BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

One. The "us" was referring to Him and Jesus, for He gave Jesus the privilege of helping God create many things. Now, it"s not that God needed help, it"s that He enjoyed when other beings participate in His creations. Second: If we were to leave animals alone and nature, the entire Earth would be in balance, the ecosytem would maintain everything. It"s only because of humans that the ecosytem is suffering and lagging behind. Therefore, God does not need to intervene nor does He want. What He wants is for creatures to live on themselves. Humans were perfect in the beginning, but when the first two Humans decided that they wanted to disobey God, they sinned and lost their perfect bodies. With imperfection comes many more things, such as committing murders and other atrocities. God wanted humans to have free will, to decide on their own, but now, God is gathering all those who are willing to follow Him, so in the end, He will kill all those opposed to Him You state how He has no control over people"s actions. This is true, because He purposefully allows people to decide on their own, as to show whether they truly love him or not, The Earth can be easily fixed by God, there is no impossible task, it only seems impossible to us. Cursing is more then just swearing, it"s calling upon doom on a person or even blasphemy. Of course, when God stated to let them die, He would do it himself. It is all those who refuse to follow the wisdom of the wiser people, you don"t automatically become wise young, for as much as your try. The 5 steps would work if people didn"t commit sin or were still imperfect. As long as humans are imperfect, there WILL always be someone who will commit any of the horrible things that already exist, and/or abuse the system. Everytime God has killed a nation, they were performing rape, incest, murder, excessive drinking, human sacrifice, brutal slavery, corruption, and such things. These qualities pertain to much of the population in today"s society, how come you are able to support this but not support the One who is attempting to clean all of this while answering the challenge brought upon him by the devil?
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

I'm sorry. I can't pay any attention to you. I mean you seem to be reasonably nice person. But your intelligence edumacation factor on your religion and god would easily get in an F in any Sunday school. And I cannot help you with that. You are on your own. It might be a little bit nice if you were to do some research, just a little, rather than winging it and not knowing what you are talking about. In answer to your question of how well man is doing its an F. Always has been (more on that later). And according to your bible its always an A+ genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." 1. Who is this "us" and "our". That's plural implying that there is more than one god thus trashing your entire religion and belief system. 2. Sorry. Man has ---never--- had "dominion"/ domination over all the earth. Not over polar and grizzly bears, not over great white sharks, not over bristle cone pies or giant redwoods, certainly not over bacteria or microbes that number in the quadrillions etc etc etc. so 3. Your---bible---lies. 4. But according to your god, since he has given man this planet to do with whatever he pleases, including burning the skies, polluting the oceans, ripping up all the forests, building useless city after city, and actually thinking and believing for a trillionth of a second that he can conquer Gaia Mother Earth, Mother Earth is striking back and will be here a lot longer than man. Indeed the earth functions as one living entity and man thinks, but can't, in no possible way conquer nature. And the way man rapes and trashes the earth that grade is of course an F. "Oh, so you seem blaming all the existing horrible people..." Let's look at it this way... in order for there to be worldwide peace 5 things are required to happen. 1. ALL religion needs to be done away with. Not just christianity. ALL religion. 2. All wealth and money needs to be gotten rid of. 3. All borders needs to be gotten rid of. 4. All weapons of mass destruction (guns or higher firepower) is an absolute requirement to be gotten rid of. 5. The media needs to go bye bye. Everything falls into those 5 categories. If those things are not gotten rid of, worldwide peace will never occur. "A father may raise his child in total love,..." What if its the total reverse and you didn't answer my question Matthew 15:4 "4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." So do you believe that you should DIE simply because you curse at your parents? Y____? N_____ Why? Why Not? What if your parents rape, beat and torture you? I mean after all YOUR god knowingly creates millions of children, especially in Africa to be abused every---single---year. And of course you COMPLETELY IGNORE your god's Hitler actions and genocides. Typical. Yeah you go on and keep preaching.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

I will make one correction. God told his people to kill specific people, yes. Not that he allowed them. Two. I do not have time to read every single text you provide me INCLUDING your videos. I already spend a good amount of time preaching, going to school, and studying texts that help me maintain my PRESENT faith, against people like you, but not specifically you. Lastly, I will remain by my answers. Clearly, you have not studied truly into Egyptian background. There is clear evidence of slavery and servants existing. You most likely looked at specific website favoring your opinion, as to looking into several. You have completely avoided my questions regarding today"s society. Clearly, aren"t we doing well? Oh, so you seem blaming all the existing horrible people and actions today on God for letting them exist is your answer, I presume? That is neither true nor any way reasonable or fair, even by your standards. A father may raise his child in total love, but there is still a possibility that that child could end up committing horrible atrocities. It is not the fathers fault, it is the child"s fault in the end. If you believe this to be unreasonable, since it is the exact same situation with God, then I have no more to say than everyone will answer for their actions to Him in the end. Again, is it in vain for you to wish the good of the world when you believe in there being nothing that could make this world good? Isn"t this the reality you wish to prove yourself right?
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

