BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Since Christians are monotheists, and Mormons are henotheists, they're not Christians

With all due respect to him, I think my resolution is pretty easy to prove. Having said that, I will begin. I will begin by showing Christianity is defined as monotheistic, and then illustrate how Mormonism is not monotheistic, but rather henotheistic - worships one god, but believes other gods exist. Now for the definition of Christianity: Christianity (from the Ancient Greek word ]5;`1;_3;`3;`4;a2;`2;, Christos, a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, Mā""ăM17;, meaning "the anointed one",[1] together with the Latin suffixes -ian and -itas) is a monotheistic[2] religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament. (Wikipedia. org) As you can plainly see, Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Now I will illustrate that Mormonism is not. Mormonism and the existence of other gods: General Authorities teach that there are many gods beyond the LDS Godhead. "I will preach on the plurality of Gods (p.474). .. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us"(p.476). .. Joseph Smith - Mormonism founder History of the Church 6:474 "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. " Joseph Smith - Mormonism founder Ensign, April 1971, p.13-14 "If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds. .. One world has a personal God or Father, and the inhabitants thereof worship the attributes of that God, another world has another, and they worship His attributes. .. " Orson Pratt - Mormon apostle Journal of Discourses 2:345 "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. " Brigham Young - Mormon prophet Journal of Discourses 7:333 "God, angel and similar terms denote merely intelligent beings of varying degree of development. The thought, however, that there is a plurality of gods and other beings of varying grades, is a though of fundamental truth. " John A. Widstoe - Mormon apostle Rational Theology, p.62 "Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and the people thereof, in their turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the ordeals that we are passing through. " Brigham Young - Mormon prophet Journal of Discourses 14:71-72 "But if God the Father was not always God, but came to his present exalted position by degrees of progress as indicated in the teachings of the prophet, how has there been a God from all eternity? The answer is that there has been and there now exists an endless line of Gods, stretching back into the eternities, that had no beginning and will have no end. Their existence runs parallel with endless duration, and their dominions are as limitless as boundless space. " B. H. Roberts - Mormon apostle and LDS church historian A New Witnesses for God 1:476 [Google - 7MB PDF]
Since Christians are monotheists, and Mormons are henotheists, they're not Christians

Definitions: mon"o"the"ism G2;m"nəG6;THēG6;izəm noun the doctrine or belief that there is only one God. [1] Henotheism (Greek ^9;O91;`2; _2;^9;a2;`2; heis theos "one god") is the belief in and worship of a single God while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities that may also be worshipped. [2] Sources: 1. . http://www.google.com... 2. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Social Media is anti-social

Thanks for making this debate! I have been looking to do one for a while now. Good luck. Now to begin. The vast contribution of social media to society, in helping people socialize, vast outweighs the losses, of peoples lives being ruined. Social media has absolutely revolutionized communication, and allows people to socialize from distances where they would be unable able to socialize otherwise. The people whose lives have been ruined by "social media" are merely using this as a source to blame another entity other than themselves. Naturally, abuse of any product will lead to negative effects. People don't lose friendships because of social media, they lose friendships because of bad decisions they made. To blame social media for your problems experienced online, is attempting to avert blame from yourself. Its like saying the fruit industry is making people fat. Of course with abuse of the product, this is an inevitability, but with proper use, and good decisions, social media is truly one of mans greatest and most social inventions. To reiterate, social media is social in the fact that it allows people to communicate from long distances in a very convenient manner. It helps you share what you want other people to see about you. It helps people obtain a social experience by making communication a lot easier. If you think social media is anti social, maybe you are the true anti social.
should we ban zoos. Please use true evidence.

According to The Guardian, police have been accused of unnecessarily shooting many of the animals. They were also seen by zoo staff taking selfies beside lions, tigers and other large animals they had shot. "I couldn't believe what I was seeing," one worker said. "It was like a trophy for them." That is outrageous when animals become extinct we could die because we need the animals to live. I want to thank my compeititor it will be a good fight! Source https://www.vice.com...
The Adam God Theory is heresy

No wonder why you lost most your debates. You are a fraud. A religious zealot who believes that his interpretation of the holy word of god is correct. No else agrees with you. I looked at your profile. You never went to divinity school. You have the crappiest grammar ever. You are a joke. You spit out verses from the bible without explaining them. You are no worse then Karl Marx or Michelle Bachmann. No one is correct. That pride you have will send you straight to that Place when you die.
The Adam God Theory is heresy

