BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Old Testament/Law of Moses was done away by the death of Jesus Christ

Affirmed: The Old Testament (i.e. the Law of Moses), the covenant which God made with Israel through Moses, was abrogated and taken away at the death of Jesus Christ and hence no longer operational from then on. The purpose of the Old Testament or Law of Moses was to bring Christ into the world " Gal. 3:23-25; which it did. Therefore, once that primary purpose had been "completed" there is no more use for that covenant. See also Rom. 7:1-7 & 10:4. Jesus Christ affirmed that it was not His intent to "destroy", "overthrow" or "throw down" the Law of Moses, "but to fulfill it" " Matt. 5:17. Once anything has been "fulfilled" or filled full, it has been completed. Since the Old Testament was one of a "fleshly" nature; in that it 1.) Included only those of a specific physical, genealogical lineage, 2.) Was identified by physical circumcision, and 3.) Observed with physical animal sacrifices and certain other outward conduct, it was fulfilled in the body of Jesus Christ, so that which is spiritual " heritage " Jn. 3:3-7, Rom. 8:14-17 and Gal. 3:26-29, identity " Rom. 2:28-29. Col. 2:11-15, and sacrifices and observances " Jn. 4:23-24, 1 Pet. 2:5, Gal. 5:16-25. Therefore, since the righteousness provided in the New Testament (i.e. the Covenant of Jesus Christ) cannot be achieved or accomplished through the Old Testament (or Law of Moses), then the Old Testament has been abrogated by the death of Jesus Christ and since, is no longer operational.
The Christian God does exist.

Closing Points: Grace be to you, through Jesus. Bless God for He knows every star, and knows every planet, and names them Bless God for the chance to be being and the astonishing odds. Bless God for your temple for you have equal partner. Bless God for the nature and atonement of the earth. Bless God for the animals and food He provides. Bless God for the plants for the provide taste and comfort. Bless God for that you know that you exist and have an actual life to amaze at his creation. Yet other men like you try to undermined Him and throw away His light because you cannot see? Just because you cannot see the light of His glory you shall mock Him and betray Him? Be open to the others changing the weak and innocent to mock Him as well? How dearth he to do to God? But I know none for only a sinner like you, I believe but do wrong and you and me both deserve Hell for eternity, we took His life and threw it away. I cannot Judge for this is the law of the messiah, and of the prophets before Him. Quick thing for the floor, if you live in America you kind of need to listen up. "The Bible is the Word of God According to the United States Congress. 1983 declared the 'Year of the Bible'" *Sources: Ray Comfort 'Scientific Facts in the Bible'
The Christian God does exist.

The main issue is this and I will keep it short because Con forfeited the last round. There is little proof for that my God exists like all other religions except one small difference. My God sent his only son down to Earth. A Jewish peasant that was here and gone like a flicker of light. Yet in only three years of public ministry and two thousand years later He has got 2.2 B followers. My God has living flesh proof and the sad part is there are four canonical gospels and some 46 other gospels of His life. Seen and watched by hundreds and even thousands. His devout followers traveled from India to Italy converting hundreds of thousands of men women and children. Also 100% proof He was crucified for what? That answer isn't given but we should all know why. Hope you hear from you.
The Christian God does exist.

I understand that there is no possible way I can support a full BoP of the Christian God just like you couldn't do the same for atheism. But let me rebut and argue some. Figure 1.8 Model of the Oscillating Universe THEORY. Take that word theory, the"o"ry G2;THēərē,G2;THi(ə)rē/ noun noun: theory; plural noun: theories a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. "Darwin's theory of evolution" synonyms:hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; https://www.google.com... Look at the synonyms are any of them called fact, or truth. No, so your first point is invalid because it is not a scientific law. I am very interested in your graph that shows what and how much of our universe can contain life. "Pro makes it sound like all the universe is fine-tuned for life, but only a profoundly small percent of the universe can support life." You are very correct about the .03% of course. The universe is not made for life nor life to travel through.It is a complete vacuum that kills any human almost instantly if enter unprepared. Also objects like planets and stars are not a hop, skip, and a jump yet hundreds even thousands of light years away. You see even or .03% is also very lucky because on our planet even a micro change in gravity or our elector-magnetic field would cause life to go extinct. Also we are very lucky to be a perfect position from our sun and our sun's size as well. As well as with the moon and the control it has. You can also say we humans are very lucky to be alive because we were the one in a couple million sperm cells that reached the egg first. All just to life on a planet like none other in the cosmos. Arguments: Science is support and very well in the Bible. The earth hangs on nothing, the Bible made it clear that the Earth has nothing supporting it just floated in dark space. Around 1500 BC and beyond it was commonly thought that a beast or giant man was limiting the planet up yet the Bible debunked this thought long before we knew the whole truth. "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7 Job itself is a very interesting book when look for future advancements. "Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, "Here we are"?" Job 38:35 Sounds like radio waves to me or the technologies of phones or some other. Many famous people strongly believed in the Bible and the faith yet still became amazing scientists. Newton, Einstein, Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, etc. I await for your response Con. http://www.godandscience.org...
The Christian God does exist.

