BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Trinity is Biblical, Jesus is God

well, hello my friend. it seems that you are a religious person. but if you want to prove something about god of Jesus, you can not use bible. you just have to prove it with common sense and logical explanations. if by logic you can prove to me that Jesus is god, i will accept it. well my logic tells me that he was a prophet of god, like Adam, Edris, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Mohammad. and prophets are people who are closest to god, and because of that they show godly attributes like healing the blind, reviving the dead, splitting the sea, ... and all of that is power of god flowing through them. and explain to a person who is not christian, how can you prove trinity? of course with just logic and not use of religious text.
The Trinity is Biblical, Jesus is God

"You avoided, and made no reply to the many Biblical text I gave showing that the Trinity is Biblical and Jesus is God. " well i ask you this: in bible you believe that no man is infallible, and even prophets like Abraham and David have committed sins. and you also believe that bible was not gathered by Jesus during his life and fallible people gathered it after his death. also, the main version of bible which should be in Arabic or Hebrew is not present at the moment. and also, there is a huge likeness between Jesus and Horus or god of wine. and also, you believe in a Jewish person who claimed he has seen Christ (in the time of persecution of Christians by Jews) and Jesus has asked him to make some changes in the religion. and those changes were changes that he hadn't done during his life. that guy had actually killed a christian. those changes were these : 1 - Jesus is God. 2- no need for circumcision. 3. drinking is not taboo in the religion ... these things makes be believe that Jesus is god in the religion of Paul (Poles), not in the religion of Jesus. (you can find historians who believe in this too). and as for the death of Jesus and his shouting that he's not Jesus while being crucified, we believe that the person who tried to betray Jesus and sell him out to Jews (?) was mistakenly crucified at the cross, at that is also a miracle of Jesus, because god made them see his as Jesus or maybe they looked familiar to begin with and there is a less miraculous explanation. Quran: " That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- "
The Trinity is Biblical, Jesus is God

This debate isn't about Islam, or the Quaran, but I'd happily debate you on that if you want. You avoided, and made no reply to the many Biblical text I gave showing that the Trinity is Biblical and Jesus is God. Yes, I get that you think men could make up the Bible, like Muhammad made up the Quaran. You make lots of statements without providing any evidence, then expect me to debate you on all those points? Why waste my time? I proved that Jesus died on the cross with historical references from Tacitus and Josephus who were not Christians, but who support the testimony of Peter, Paul, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all from the 1st century in which Jesus lived. So the earliest, best available evidence for Jesus says that he died on the cross. The Quaran has no support from the 1st century for its claim that Jesus didn't die. I could add that most professional historians today agree that Jesus died during the reign of Pontius Pilate just as the Bible says. "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] and they consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus.[19][20] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean, Jewish rabbi[21] who preached his message orally,[22] was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[23] In the current mainstream view, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher and the founder of a renewal movement within Judaism, although some prominent scholars argue that he was not apocalyptic.[24][25] After Jesus' death, his followers believed he was resurrected, and the community they formed eventually became the Christian Church.[26" https://en.wikipedia.org... This shows that what the Bible says about Jesus' crucifixion is a historical fact, which contradicts the Quaran's claim that Jesus didn't die. If only one lie is in the Quaran, then it isn't the word of God. Thus, I have shown that the Quaran isn't God's word, do please stop comparing your book to the Bible. Muhammad split the moon? Nonsense. Proof? None! You believe Jesus went to heaven. All the Gospels say he did. So he must still be alive after his resurrection. This vindicates his claims to be the I AM, the Final Judge of the World, the Good Shepherd, the one who hears our Prayers, to be God!
The Trinity is Biblical, Jesus is God

well it seems to me that you're avoiding the questions i asked. and as a Muslim i truly accept that god gave his prophet jesus a book so that people could follow, in Quran it's named Enjil (not sure whether it's written that was though). i don't accept the bible that you have right now though that's written by other fallible people who could just make stuff up about it. and when i used bible, i made this point that there are a lot of contradictions is your bible as well that prove jesus wasn't god. and i ask you, why do you worship god in the first place? is it to satisfy your ego, or is it to be able to go to heaven? and if god were to send another prophet after jesus and were to say to you to follow him, would you follow or would you not?
The Trinity is Biblical, Jesus is God

