BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Eight reasons why christianity is false

Taken from. . . Atheist Alliance International: There is very little that we can prove in this world. We can look for evidence to support claims people make and when there is robust supporting evidence, And no contrary evidence, We can conclude a claim is probably, But not definitely, True. However, It is easier to prove something is false"all you need is one piece of contradictory evidence. So, What about Christianity? Is there evidence that contradicts, Or casts grave doubt on Christianity? I think there is rather a lot. To keep this article brief, I will describe the falsifying evidence without giving all the sources and details but, Actually, Most of it is so well-known, That even Christians should be aware that this evidence exists. 1. There is clear evidence that prayer does not work despite the Bible promising prayers will be answered. 2. There is clear evidence that humans invent gods. Humans have invented so many gods that the default assumption should be that a god is a supernatural entity invented by humans. Christianity would need solid evidence that the Jewish god is an exception to this rule but there is no such evidence. 3. There is clear evidence that religions and gods are propagated through culture by infecting children, And no evidence that they are propagated by gods. 4. There is clear evidence that Christianity has evolved as human understanding of the world has changed whilst a real, God-given religion, Should never need to change. 5. There is clear evidence that humans on this planet have unequal access to Christianity so, If Christianity were true, Billions would be condemned to hell for no fault of their own. This contradicts the Christian notion that God is omnibenevolent. 6. There is clear evidence that the Bible, Supposedly inspired by God, Is liberally sprinkled with the type of errors we would expect from its Iron Age authors but would not expect from the creator of the universe. 7. Christian theology is incoherent to the point of absurdity. God killing his son so he can forgive our future sin is like me breaking my son"s legs so I can forgive my neighbor in case she ever parks her car on my drive. It is quite ridiculous. 8. There is clear evidence that the arguments presented for the existence of the Jewish God are logically flawed"all of them have been shown to be unreliable. If this were not the case, All honest and intelligent people would accept that God exists, Just as all honest and intelligent people accept that black holes exist. All that is left for Christians is faith and their feelings. We know that faith and feelings can be used to believe in any god at all including non-existent gods. So faith and feelings cannot help us determine if Christianity is true. But that is all Christians have. Rules: Prove christianity to be true. dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
I love Roblox

According to your account you are 48 years old. and making over $150,000 a year. You are asking to play Roblox on a DEBATE site. Something is fishy here. Catfishy almost. Tell me this: are you really a 10 year old who doesn't have friends to ask or call or text or have real social media to see if anyone wants to play Roblox? I admire your effort to get people to play with you but this really isn't the way dude.
I love Roblox

48 years old AND whining. come on man. Im trying to be nice here. I tell you what. I'll play Roblox with you if you give me $100 dollars. That shouldn't be a problem seeing that you make over $150,000 a year. I really don't think that you should be on this site if you are going to ask to play games, mate. Anybody who agrees with me will probably vote for me because they don't want to see this site get filled up with questions that aren't even debatable. I am not saying to leave this site but to ask more debatable questions instead of this wanker question.
Church at Corinth

If you feel safe enough to pass positive judgement on the Corinthians; you should feel safe enough to pass negative judgement on Jim Jones. But for whatever reason you did not respond to this argument I had about the concept of our discussion. This is probably because you believe your Greek word excludes that example from the situation for the church at Corinth. You did not give a source for the word for ignorant people like me but it wasn't too hard to find. after finding one I now see why you would not provide it. http://www.searchgodsword.org... Sometimes in English a word can have multiple levels of use. like love, we like using in romantic context often but it has uses in describing emotions not quite as extreme as well, such as love for family, for friends, or even for strangers. As we can see from the source I gave Greek is not different from English in this since. And for the Christian since of the word, it list these possible uses. 6)brethren in Christ a)his brothers by blood b)all men c)apostles d)Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place Definition d is the one you are saying applies to this passage in scripture. Definition b would apply to my argument for this scripture. For the voter's maybe this is enough to prove for them that my opponent has not prove the condition of the Corinthians souls since he has left no argument to prove adelphos's use in this passage. But if evidence is desired from me that it means my definition then we need look no further than the context of the passage. 1 Corinthians 5:11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone WHO CALLS HIMSELF a brother but is sexually immoral or....... http://www.biblegateway.com... I draw your attention to the capitalized letters so that we can see brother hear is only implied as a self-styled title. Not necessarily a God given title. This fits better with definition b of adelphos and not d. This passage at bear minimum applies to the fornicator giving enough reason to vote Con for this debate, seeing as my opponent has neglected to refute my point that the fornicator is all I need to show may have be lost to prove him wrong. They are some people in the bible that the bible tells us about the condition of there hearts; Josiah, Jehu, David are some examples. But the Corinthians are not an example of who it describes the hearts of.
Church at Corinth

