. by Richard Peacock
evolution not creationism

Than you Pro for starting this debate. Since you didn't state any rules, I will use this round as acceptance only, and await your argument in the next round. Since you didn't bestow any arguments, I should do so my self. [1] Evolution- one of a set of prescribed movements [2] Creationism- the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Goodluck! Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] https://www.google.com...
A gun ban will effectively reduce crime rates

Rebuttal1. Murder and Homicide rates as a result of firearms will be reduced.Firearm-related deaths in Brazil decreased dramatically in response to its passing of gun reformatory laws. However, as time past, it has risen. In fact, according to a report on violence in Brazil, 42,000 people had been shot dead in 2012."A report on violence in Brazil says around 42,000 people were shot dead in 2012 - the highest figures for gun crime in 35 years."[1]My contender argues that if a gun ban was put into effect, there may be an increase in firearm-related deaths in the short term, but over time, as firearms are constantly impounded in response to the upholding of many criminals seeking to commit and/or have committed an act of crime, it will decrease. However, according to observation, that does not look like the case.2. Areas with more gun laws have reduced amounts of gun-related Murders.According to a study conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center, countries comprising more gun owners tend to have significantly lower homicide rates. s://31.media.tumblr.com...; alt="" />[3]Following the concept of majority rule, a gun ban will much more likely result in an increase, if not dramatic, in gun-related murder rates. A study covering the gun laws of the states of America may favor your side. But a study covering the gun laws of the countries of the world favor mine.Definitionsmajority rule - "Majority rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including the legislatures of democratic nations."[2]I am eager, though very anxious upon the realization of my opponent's skills in the art of debating, to read my opponent's response.Sources[1] http://www.bbc.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://crimeresearch.org...
A gun ban will effectively reduce crime rates

Thank you for your statement. I will now proceed to present my argument within the allowance of the rules.1. Murder and Homicide rates as a result of firearms will be reduced.Majority of firearms will be confiscated or banned from civilians, which may spark an outrage and an increase in murders and homicides by firearms in the short term, but over time, as the amount of firearms are confiscated or banned increases, the rate, will decrease.[2]In a study of Brazil from 1996-2005, the number of firearm deaths was steadily increasing until mid 2003, where the firearm related deaths reduced dramatically. [2]2. Areas with more gun laws have reduced amounts of gun-related Murders. In a study conducted by the Boston Children"s Hospital, Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health between 2007-2010, the "strong law states" had a 42% lower mortality rate than states with reduced gun laws. The same states also had a 40% lower homicide rate and a 37% reduction in firearm related suicide than states with the fewest laws. Said study had also discovered that "laws requiring universal background checks and permits to purchase firearms were most clearly associated with decreasing rates of gun-related homicides and suicides." [1]According to J. Ludwig, "even imperfect efforts to restrict gun availability to high-risk people can reduce illegal gun use on the margin, even if these regulatory barriers can be overcome in a number of ways by those who are determined to obtain a gun." showing that even if it is not perfect, it is still effective in producing the desired result. [2]I have stated my opinions on the matter and look forward to viewing your rebuttal. Thank you for your time.Sources used in argument.[1] http://www.usatoday.com...[2] http://www.armedwithreason.com...
A gun ban will effectively reduce crime rates

I look forward to a clean and friendly debate!Presentations1) A gun ban will only empower criminalsCivilians will be asked to dispose of their firearms, if any, maybe by handing them over to law enforcement. However, as you may have guessed, criminals will refuse, thus empowering them. If you watch the video I have provided[2], which I feel is very substantial, people agree due to experience. You can not argue against experience. It demonstrates results physically and visually when truly applied. 2) Defensive gun uses "Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year."[1]If guns were banned, one to two and a half million people would have had their firearms confiscated by law enforcement, thus probably would not have survived the attack.I am eager to read my opponent's response. Sources[1] http://www.armedwithreason.com...[2]
A gun ban will effectively reduce crime rates