My opponent ignored the question at hand. How is Christ Davids son? The genealogy of David declared that Adam was the first man in Davids bloodline. So Adam is the root. That is what actually is written. Man added the rest through religion. Adam took sin upon Himself. And returned virgin born via Mary. Is a bible fact. Please give an intelligent biblical answer. I say you can not. When did God form Himself. saiah 43:10 KJV Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen : that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed , neither shall there be after me.
The Adam God Theory is heresy

My opponent believes that Adam was/is the son of God and therefore God himself. I disagree with this claim because of 2 things. 1. Adam was a man who committed sin. As the book of Genesis eloquently points out, Adam disobeyed God's command not to eat the forbidden fruit. In contrast, the bible clearly says that Christ did not sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). 2. Adam after his death, was not adored, worshiped, or honored. If Adam was/is God, you think he would have been the center of all attention in the Bible. Your turn.
The Adam God Theory is heresy

I will begin with the riddle of Jesus recorded in three different places in scripture. And I appeal to the common sense of the common man. Do you believe your own bible? 1. Is Matthew wrong? Matthew 22:42-46 (KJ 42 Saying , What think ye of Christ? whose son is he ? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying , 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool ? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. 2. Is Mark wrong too? Mark 12:37-39 (KJV) 37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. 38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, 39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: 3. Is my opponent calling Luke a heretic too? Luke 20:39-47 (KJV) 39 Then certain of the scribes answering said , Master, thou hast well said . 40 And after that they durst not ask him any question at all. 41 And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son? 42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool . 44 David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son? 45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, 46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; 47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers : the same shall receive greater damnation. My opponent say heresy. Well where did the only begotten Christ come from. Umbilical cord to umbilical cord. Luke 3:38 The son of Enos the son Seth, which was the son of Adam the son of God. Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent my Angel to testify these things to the churches, I am the root (First man in David's bloodline. ) and offspring of David and the bright and morning star. Rev. 5:5 declares again Christ is the root of David. Who was in Eden? The Garden of God. Ezekiel 28:13 KJV Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created . Ezekiel 31:9 KJV I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him. I will close this round with the word 'formed'. Strongs#3335 squeezing into shape, divine activity,the potter. . http://www.blueletterbible.org...
This House Asserts. That On Balance, Frozen Is Better Than Alice In Wunderland (2010)!

"I will NOT forfeit this debate. lol. I need to get over lazy procrastination." - Ajabi in the first page of the comments section "I need to stop doing this, but not today. I concede, seems like I'll be unable to post a round. :( " - Ajabi, round 1 post
This House Asserts. That On Balance, Frozen Is Better Than Alice In Wunderland (2010)!

Greetings! [For this debate Wonderland will be spelt Wunderland, because it sounds infinitely more fun.] Resolved: This House Asserts. That On Balance, Frozen Is Better Than Alice In Wunderland (2010)!This debate is basically to settle whether Alice in Wunderland is a better movie, or Frozen. Both sides can provide arguments/troll arguments in favor of the movie they deem worthier. I shall be supporting Alice in Wunderland, and Bench will (of course) be supporting Frozen. There is an equally shared burden of proof, and Bench can either go in the first round (I would like that) and leave the last round; or he can accept the debate in the first round. It makes no imperative difference. No super trolling or semantics (making the debate something that its not). No youtube links. Let the games begin!
I will probably lose my first debate on DDO

Thank you for taking the time to answer what is, as has been kindly pointed out to me, a very unoriginal line. .. I find, however, that I cannot agree that your resignation is in any way a loss on your part. As you point out, the winning or losing on these debates is in the hands of the voters. I was not expecting you to resign; you have clearly negated my contention, and leave me no choice but to resign in turn.
I will probably lose my first debate on DDO

Also, welcome to DDO. ======== REBUTTALS ======== "a) As I have never debated on this site before, I am relatively inexperienced at formal debate, at least in this setting. Having read many of the past debates on this site, it is clear that the kind of reasoner who may be reasonably expected to take me up on a debate of this nature are the experienced logic enthusiasts; ergo, I will likely lose. " The voting for debates is as follows: . http://www.debate.org... Who did you agree with before the debate? - 0 points Who did you agree with after the debate? - 0 points Who had better conduct? - 1 point Who had better spelling and grammar? - 1 point Who made more convincing arguments? - 3 points Who used the most reliable sources? - 2 points >My opponent is perhaps right to conclude that he may lose the "convincing arguments" section of this debate because of his inexperience, but that section is only 3 points. There are three more sections that add up to 4 points that has nothing to do with logic or experience. Pro could very welll win those sections and beat Con 4-3. "b) If, my some mischance, I win the argument with my opponent, this will automatically invalidate the contention. Having won, I will not have lost; and thus cannot win. " >This is not a contention. My opponent can get the less votes than me, which would be a loss for him. He can also get more votes than me, which would be a win for him. Regardless if the voting contradicts the contention, Con can either win or lose. ========= CONTENTION ========= 1) I forfeit this debate, including this round and all rounds that follow. I concede. My opponent wins. I lose. Therefore, I have negated the resolution.
I will probably lose my first debate on DDO