to answer your first paragraph, i can argue that since Bible is supposed to be a divine book, then everything in it should be logical and make sense. after all, if we see a wise and knowledgeable person writing a book, we expect the book to reflect his wisdom and knowledge and make perfect sense. imagine the amount of logic that should exist in the book written or cited by god. if it's illogical and we believe that god is all-knowing, then we must question the origin. to question your second paragraph, i can say that since i know god exists and can logically prove it, and looking that the creation, i can prove that he has wisdom, i believe that he should have prepared a way for the people who have fee will, to seek him and fight their true purpose in life. because creating something who serves no purpose, is not something a wise being would do. therefor, i believe that throughout history, there had to be people who were selected and prepared by god to teach people and guide them to the right path. and since not everyone can be swayed with reason alone, those people had to show people things that ordinary people could never do, and that is where miracles come forth. and about the type of miracles, it had to be something that could impress people the most. and the time of Jesus, was a period of illnesses and blights so healing the ill and reviving the dead could impress more than anything. just like Moses who lived in an era of witchcraft, therefore performing miracles that shows the difference in power would be the best way to persuade people that he was a messenger of god. and if just raising from the dead or reviving the dead means someone is divine, take Seven Sleepers who slept for 300 years and then were revived by god, or Uzair who Jewish people believe also to be son of god. well, if i were to use religious text, i would say that Quran which is not changed after 1400 years claim that Jesus was not son on god. and Muslims believe that he was not crucified but god said to him ""O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute." and well since I'm new to this site, i kinda felt like you were challenging me to this debate, so i posted my answer. if this level of answer does not satisfy you i can forfeit.
True Altruism can exist.

Well, this is the final round. I should pretty much win by default, which is too bad, but I'll put forth my idea of first-act altruism. In the example of an atheist anonymously donating money to charity, the only selfish motivation anti-altruists can find is the "good feeling" one gets from such an act. True, a "warm neural glow" results from such giving. If you are generous, you feel better. However, this must be a conditioned response. You do not simply know that you will feel good if you do such an act. It is doubtful anyone has told you "give to charity and you will feel happy. " So, for that very first time you do something good for someone else in such a way, there can be no selfish motivation for a good feeling because you do not know it will occur. Therefore, the first such act is altruistic: first-act altruism. It's a shame I couldn't use any of my other arguments. I'll repost this debate sometime.
True Altruism can exist.

Hello opponent. Thank you for such a debate. I argued something similar on my old account. Selfishness via wikipedia - Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. I'm arguing that true altruism is impossible. Since my opponent has the burden of proof, he must explain why true altruism is true in the following rounds. I will tear down his arguments before giving my own. If I successfully tear down all of his arguments, since he has the burden of proof, I should win by default. However, I will present my own arguments. I yield my arguments until the following round
True Altruism can exist.

My argument is that true altruism can indeed exist. By true altruism, I mean doing good acts without any selfish motivation whatsoever. This is the opposite of egoism and different from reciprocal altruism, which says that people may do good acts in order to get good acts done for them in the future. I argue that true altruism is possible. A good act without an ounce of selfish motivation is quite possible. A good act can be defined as an act that is beneficial to someone other than oneself. I will base my arguments off of actions of human beings in the past and present, natural human tendencies, personal accounts (which are indeed valid in such an argument), and hypothetical situations based in reality. Thank you to whomever takes up this debate. My actual arguments will come in the following rounds.
Drugs should regulated and distributed by governments, not gangs.

I'd like to inform the audience and my opponent that it has come to my attention that my opponent is plagiarizing articles from drugpolicy.org for both round debates. It would also come to my attention that his plagiarized argument lacks sources and contradicts my arguments without actually rebuting any of my key debates.I would like to void round 2, and if my opponent can make his own debate for round 3 rebuting my arguments or creating his own, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Drugs should regulated and distributed by governments, not gangs.