Thank you for your response. Your position as stated is that "brother" does not necessarily mean these people were saved. I disagree. The word for "brother" here is "adelphos", which means "the womb", implying that these people were "birth brothers" or in reality "brothers by the new birth", the spiritual birth. Aside from this , further evidence can be cited from 1 Corinthians that affirms that these people were indeed saved. The strongest verse I will give is chapter 6 verse 6. I quote: "but BROTHER goeth to law with brother, and that before the UNBELIEVERS". Paul here unmistakeably separates believers from unbelievers, with the church at Corinth, including the fornicator being in the "believer" category. According to chapter 5 verses 12 and 13, jurisdiction for judgment by the Church is for BELIEVERS, not unbelievers, further proving that this man was in fact a believer, a saved individual.
Church at Corinth

That is absolutely not my contention. I'm sorry if failed to make it clear. My Contention is you Pro, can not prove those people were not lost or saved, or are saved, whichever grammatical phrasing you like best. I would also like to point out that I could be proved wrong about the Corinth church as a whole and you somehow prove they were saved and you're position you gave in round 1 would still count as wrong if I can only prove that the one man who committed the sin may have not been saved. But I will argue against both cases, the church as a whole in Corinth and the fornicator within it. The evidence you have offered to show we can rest assured that they were saved is that Paul called them brethren. That almost sounds like you think that none of the future residents of hell will have been to church every Sunday, or ever put money in the collection plate, or teach a lesson of Sunday school. I contend that that may not be the case not every one of the seven churches the Lord addressed in Revelations 2-3 came off so well. http://www.biblegateway.com... The Pharisees tithed read there scriptures, prayed in public, and yet Jesus never seemed to have anything good to say about them. I am not saying they are or will be in hell, but they might. But perhaps you believe that since the holy spirit did not urge Paul to call them something else when this scripture was written, regardless of the fact that it was written as only a letter, then it is safe to say the fornicator was not a hypocritical religious person, but true blue in his faith. My Contention hear is that the term 'brother' does not indicate the condition of the man's heart in relationship to God. It is a term that indicates his relationship with his fellow man in the church. Are you willing to say Jim Jones was not a brother? Or that he was a saved man? http://en.wikipedia.org... I like how William Paul Young (author of the shack) put it when describing the importance of Relationship. http://www.cantonrep.com... It is part of how we are to live peacefully hear on earth. But having relationship with someone can not only happen if the two of you are saved. Solomon's mistakes are an example of this. Paul even speaks to the Corinthians about how to deal with the situation when they have relationship with non-believers even stronger than that of a 'brother'. Being able to call each other brother is very important in our Christian lives and a powerful witnessing tool as indicated by Paul, but our success in having this kind of relationship with others does not assure us our salvation or theirs. So Paul can call someone a brother without the condition of there soul being secure. In spite of all that I have said, I want you to know I do optimistically choose to believe they were saved. But Cold logic and knowledge of scripture do not fuel this belief of them. It is no more complicated than my heart wants me to believe that (if you can call something 6 dimensional uncomplicated). But that cold logic is the only thing useful in a debate. I look forward to your response.
Church at Corinth

I assume that since your position is "con" and since the "pro" position is that they were saved, your contention is that they were not saved. You are right when you say "for all OUR knowledge we can not know". We CAN know for sure,however, by what the writer, Paul,said of these people. Let's take a look. First of all,in chapter 5,the fornicator is referred to as a " brother", a term of fellowship in the Lord's Church. Secondly, Paul refers to them in inclusive terms in the following passages in 1 Corinthians; Ch. 1: 10,11,18,30 ( brethren,us). Numerous other times in 1 Corinthians this inclusive term "brethren" is used and is proof that these people were indeed saved.Thank you.
Church at Corinth