I am fine with your decision and glad to start off with my arguments. What can Science tell us? Science can explain a lot of great things, like proper foods and nutrition. Science gives us medicine and new inventions to improve daily life. Science also tries to explain big questions. Like... Who made us Why are we here How did all 'this' come to be. Science tries to answer and give them credit they have tried. But science is silent on the true issues. What created the Big Bang? Nothing -> Something is illogical and just a true guess to something not with the truth. Science cannot and will never figure out the answers unless they became Christians. Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton were very religious, Jewish and Christian (Protestant) respectively. Albert described his job as to figure out God's thoughts. We look at a word, perfect for life, and degrees off balance or a few miles change of speed, chaos. The atmosphere has just barely good enough composition to sustain. Our Sun's power and distance along with the Moon is perfect. We have a perfect world. I believe in Evolution, but only because it supports my God. For Evolution to take place or happen you must have something making a logical decision to change. In order to make a decision to adapt or improve yourself you must be intelligent or be backed by an intelligent being. Also you often makes a case about omnipotence. Please explain your issues again and I will get make with answers come round 3. I will leave it short and await.
Does the Christian God Exist

This debate challenge is for Kasmic who indicated that he would want to debate me on the existence of the Christian God. The resolution is "Does the Christian God Exist?" -Pro argues that the Christian God does exist. -Con argues that the Christian God does not exist. Rules... Round 1: -Pro gives definitions and sets up debate -Con accepts the debate (acceptance only). Round 2: -Pro gives opening argument -Con gives opening argument...no rebuttals. Round 3: -Pro responds to what Con argued -Con responds to what Pro argued Round 4: -Both debaters conclude their arguments and finish responding to what each other wrote. Definitions: Christian God-The God described by the Bible. Exist-have objective reality or being (https://www.google.com...).
Battlefield or COD

I accept. Before we begin let me define a few terms. Keep in mind that any definitions set forth in round one may not be argued. Battlefield - The piece of ground on which a battle is or was fought. Cod - Any of several soft-rayed food fishes of the family Gadidae, especially Gadus morhua, of cool, North Atlantic waters.[2] Fun - Something that provides mirth or amusement. [3] Subjective [4] Arguments and Rebuttals shall be coming in the upcoming rounds. [1] www.dictionary.com/browse/battlefield [2] http://www.dictionary.com... [3] www.dictionary.com/browse/fun [4] http://www.creatinghappiness.in...
military payment

In closing I would like to say thank you for debating in a calm and polite manner as well. I am not vacant of care for armed forces personnel as I am one of the only men in my family to have never served in them; I understand the importance and agree that the pay is too low. Now let me close after addressing a few of your final points.Our position as the superpower of the world is debatable, but I would tend to agree; however, this still doesn't require us to be accountable for 41% of the world's military spending. We have more military spending than the next fifteen countries combined and all of them are allies. I think we need a strong military, but there is a very important difference between a strong military and an over-inflated one. We can clearly have a strong and potent military by spending less than we do.Next point to address is the point about taking money from athletes to pay off the debt Obama has accrued for the US. First point to make here is that the government has no say in how much athletes get paid. Not only would it be unethical to take pay from athletes to pay off national debt, but it would also be a ridiculous infringement on the rights of those athletes to keep what they are paid. Athletes are paid what they are paid because Americans by and large continue to watch sports on TV, buy sports memorabilia and spend their salaries on sports related goods. If people stopped watching sports on TV by 50% then the pay professional athletes receive would be reduced severely. On the point of Obama putting the country into debt, the statement made is almost entirely untrue. A large part of our debt comes from military spending and entitlement programs; not to mentions the two wars we continue to fight that were put on the credit card so to speak. This was a problem Obama inherited not created and it is unfair to blame it on him.To close I would like to say that I think military personnel could be paid more and I would have no issue with that. In a perfect world people would be paid in proportion to their measurable contribution to society; however, this is not a perfect world and we need to be realistic here. There are 1,138,154 enlisted members of the US Armed Forces and only 12,450 professional athletes in the US. The average salary for a professional athlete is $75,760; there would be no way for our government to create a situation where that was the average salary of US Armed Forces. Thank you for a polite debate.
military payment