Rules1. The first round is only for acceptance.2. My contender, whoever it may be, is given the option to troll, as long as it is not done consistently.3. You may request a change in rules/a rule, definitions/a definition, and/or the debate structure in the comment section. However, you may not [request a change] as soon as you have accepted the debate.4. Burden of Proof (Will be abbreviated as BoP in case of future word usage) is shared. In other words, [both] Pro and Con are required to present a minimum of one argument, if felt has enough substance, in favor of their positions. Failure to follow these rules will result in a seven-point forfeiture.DefinitionsGun Ban - firm prohibition of civilian usage of firearmsDebate StructureR1 - Terms and AgreementR2 - PresentationsR3 - RebuttalsR4 - RebuttalsR5 - ConclusionsI look forward to a friendly and clean debate!
A gun ban will effectively reduce crime rates

Thank you once again for your response, I will now proceed to respond to your claims and rebuttal them to the best of my ability. 1) A gun ban will only empower criminals The phrase “criminals do not follow laws” or, in your case, “will only empower criminals,” is “true for the same reason it’s completely irrelevant to a substantive discussion on gun reform– it’s a tautology.” It states nothing concerning the proper course of action that a society should take in order to improve outcomes on a social level. [2] In a 2011 study published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, found that owning a gun in the household will increase the risks of accidents, suicides, homicides, assaults, and even intimidation.[1] 2) Defensive gun uses You stated that, "Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year." But, if you read further into the document, you will find that it states that it is a myth and that it is more likely that gun owners are to “accidentally shoot an innocent person or harm a family member,” than defend themselves against an attacker. [3] Thank you for your time, and I do hope to be able to see what is in store for me in the next round. Sources: [1]http://www.armedwithreason.com... [2]http://www.armedwithreason.com... [3]http://www.armedwithreason.com...
You are god

To win the debate, Pro has to prove his main argument beyond reasonable doubt. He has not done this so far. He has not even attempted to explain it....A- Refutation of the Introductory ArgumentPro provided his first premise or introductory argument in the previous round, while leaving his actual argument to the end. I shall respond thoroughly to his actual argument when he presents it. However, for now, I would like to show how even Pro's introductory argument is built on shaky grounds and full of major problems.1- Pro bases his whole introductory argument on the Cartesian Dualism which isn't a supported theory to begin with, or one I will take for granted. Pro has to prove that there is a separation between the mind and the body, or else his whole argument is being built on a baseless assumption. True, thoughts are abstract. However, abstract is not equivelant to immaterial and existing in an immaterial realm.2- Pro makes a false assumption that the physical world is purely material, when we know that the physical world itself is partially material and immaterial[1].3- Pro says that God needs to have an influence on the physical/material universe. This is a baseless assertion and non-sequitur fallacy. God could be indifferent to the physical universe altogether....Pro's introductory argument is severely flawed and based on hazy grounds. I shall expand my refutation more if my opponent insists on defending it.A- Refutation of Pro's Main Argument1- Assume I am a God as Pro defined me: "The very general definition I"m using is, God is a supreme being and creator of the universe."2- Assume I have the ability Pro gave me: "The universe is what we perceive NOW and what we perceive is what we are mentally creating. You and I are the Gods that are creating this game here and now."3- Here is a phrase: "Me thinks I'm a weasel."4- If I perceive that phrase as "Me thinks I'm a cloud" and use my mind to change it... a- If the text changes from "Me thinks I'm a weasel" to "Me thinks I'm a cloud", then Pro is right about me having such ability and being a God. b- If it doesn't, then Pro is wrong to say that I can alter the course of reality like a supreme being. What supreme being is unable to change a five-word sentence stored in a database on a computer server? If I couldn't do that, what kind of intentional modification can I do to the world?If Pro doesn't offer an explanation that (1) Solves this problem and is (2) Supported by evidence that proves it beyond reasonable doubt, then I win the debate because the burden of proof is solely on my opponent to prove his claim. I merely took the position of an agnostic on discussed issue in Round 1 and Pro didn't object to that.I wish my opponent the best of luck. [1] adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1937ASPL....2..189S
You are god