The drug war is responsible for hundreds of billions of wasted tax dollars and misallocated government spending, as well as devastating human costs that far outweigh the damage caused by drugs alone. The United States" unrivaled incarceration rate is a constant financial drain, causing an immeasurable loss in workforce productivity, and puts a strain on scant legal and law enforcement resources. While the federal government spends billions trying to reduce the demand for illegal drugs through prohibition, treatment consistently proves to be a more effective, cheaper and more humane way to lower the demand for illegal drugs. The war on drugs has also driven the drug trade underground, creating a violent illicit market that is responsible for far too many lost lives and broken communities. Organized crime, gangs and drug cartels have the most to gain financially from prohibition, and these profits can easily be funneled into arms smuggling, violence and corruption. The devastation wrought by Mexican cartels in particular has made it far too costly to continue with a failed prohibition strategy. Prohibition is also to blame for an enormous opportunity cost. Despite the tax revenue and economic opportunities that a regulated marijuana market could generate, our laws still prevent the legal sale of the nation"s largest cash crop. Combined with the savings from ending prohibition enforcement, marijuana taxation could generate revenue for federal and state governments.
Drugs should regulated and distributed by governments, not gangs.

I will be fighting against the motion to distribute and regular drugs by the government rather than by gangs. Drug Use and ViolenceMy first argument would be stating that there actually is a connection between drug use and violence. A study done in 2008 showed that 40% of arrested people at the test site were under the influence of marijuana (1). Among state prisoners who were abusing drugs, 53% had at least three prior sentences to probation or incarceration, compared to 32% of other inmates. Drug dependent or abusing state prisoners (48%) were also more likely than other inmates (37%) to have been on probation or parole supervision at the time of their arrest (1). Black Market DrugsYou also make mention of criminal violence in the underground drug market. Official estimates put the number of people killed in drug-related violence since late 2006 at about 60,000 people. Victims include drug gang members, security forces, and innocent bystanders (2). However, according to a UN report, 200,000 people die per year from abuse of heroin, cocaine, and other drugs (3). These statistics make it clear that drug prevention is a much larger issue than the violence caused by the distribution of illegal drugs itself. Drug ConvictionsWe can also come to the agreement that conviting drug users rather than helping them is not the best solution, however it has been made clear by the ONDCP that they are making great investments in anti-drug media, support programs, and promoting the placement of drug abusers in rehabilitation rather than incarcerating them (1). While we can both agree that the amount of people in prison because of drug convictions is absurd, I would like to state that legalizing drugs even as minor as marijuana which placed 11,406 teens in the ER in 2010 (4) is not the solution. ConclusionThe common argument that it should be legal as long as it doesn't harm other people is ludicrous. If you legalize something that permits people the easy access to harm themselves, you will undoubtedly end up with a physically and mentally weaker society. Sources(1) . http://www.whitehouse.gov...(2) . http://www.bbc.co.uk...(3) . http://www.drugfree.org...(4) . http://www.drugabuse.gov...
Drugs should regulated and distributed by governments, not gangs.

Drug enforcement officials often cite drug-related violence as a reason that drugs must be eliminated from our society, but it is actually the system of drug prohibition that causes much of the violence. Just as alcohol prohibition allowed organized crime to flourish in the 1920s, drug prohibition empowers a dangerous underground market that breeds violent crime throughout the United States and the world. The illegality of drugs has inflated the price, and thus the profit, of drugs substantially. With it, the competition for drug markets has intensified, often through violence. If we want to solve our nation"s drug problems, we need to focus less on obtaining convictions and more on preventing addictions. We should be treating people with addictions, not handcuffing them.The United States is home to less than 5 percent of the world"s population but nearly 25 percent of its prisoners, in part because of the overly harsh consequences of a drug conviction. Many of the 2.3 million people behind bars (and 5 million under criminal justice supervision) in this country are being punished for a drug offense. If every American who has ever possessed illicit drugs were punished for it, nearly half of the U.S. population would have drug violations on their records.
Atheists Should Be Pantheists

"I argue that Atheists should become Pantheists on the basis that psychologically and philosophically, Pantheism is superior to Atheism." Then you lose in a scholars mate, simply because you miss the atheist raison d'"tre. It is not psychological nor philosophical solace that the atheist seeks nor desires. It is cold, hard, objective and empirical facts pertaining to the nature of existence that floats the atheist boat. If you could objectively prove that all is god to an atheist, then he would become a pantheist, but until that time comes you are simply asking the atheist to discard his own rationale and accept just another unknowable, unprovable concept. And he would have to, in the absence of said evidence, take it on 'faith'. Adopt a belief. Your position is untenable I'm afraid.
Atheists Should Be Pantheists