First, my thanks to whomever takes me up on this, my first debate on this site. Second, my contention: I will lose my first debate on this site. My opening arguments are: a) As I have never debated on this site before, I am relatively inexperienced at formal debate, at least in this setting. Having read many of the past debates on this site, it is clear that the kind of reasoner who may be reasonably expected to take me up on a debate of this nature are the experienced logic enthusiasts; ergo, I will likely lose. b) If, my some mischance, I win the argument with my opponent, this will automatically invalidate the contention. Having won, I will not have lost; and thus cannot win. This could be fun...
who's better, batman or superman

in order to win this debate i will need to speak like my opponent. AAHEMsuperman is better because is powerful and has powers he has super strength, speed and he is awesome. superman gets more chicks than batman he got lois lane and wonderwoman. Batman lives in a dark cave all day (what a loser) superman had a colorful costume and batman has a black costume like an emo freak. superman gets his power from the sun and he can fly up to the sun and get some mega power bro and that will strengthing him from the kryptonite so he can destroy batman with one punch superman is like a god and has fought gods before so basically superman is master race.
who's better, batman or superman

Batman is clearly better than superman because in the movie, superman was about to die because batman is just that good. when it comes to pulling chicks, he owns a play boy mansion and can have as much parties as he wants. Even though he doesn't want a family, it's because he's trying to not have history repeat itself again. Batman's story was sadder than expected. While on the other hand, Superman's planet got destroyed, but is still able to see his parents that adopted him. Also, he can see his real parents through the crystals they left for him. While Batman can't see them and only has pictures of them and Alfred's word on how great they were. READ AND WEEP NIGGAS!!! :)
Terrorism is a serious threat to the US

Your argument is that Al Qaeda can not do serious harm. My argument is that it is historically evident that they already have. Ask a Russian about how faulty it is to underestimate the opponent. You'll get a mouthful. In history, the number one mistake fallen countries always make is underestimating their opponent. You keep resorting to the "America is too big for terrorism to be a big threat." A serious threat, again, is not defined by the scope only, although scope is important. It is defined by whether or not it would persist if all of the current buffers were eliminated. Yes, it most certainly would. In all curiousity, it would be interesting to find out your view on what is the most serious military threat the US faces today. I'd genuinely like to see a response on that.
Terrorism is a serious threat to the US

Afghanistan, eh? That's your first arguement? Well the defeat of Soviet Socialist Republic of Afghnaistan had to do with a few factors. One, the Soviets were recent invaders. I am sure there are still some Lakota extrmeists pissed off the US, but I think I can say for the most part that people belive DC to be their legitmate governemnt, and the United States is poltically stable. Two, the Taliban actually a sizable percentage of support in Afghanistan, especially in Soviet times (modern estimates tend to beleive that 15% of modern Afghans still support the Taliban). How many supporters of a pro-Al-Quadea government are there in the States? Maybe eight, nine if you include Kucinich? Plus the amount of damage the Muhajeddan were inlficting on the Soviets in Afghnistan amouted to constant battering, not a few isolated incidents. This comparison is very faulty in logic. (this is not to say other regimes, such the ROI may be subject to these dangers, but this topic is about the USA). Yes the stock market did do a little bit of a plummet during the 9/11 attakcs but has since pretty much rebounded. It was not a very lasting thing. Future attacks would no doubt cause the same sort of occurance. A few bombs do constitute a serious threat anyways. America is a big place, a few dozen dead would not in any hurt the nation as a whole, anymore than a gnat can hurt a lion.
Terrorism is a serious threat to the US