My opponent claims that we are the gods and that we shape reality with our thoughts. I take the opposite position that we are not gods and that we do not shape reality with our perceptions/thoughts. Concerning the origin of the universe, I don't subscribe to any of the three theories my opponent provided. That is to say, I remain agnostic on the matter of the origin of the universe. However, I'm fully against the belief that we are the gods and that we draw reality with our perceptions. Due to the nature of the debate, the burden of proof is solely on my opponent. I, therfore, have to wait for him to provide evidence and proof for his main argument. .. My opponent's main argument is the following, "The universe is what we perceive NOW and what we perceive is what we are mentally creating. You and I are the Gods that are creating this game here and now. "I await my opponent's response. ..
You are god

The argument as to how the universe was created is flawed. The argument is always about whether a single Supreme Being (one God) created the universe, or it was created through unintelligent random coincidences. We are supposed to pick one argument or the other. (Creation vs evolution. Big Bang vs God working hard for six days and then resting, etc. etc.) Neither of these argument are true. The truth is each of us are Gods, and this universe is not something that was created at some time in the past, but is a manifestation of being created NOW, moment by moment. This thing we call REALITY is what we AGREE it is and nothing more. We are like projectors that project our ideas for other people to see. If they agree, and enough people agree, our ideas become reality. This is easy to see if, let's say, someone writes a book. He gets a publisher to agree that it's good. They sell it, and enough people agree to buy it, then the REALITY becomes that it's a best selling book. But this same mechanism applies to EVERYTHING that we perceive in the physical world. What we perceive is what our minds have projected and what others agree with. So, creation isn't a product of a Big Man in the sky, or the product of random motion, started by a Big Bang. The universe is what we perceive NOW and what we perceive is what we are mentally creating. You and I are the Gods that are creating this game here and now.
abortion is murder

Rebuttal of Con's arguments. 1. Con said that killing a unborn baby is ok because it helps the parents. Pro believes that killing someone is always wrong.No matter if it helps someone else or not.so Con says that it is right to kill someone if they interfere with your life..This argument is absurd. 2. Con says that a rape victim should be able to have a abortion. Pro disagrees It is wrong to punish the baby for the fathers mistake.Pro believes the choice to carry the baby for 9 months is better than killing a innocent life,which is evil and irresponsible.The mother can always give the baby up for adoption after birth...Adoption allows the mother to not have to raise a child and she would not have to carry the guilt of killing a baby for the rest of her life. . Pro's final statement. 1. Pro has proven it is scientifically and morally wrong to have a abortion. Abortion is always wrong because it takes a life,a life that no one has the right to take..All the reasons people have abortions are because of selfishness,they think they can decide if someone has the right to live or not.They decide if the unborn baby will affect them negativity or not,if negativity they kill,and they would kill anyone that affect then,in the way they don't like,if they could get away with it....
abortion is murder

I thank Con for his rebuttals. I shall address his concerns sequentially (numerically, in this case). 1. This is passing into the realm of morality slightly with the question Con has asked me, and as a person who subscribes to secular humanism for morality, I will try my best to answer Con's question. The main answer I would provide is that it causes pain and suffering to the baby's family. In the case of an abortion, however, as I have pointed out, most of the time an abortion is done intentionally to relieve future suffering of the couple/ woman. So the same argument for killing a toddler does not make sense when discussing an unborn baby in the mother's womb. 2. Ok... 3. I don't understand the logic here. If a woman is raped, especially concerning statutory rape, most of the time the mother intentionally aborts the child to as she feels she cannot take care of the child well. Having the baby born would be punishing both the mother and the child as the mother has to spend time and money to raise the child while the child may not have a good childhood due to the mother's inability to take care of it sufficiently or as a single-parent. On the other hand, if the man had not raped the woman, there would be nothing wrong. So, aborting the baby is the equivalent of that, as it relieves the mother and child of future stress and suffering, and in both cases, the baby would not be born anyway. No difference. Why I am pro-abortion, or pro-choice, is simply because a mother should have the choice to decide what she wants to do with her life. I'm not saying the baby is part of the mother, though, don't get me wrong. In the case of rape, as I have just explained, an abortion can be necessary to prevent future suffering. The same thing goes for underage sex and couples who can't support a baby. Imagine a scenario where a couple who can't even support themselves financially end up having a baby. We would be saying they were dumb to even want to have a baby given their financial situation. It's only going to add suffering due to the financial burden on their part as well as on the child for it may be neglected due to its parents having to work day and night to support it. So, what they should have done was not have a child until they can ensure a future for themselves and the child. That's exactly what an abortion does. I look forward to Pro's conclusion in the final round of the debate and his rebuttals to my points.
abortion is murder