I agree that we do spend a lot and I thank that you are explaining in a calm manner. But we spend a lot of money because we are the world super power. we have been the world super power since t the 1860s after the civil war, which I hope we all know about it. if not, it was the war against slavery bet tween the north and the south. as I was saying, since we are the world super power we should have a good military. But putting the military aside for a second, if we took a small portion of every athletes salary, we could pay off some of the debt Obama has put its in. Now going back to the military, the marines are usually the first branch in, but they get paid less than any other branch of the military. Also, only 25% of marines come back alive, and the ones who live are mostly psycho for the war and have random flashbacks. so I believe marines should have a better salary.
military payment

Let me first say thank you for proceeding in a timely manner.First I take your argument to say the following: The military is necessary for the USA's continued existence as a free country and thus should be paid more than it currently does. I would like to say I agree in full with what I understand your argument to be saying, but what makes me continue to disagree with you are some of the finer points regarding the military. What we are currently spending on our military is absolutely ridiculous. The US currently accounts for 41% or two-fifths of the world's military spending. The next three after us are China, Russia and the United Kingdom; all of those are allies of ours and their spending goes as follows: 8.2%, 4.1% and 3.6% of world military expenditure. We are drastically overpaying into our military. A simple solution to the problem of undesirable wages for armed forces personnel would be to decrease the number of people in our military. Let's say we decrease the amount of people we have by 5%, we could then spread the money they would have been paid amongst the rest of the military; imagine if we decrease by 10, 15 or even 20% the number of people in our military, we could increase the average pay quite substantially. The people who are no longer in the military could find a job in the private or public sector using the skills they gained while serving in the armed forces. The more important thing to note here is that we are unrealistically spending money on a military that shouldn't be as large as it is. If the goal of our military is to preserve peace then we are still overpaying. The most peaceful countries in the world are New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Sweden, Japan and Canada. This is all according to the Global Peace Index of 2009 where the US receives a rating as average in terms of how peaceful we are as a country. Their spending on their military is much less than ours yet they achieve great levels of peace; this suggests that the military isn't necessary to create peace in a society.I would also like to address the point of a potential take-over of the US. There is no current evidence suggesting that the US will be taken over by anyone anytime soon. We have the largest and most advanced military in the world and reducing our number of troops or aircraft carriers will not make us probable to be invaded. The US in the world stage is viewed as an overly-militaristic country that interferes too much with the business of other nations. I am not in favor of eliminating or abolishing the military, but we as a country need to come to a realization that having more guns than everyone does not make us look strong or make us any safer, what it does it make us look overly aggressive to everyone else.Source 3: http://www.globalissues.org...;
military payment

Hello and thanks to thewhitespoon for posting this debate. As this is my very first debate I will be doing the best I can. Since there isn't a clear or defined structure I will proceed as best as possible.I'd like to start by saying that my argument will take the form of a logistical and economical argument. My argument will be primarily stated as: While the members of our armed forces provide a service of greater importance to our country than professional athletes do, it would be impossible to pay armed forces personnel the average salary equivalent to that of professional athletes.Since this is the first round I will be quite brief in making my point. My first source of information will be the May 2012 report on occupational employment and wages from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; the second source of information comes from the Department of Defense on February 28, 2013.Source 1: http://www.bls.gov...Source 2: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil...I'd like to end this round by saying that I completely and fully understand the importance of our armed forces and I think that paying them with a respectable salary is extremely important; however, their amount they are paid must make sense logistically and economically. It wouldn't be reasonable to pay all E-3's the salary of Payton Manning or even of a standard defensive lineman. While I do think the pay for military personnel is a little too low I also realize that it is unreasonable to think they should be paid a higher salary than professional athletes. In a perfect world everyone could be paid in proportion to their measurable contribution to society, but we don't live in a perfect world and we must frame all of our arguments within the context this reality.
Resolved: Atheism is Not a Religion