Gateroadmusic, welcome to debate.org! Thank you for enlightening me to a controversy I had no idea there were people arguing about. From your tone I sense there are people who are making this claim you know of. In round one you put your stance that those referred to in first Corinthians were saved. So to take up the Con position I must contest this stance. Now I find it hard to pass judgement on the salvation of people I have never met cause they lived and died thousands of years before me, or to pass judgement on those who are alive today for that matter and I don't want the Lord to give me that job either. Can you imagine how much that would stress you out if you found out it was your job to do that? Decide were the souls of others will reside in for eternity? So to support the Con position I will argue that for all our knowledge can help us we can not know if they were or were not lost. But that man and those people may end up in the lake of Fire on the day of judgement. This outcome is just as possible as the outcome of their eternal salvation. Scripture says there will be many who will tell the Lord how they had worked there whole life for him and served him, but he will say to them "I do not know thee" Also Jesus speaks of how you can sort out the good from the bad prophets based on there fruit. The church's ministry is like that of the prophets, and perhaps that means this method can be applied to them also, and if there fruit is any indication in what the passage you referred to; http://www.biblegateway.com... Corinthians 5 There fruit is not looking good. Of course this is not sufficient to safely say that they are lost or not lost. And that is my point But if you had to pick one way or the other for were they go to form a pointless opinion on the matter, the only variables at your disposal to consider lean toward worse place you could go. What the passage does indicate about them is for letting the man stay that could poison there congregation because they allow for it to be okay to openly practice something the bible says is wicked. Is this scripture still relevant today or was this problem the Corinthians alone had? http://ksax.com... You decide. You can not say they were saved from that passage, you can only say they were contaminated. If you want me to cite the passages I gave just ask, otherwise I see no need to look them up since there not unknown verses. Your turn Pro.
Church at Corinth

I contend that the man that had committed fornication and the people that were allowing this to happen were saved . Their " state" had changed, but not their "standing "had not. Please show me the verse in 1 Cor. 5 where the writer condemns these CARNAL Christians AS BEING LOST. For that matter, show any scripture in THE CONTEXT of this letter that proves this. If these people were indeed lost, then Paul would surely be pointing this fact out to them. Please show me where He did such.
Homosexuality is wrong

First, I want to say that this debate, as the category suggests, is satirical, and I do not mean to express genuine homophobia in this debate. The only rule is to have fun. John Mathematics, who is best known for proposing and providing the proof for the "quick maffs" theorem, is also known for establishing the "laws of rights" in his paper "the laws of rights". John Mathematics, in his paper, establishes the following laws about rights 1) the opposite of a wrong is a right 2) two wrongs don"t make a right 3) three lefts do make a right 4) two rights (angles) make a straight (angle) 5) two rights (Wright"s) make an airplane Mathematics also explains that there are 2 kinds of rights, Orville rights and Wilbur rights, however, laws 1-4 do not consider the type of right, unlike to law 5. which requires opposing types of rights (1 Orville right and 1 Wilbur right) to be true. Laws 1, 2, and 4 are particularly useful in proving homosexuality to be wrong. Figure 1.0 proves such using the aforementioned laws Figure 1.0 Proof: 1) 2 rights make a straight 2) The opposite of straight is gay 3) The opposite of right is wrong 4) the opposite of "2 rights make a straight" is "2 wrongs make a gay" 5) 2 wrongs make a gay 6) 2 wrongs don"t make a right 7) since 2 wrongs make up a gay, and 2 wrongs don"t make a right, then gay must be wrong Figures 1.1 and 1.2 also presents a valid proof to the theorem Figure 1.1 Proof: 1) It says gay is wrong in Al Quran 2) The word of Allah may not be questioned 3) gay is wrong Figure 1.2 Given: Gay is wrong Proof: 1) Gay is wrong [given]
Animal testing should be banned

Firstly I never said that animal testing was the only way. I said it was linked to most of the great medical science breakthroughs of the last century. Then my opponent goes on to say the same old "it's inhuman and not effective" point that everyone says about this. So how about we test on humans? That will be inhumane but the thing that mainly matters is that it will be 100% effective. Or we don't test on anything and our medical science research goes at a snails pace. This two options are what my opponent suggests. Yes animals and humans are not the same. You really think that the scientists aren't aware of this? Animals are substitutions for humans. Better to test on a rodent that a human right? Mice are considered the best test subjects because they have 99% similar human genes in them. Then my opponent goes on to say that animal testing is not accurate. Well that's kind of the point of testing. They test until they get it as accurate as possible. If they tested on humans it would be accurate but so far nobody's signed up to be tested on. Not testing on animals will slow down the advances of medical science research.
Animal testing should be banned