Thank you for accepting the challenge, Dann. However, just to clarify, this is not so much that they should not be Atheists and instead become Pantheists in the understanding that they can't be Atheists. The debate is about why they should become Pantheists, and denounce Atheism. This is not about them not having the right to be Atheists or not. So I am not sure that you are a good candidate for this debate, but perhaps you can give it your best shot speaking for the Atheist? Anyways. On to my opening statement. Let me elaborate on what this Pantheism is that I am arguing for Atheists to consider: The All that is, is God, every individual thing, is an aspect of God. This means that you are not you, an individual, but you are also your friends, your family, your society, even creation itself. You're merely an individual aspect, one of which, if it should even be completely erased from the timeline, never have existed, will most definitely bring about a different creation. Everything that makes you the person you are is the result of the influences and factors of your past and present biology and genetics, environment and society, thoughts, speech and actions. This is a fact that really can't be argued against, though anyone can certainly try. Take away just one of those factors from the timeline of your creation, and you're a different person for sure. What does this mean to the Pantheist? This means that your mother is you, your father is you, your friends are you, your enemies are you, the animals are you, the environment is you. And what is the one thing we never want to hurt? Ourselves. We never intentionally do anything to hurt ourselves, depressed folk excluded. Not only does it mean you see everything as a piece of yourself, this belief also ingrains into your mind a deep reverence for all that is. Why call all that is, god? The concept attached to the word "god", no matter what language, makes it the most powerful word and term you can use for all that is. Giving obvious psychological benefits. Because this is a religion, it has the power to unite on a level that can't be seen in any other kind of organization. And not only does it have a great potential to unite people under this beautiful idea, as a religion, a community, it will propagate this message and teaching to our youth, keep it alive. And so many other benefits are brought about from it being a religion. Next, the spirituality. Pantheism offers a deep, rich and vast range of spiritual practices, many of which have studies that show clear benefits, such as meditation. And you have a vast and global amount of traditions, which are Pantheistic, to choose said practices from, many of which help deepen your understanding of the universe, the Pantheists understanding. Speaking of the traditions that are out there, the foundations of Pantheism are stronger. Let me name just a few faiths with Pantheistic tendencies. Buddhism, Vedanta, Neoplatonism, Sufism, and Gnosticism.
Atheists Should Be Pantheists

I argue that Atheists should become Pantheists on the basis that psychologically and philosophically, Pantheism is superior to Atheism. Pantheism within this debate is defined as the belief in all that is, is God, and that every individual thing within the universe is an aspect of God. There is no conflict with science in Pantheism, as there is no personal God who makes judgments of heaven and hell. And I stress that because there is no real conflict with science, that this debate is not about God's existence per say, but which philosophy/belief system is more ideal, superior. And because there is no personal God, all arguments trying to disprove a personal God are invalidated. The debate will consist of opening statements, and then the rebuttals
Parents should ban their children from the use of smartphones

It is one thing to cite or use a source to help give your argument some backbone but the Con side has simply copied and pasted from the article cited. This is not the conduct of a good debater. Now the main part of Con sides is dealing with night time use of phones, however, the resolution deals with phone use in general, thus I will debate that resolution. There is a question why parents would ban the use of a phone if they are most likely the ones that payed for it or pay for the plan. If that is not the case, it seems the child would be in the right to use the phone as they please. There might be negative outcomes of use, but as a we grow up, we must learn to take responsibility. Also most peoples issues with kids on their phones are just silly. "Kids do not talk one on one." "It hurts there eyes and attention." They said the same thing about new papers, about radio, about tv, about the internet. Old people look at change and are scared on a evolutionary basis. Smartphones shrink the internet down to a portable device that allows access to infinite information. I simply say that any small negative is subjective but the access to information on the spot is objectively a better. I would like to say again to voters that the con side has plagiarized his argument, and his central points are build on opinion and not fact.
smoking cigarettes is stupid

my resolution was to show that smoking is a stupid choice to make. you have conceded that there are obvious better decisions. well since it's stupid to go against the obvious better decision, then smoking is a stupid choice. i have proven my point. i never set out to prove that there are no benefits of smoking. in fact i listed a couple benefits in my first post. drinking urine can be called good because it can temporarily help quench your thirst, but it's stupid to drink urine when you could drink water. by your logic, drinking urine is a good choice to make.