"If organization is not a prerequisite of religion then I ask why are there any religions? " The same reason there is atheism. Because the populous is given a sum of imperfect evidence, people influence their decision, and they add faith into the mixture and violia, religion is born. Furthermore there doesn't need to be organization in religion because you did not define religion to be such. Additionally many people claim to be of the Christian religion do not attend religious exercises, and instead privately worship. Many thousands of religious fanatics across the globe do not attend organized worship activities but instead hear, the impartial evidence surrounding christianity and adopt the belief. Some feel so strongly that they practice martydom for the belief. Prime examples would be Christians living in countries where Christianity is illegal. "He made the argument that because Atheism revolves around a single common belief that it involves faith. " No I made the argument that Atheism is a belief (given by opponent) The belief has no conclusive proof (given by my opponent). Faith is a belief that has no proof (definition given by opponent). Thus Faith is used in belief of atheism. "This is untrue because one of the accepted definitions of 'belief' is: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence. " If my opponent had any problem with my acceptance of one of his uses of the definition of "belief" he should have argued it in the second round, or not originally defined "belief" as such, instead of bringing it up in the conclusive round in which no new points are to be brought up and is mainly a time to refute 2nd round arguments. Due to these points I will ignore my opponent's new argument about my acceptance of his definition of belief. "Beliefs do not need proof. " Then my opponent and I agree. Beliefs do not need proof. This furthers my point that atheism uses faith as my opponent defined faith to be: "A belief in something in which there is no proof. " Belief is not faith. However one uses faith to validate a belief. ""The Bible" where God has a conversation with a prophet where the prophet asks why God doesn't just show himself to the world. God responds by saying that he will never do this because he wants those who follow Him to follow Him because they have faith that He exists. ." Exactly, so you agree that if God were to reveal himself then faith would be gone. Thus even if religion holds the (as my opponent stated in R2) the same impartial proof, and complete proof were to remove their faith, then by the same reasoning, atheism will use faith until it is (if ever) revealed that no deity exists. My opponent (mainly by his own definitions) has shown that atheism is a religion. Because atheism has no complete proof, then it utilizes faith, because it is a belief and uses faith, it is a religion.
Resolved: Atheism is Not a Religion

Con stated: "I would also like to accept my opponent's first contention that atheism is not an organized religion. " [I can only assume that this was not what my opponent meant to say because this statement basically concedes defeat to me. Given that the definition indirectly states that religion is organized. This statement also does not illustrate what my first contention stated. ] "Belief in something in which there is no proof is the definition my opponent provided for faith. My opponent has already provided that atheism is a belief in his second contention. Furthermore there is no proof that a deity doesn't exists as there is no proof that a deity does exist. Therefore by his own definition, atheism includes the principle of faith. Thus since atheism is a system of beliefs and includes faith it is a religion as defined by my opponent. " [This statement confuses me a little bit. My definition of belief has no relation to the definition of faith, the definition of faith references belief. In the definition of belief it references evidence which is the key to my third contention. There may not be conclusive proof that deities exist or not, but there is evidence that supports both sides. You do not need this evidence to have faith in a deity's existence and in some religions you are asked to ignore this evidence, but it is the evidence against that gives Atheists their belief. To Atheists this evidence is in fact proof that deities do not exist. ] I look forward to my opponent's response.
Resolved: Atheism is Not a Religion

I would also like to accept my opponent's third contention that atheism has no founder. I would however like to dis-affirm my opponent's second contention which states: "Belief does not equate faith, and faith is a basic tenant of religion" Belief in something in which there is no proof is the definition my opponent provided for faith. My opponent has already provided that atheism is a belief in his second contention. Furthermore there is no proof that a deity doesn't exists as there is no proof that a deity does exist. Therefore by his own definition, atheism includes the principle of faith. Thus since atheism is a system of beliefs and includes faith it is a religion as defined by my opponent.
Evolution is real and is happening

People are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. People are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. They teach kids like you that about 20 billion years ago all this matter was squeezed into this little dot that was spinning really fast until finally it exploded. Pieces flew everywhere and became the sun, moon, and the stars and finally people. By using the conservation of angular momentum, we can prove the big bang theory did not happen. The conservation of angular momentum is, for an example, if I was spinning clockwise really fast on a merry-go-round and fell off, According to the law of angular momentum I would fly off spinning clockwise. So if that dot of matter was spinning and pieces flew off, why is Venus, Uranus, Earth, and 6 moons rotating opposite directions than all the other planets?