Your point: "Hypothetically though, if radical IslamIST terrorists were given free rein over the United States, what really the worst they could do? America is a big country and not about to be destablized or seriously injured by a few bombings" My response: Instead of imagining a hypothetical scenario in which Islamist Terrorists were given free rein of a superpower the size of the US all we have to do is rewind back to the Mujaheeden's victory over the Soviet Union. With conventional weapons and without really, really, big bombs -which according to you is the only kind of bomb that can do serious harm- a rag tag group of Islamists defeated the world's second largest super power. What was the end result, in other words: "what's the worst they could do," as you put it: the worst they did was the establishment of the Taliban in Afghanistan and eventually the intitiation of a global war against not just the United States but Engalnd, Australia, Israel, and on and on. I would describe this as a serious threat, especially considering now in 2007 they have a victory of a super power notched on their belt already. USSR first. US next. Your point: "short of nuclear terrorism which for the moment is unlkily due the lack of access terrorists have to that technogloy, but could come a serious threat overtime)." My response: After the dissolution of the Soviet Union one of the least addressed threats to global security is the admittedly MISSING NUCLEAR WEAPONS from the 'Stans -most of which are Muslim countries. Under the Soviet Union Muslims were subjected to the Atheist Communist government. Yet when countries started to fall off and the USSR disbanded the Muslims in Central Asia began to form their own countries. To this day there is a huge number of unaccounted for nukes from these countries, an issue briefly addressed bu George Bush during the 2004 presidential debate and then not much after. Putin admits this is the case. Most experts agree: if they are anywhere they are on the black market in the Muslim world. I would, yes, describe this as a serious threat. You claim that Islamic Terrorists do not have the means to be a serious threat to America. This is incorrect. September 11th brought our economy to a virtual halt. And the "means" Al Qaeda had was a razor blade, years of planning, and a decent sum of money. Many financiers of Islamic Terrorists are rich. They are supported, in part, by oil rich nations like Iran. All it would take would be 4 simultaneous -modest sized- explosions in DC, NYC, Chicago, and LA. At shopping malls. On a Tuesday evening. They don't need a nuke for that. This would be, indeed, a "serious threat." If no other reason, because America would not be sure when the next attack would come. Crippling the US economy is tantamount to crippling the US. Our power is our economic power. Finally, the anti-US sentiment is not reserved for "some nuts." As we found out in Pakistan in 2002 when the most popular name for a newborn was: Osama. Hmmmm.
Terrorism is a serious threat to the US

Hypothetically, had the Cold War ended up exploding, what would have been the result? Complete devestation of Europe, the destruction the United States, nuclear winter, etc. Overall the effects would have come not far short of destroying the world. Hypothetically though, if radical IslamIST terrorists were given free rein over the United States, what really the worst they could do? America is a big country and not about to be destablized or seriously injured by a few bombings (short of nuclear terrorism which for the moment is unlkily due the lack of access terrorists have to that technogloy, but could come a serious threat overtime). Countires like Pakistan or Iraq may have their citizens terrified to coming out of their houses but America, even without the war on terror would have little statiscal chance of being killed in an attack. Yes I have no doubt some wing-nuts seethe with anger and would love to see the destruction of the so-called Great Satan, but they do not have the means. Anti-US sentiment is strong, but not the number one cocenr amongst most citixnes od the Middle East. They lack the technology, orginzation, and funding to currently offer a serious threat. That is not to say America is not threatened by terrorism, the potential reality of attack has been very likly as was proven by US intelligence. But nothing these could ever unleash in the near future could ever cosntitute a major thrat to the United States as a whole.
Terrorism is a serious threat to the US

Following the tragic demise of 3000 New Yorkers on September 11th, the United States was scared. In attempts to repel futrue attacks they issued a declaration of war on "Terror" and started invading a country that was harbouring The Foundation's masterminds. Who could blame them for that country had just spat in America's face by refusing to cooperate in cathcing the men repsonsible? But for some reason they did not stop it at that. That presidential election one of the major media campaigns done by the Republicans focused on scary TV ads that depicted the threats terrorism poised to America, and why they needed more powers to protect them. This proved very popular in convicing many voters. But was there really any reason to fear? If I lived in a place like Iraq or Chenchenya I might be concerned about terrorism and poltical violence effected my daily life and making me afraid to be out and about. But in North America? Other than 911 there have been no occasions in which terrorism has killed large bouts of people. Statiscally though, 3000 out of 300,000,000 on one year, with the terrorist extremly lucky, is not represent a legetimate threat, only a small incident in the grand scheme of things. The Foundation's bases in Afghanistan were destroyed, and no real damage was actually done to America as a whole. In my country there are 500 murders a year, and we're only a tenth of America's population (and I'm guessing the rate is similiar in the USA). Overall boring old everyday crime has killed far mroe Americans that terrorists, and the threat is not as big as is said be people like Giulani or Bush, they are merely paranoid and have not looked at the sitaution logically.