Pro's rebuttals of Con'S arguments. 1. Con did not answer my statement on why we should not kill babies that can't feel pain,so I will write it again and I expect Con to say what he thinks about it. Imagine that a mother gives her 6 month old baby a drug so that the baby could not feel pain.Then the mother stabs the baby to death.After the mother kills the baby she says that it could not feel pain,since it could not feel pain it is nothing wrong with killing the baby.She also says that the 6 month old was part of her body and that she could do whatever she wants with her body. Do you agree with the mother or do you disagree,if you state that you disagree,you are saying abortion is wrong.here's how... The mother is saying the same arguments that pro-choice people say.It is a scientific fact that unborn babies are just as much alive and human as a 6 month old.Con has agreed to this..It is also a scientific fact that the unborn baby is not part of the mother's body.The only physical connection is the umbilical cord.The umbilical cord gives the baby oxygen and nutrition.The mothers and baby's blood or dna do not mix when the baby is in the mother.They are 2 different living beings not one..The unborn baby has rights to live just like a 6month old baby.If you believe that the unborn baby is living off the mother you are correct..Just like a 6 month old lives off it's mother.Neither the unborn or borned child can take care of themselves. 2. Pain...I will agree with Con that a baby starts to feel pain at 20 weeks. 3. Con pointed out that if a woman has been raped she does not have to have the father's permission to abort. But I Pro believe we should not punish a innocent baby for what it's father has done.
abortion is murder

I shall reply to each of Pro's points sequentially. 1. Pain. I'm sorry but it is a scientifically proven fact that babies do not feel pain before 20 weeks of being in their mothers' wombs. Pro cannot simply rebut this argument by saying "No one remembers what it was like being that young". In fact, some studies show that babies can only feel the sense of touch by 20 weeks, and only actually experience pain by 35 weeks. [1] And, as I have previously mentioned, About 99% of abortions take place before 20 weeks. [2] 2. Pro says "anesthetics may be given to the fetus, but I believe it would not block the pain of being destroyed. " Why would Pro think this? The whole purpose of anesthetics is to minimise or prevent pain from being felt, which it does a good job of. Pro is right when he says that unborn babies feel more pain than any of us would, and that's exactly why doctors use anesthetics during abortions. 3. Abortions are usually carried out with the approval of both parents. There is no reason why a mother would abort a baby for no reason without the father's approval (unless she was raped). Most abortions in the US are carried out are because the couple feel they cannot afford the baby, the couple are concerned the baby will negatively affect their lives, or that they are having trouble with their relationship and want to avoid single parenthood. [3]. For all the cases above, the father of the child has to give consent to the abortion as well as the mother. It is very rare that the mother decides to abort the baby for no reason without the father's consent. [4]Only in the case of rape, in which case the mother has to file a legitimate police report, will the father not have to give consent for the abortion. [4] Therefore my point stands that abortions can relieve couples of future suffering and problems if they think they cannot support the child. Here are my sources: [1] - . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] - . http://www.abort73.com... [3] - . http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... [4] - . http://dadsrights.com... I look forward to further discussion with Pro.