I thank my esteemed opponent for her quick reply. Before I begin on my rebuttals and substantive, let me start with showing you how I will convince you that Animal testing should be banned. I will prove to you that animal testing is inhumane and ineffective, and whatever my opponent will have you believe, The disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Now, I will start with my rebuttals. My opponent has said that there is no other way to experiment to aid in Scientific breakthroughs, and said that animal testing have 'no cons to humans'. However, there are other more accurate, cheaper and faster methods compared to animal testing. I will touch on these alternatives in the later rounds. She also mentioned that animal testing has no cons to humans. However, According to Cruelty Free International, out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests. Hence, it shows that it may pose danger to humans. I will cover examples of such consequences later on in my points. Now, for my substantives. 1. The human anatomy and body structures differ greatly from animals. This could cause erroneous information to be obtained when we apply animal diseases to human diseases and drug responses. 2. Animal testing is ineffective. due to time constraints, I will continue my arguments in the next Rd.
Animal testing should be banned

Animal testing should be banned. And then we should start testing on who? Humans? Like any human would allow that. Obviously those who disagree with animal testing don't like the fact that animals are being tested on but they have completely disregarded the fact that human lives have been saved by testing on animals. Who else are we suppose to test on? Other humans? It comes down to three choices, we either stop animal testing and medical science slows down by a long shot, we stop animal testing and start testing on humans which would probably speed up medical science, or finally we just stick to animal testing. There are no cons to humans when it comes to animal testing unless you're extremely obsessed with good morales. Firstly animal testing has aided in the process of finding cures. If there was no animal testing, medicine as we know today would not be the same. Even the simplest things like a cut could have killed you if it weren't for animal testing. Animal testing has played a role in every major medical advance in the last century. Take that away and imagine how slow our medical advances would be. Many would die before we even found a cure. Is that really worth saving a couple of animals. Insulin was discovered by the use of animal testing. Without it, many people with diabetes would be in trouble. More than 80% of animals tested are mice an other rodents. 0.15% of animals tested are monkeys. Is a rodents life really worth more than the hundreds of thousands of human lives that it could save? http://www.pro-test.org.uk...
The Federal Reserve

Good day. This is the first debate on my account "TheLogicalModerate", but I am already experienced with this from a previous account - which is deactivated - so do not consider me as a newcomer. I would like to debate the issue of the Federal Reserve system. I will argue against it, while my opponent will argue in favor of it. In order for this debate to be fair, serious, and effective, I will set up some rules that I expect my opponent to acknowledge and accept upon taking on this debate with me. Rules:1. There will be no forfeitures. If you intend to debate this topic, please make sure you have the time to commit to this. If forfeiture occurs during this debate, the voters will deduct conduct points. 2. Proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation will be used.3. All sources will be cited. The MLA format is preferable, but any format is acceptable. Debate Information: Rounds: FourTime to Argue: Seventy-two hours per roundArgument Maximum Length: Ten-thousand charactersCategory: EconomicsVoting Period: One MonthVoting Style: Open VotingRounds:Round One: My opponent will accept the debate and acknowledge the rules.Round Two: Both my opponent and I will make our opening arguments.Round Three: My opponent and I will provide rebuttals and additional arguments.Round Four: We will make any last rebuttals and concluding paragraphs here.
The winner of debates on this website should be decided when someone votes

I have done multiple researches by looking through comments! I also have been asked to use debate.org for MULTIPLE class projects as an AP student. Yes you do get anxious and for me that is a bad thing. I think worrying causes a lot of unneeded stress. I think a shorter time will also encourage people to make more friends and tell other friends about debate.org which is a lot of good business for debate.org.
The winner of debates on this website should be decided when someone votes

I think that it is a good thing there are time limits. If there is more time the person or people who created and argues this topic may get anxious. Also, if it is a class project, you would probably need to know sooner! Imagine if you had to wait 20 days for someone to vote and your teacher got you in trouble, when it wasn't even you! This is my opinion and even though you have stated your facts clearly and presentably I think my case is quite stronger and well educated as research has proven my opinions and ideas. You may now rebuttal.
The winner of debates on this website should be decided when someone votes

I have noticed that in this website, there is an amount of time that people can vote. In some debates, people try really hard, but still no votes are made, rendering the debate in a tie. I find this unfair, because some people don't have many connections, lacking the amount of votes that will be made on their debates. So basically, I believe that if the voting period passes the time limit, the winner should not be decided until a vote is made. Con will be against such. Since this is a debate about this website, no sources are required to be displayed. [To voters, please ignore the voting section entitled: "Who had more reliable sources?"] 1st round is acceptance, I am excited to start this debate, and I hope someone votes. xD