I am only human. I do these debates at my leisure time. I don"t have the time to watch all the videos and read all the texts Especially, when debating with someone who refuses to accept any other perspective besides their own. One: God did let his people kill, but now He has told his present day followers to not kill. But He has not changed, for He still promises that everyone who does not accept His rulership will be ended in the final days of this system of things. Hence, He has not changed, by has only changed what He allows His people to do. Two: There is always reason. He can revive all the dead children back into the paradise He has promised and give them a chance to learn about His will and ways. What then, do you propose should have been done? Leave the countless slaves and families to suffer under brutal rulership? You haven"t provided an alternative, nor reason why a sinful nation should hold power over the good people. I NEVER said Jews, I specifically stated Isrealites. If you were to actually investigate, Jews and Isrealites are not completely the same. Second: whatever term you use, the passage still refers to consensual sex. Rape is the forced sex on a woman by a man. This stated a woman and a man had sex in agreement outside of marriage. You can distort the words and look for the most minor difference, but the main concept is still the same, and I still rest with my previous answer. Humans are so imperfect and abhorrent creatures at times. The smallest fault they find is enough to engage in destructive conflicts. If you read the entire context of each time God kills and God tells to kill, you will find that Humans were at fault every time. Tell me, how is today"s society faring without God? Amazingly terrible. Conflicts are rapid, sex trade, rape, corruption, and many other such things run wild despite the efforts of Humans to combat it. All those that follow God tru commandments experience an inner peace that can not be found anywhere else. What is there to hope without God? You may believe in all the good things but it is vain, for without God, all is meaningless.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

Very well. Yes, there are many things that people have done in the name of God that are atrocious, but many of them have not followed biblical standards afterwards, say the crusades. Now there are statements of the Bible that involve the death of children in it, but many of them have reasonable arguments behind each one. Sometimes the context can overrule the action. Take for example, God killing all the first borns when freeing His people in the book of Exodus. The Egyptians were stubborn, even after 10 plagues, did not want to free their slaves, God"s people. If God were to have killed the pharaoh only, then the common Egyptians and generals would place the blame on God"s people, the slaves, and most likely commit a genocide against them, since the Egyptians had done this before. If God had killed only the parents of the firsborns, then who was to liberate the slaves? Who would take care of the orphans? Wouldn"t that seem more despicable? Killing the firstborn is a form of great punishment towards the Egyptians stubbornness and the only true way to free his people in a reasonable manner. Could you have comed up with a better solution? Context matters in every biblical story. And many stories of people committing horrendous acts in the NAME of God do not even follow God"s most recent mandates or guidelines. The verse you stated in Deuteronomy 22:28"- has more than just that. It explains what should happen to a virgin who , pressured by the man, has sex with the man outside of marriage. It was not rape, it was consensual sex that God deemed disgusting because it was outside of marriage. "But wasn"t she pressured?" You can only be pressured when you deliberately put yourself in a vulnerable position, say being alone with the man in a room. As well, it states that they were discovered, implying that they tried to hide the consensual sex a secret but were found out. Therefore, the man must pay for actions and must marry her, since sex has to be between the married, and the father spent much in caring and providing for his virgin daughter who committed the act.
Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all all gun sales...

Re: Contention 1, Subpoint A.This point entirely hinges upon the idea that guns create a safer community. That is patently untrue(1). It doesn't make sense that having easier access to highly deadly weapons could possibly make a community safer. It is also illogical that a flaw in the justice system should stop the justice system from being applied.Re: Contention 1, Subpoint B.Here you make the wild, wild assumption that because gun control may disproportionately affect African-Americans, it is, at its core, a racist idea, and that its express purpose is to discriminate. This is a glorious strawman, and when you apply this logic to other things, then it becomes magnificently hilarious. Note that I am using 'racist' as 'with the express purpose of discrimination.' And without further ado . . .The housing industry is racist(2). The police system is racist, the justice system, contrary to popular belief, is not meant to uphold the law, rather, it is just meant to be racist. Hell, guns themselves are racist(3). /s ^^^So how about you don't call me a racist next time?Re: Contention 2, Sub AThis argument is essentially "Hey, since criminals will buy guns anyway, let's let them buy them cheaply and easily.""seems legit." It should be obvious why that makes no sense(refer to source (1) if your response is going to be "but civilians will also buy guns to defend themselves").Also, here are the effects of the Japanese black market "running rampant"(4). Here's Holland as well(5).Concise ConclusionIt has been categorically proven that gun control is not a racist institution, and that guns themselves pose a great threat to our prosperity, not a lack thereof. Moreover, the assertion found in my opponent's conclusion that law abiding citizens would not be able to buy guns is deeply incorrect, and is borderline misinformation. (1) https://www.hsph.harvard.edu...(2) http://www.npr.org...(3) https://www.washingtonpost.com...(4) http://www.bbc.com...(5) http://www.gunpolicy.org...
Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all all gun sales...

After several shootings in this country, and a plague of gun violence sweeping the nation, it only makes sense that background checks be implemented. They only take a few minutes(1), and can prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals. It is also imperative that the gun show loophole is closed, and that anyone who sells guns be licensed or be prosecuted as a criminal. In this country the murder rate is astounding when compared to other countries(2), and it is absolutely frightening that the sentiment when responding to an earthquake(which we have no control over) is indistinguishable from that of a mass shooting. It is terrifying that we are at the point where the phrase 'you know the drill' is applicable when dozens of innocent civilians get slaughtered. But that's the reality we have here. (1) http://www.cnn.com... (2) http://www.businessinsider.com...
Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all all gun sales...

November PF Topic: Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers of ownership.We will be debating the above (^) resolution, not what is stated in the title of the debate (ran out of characters.)In response to the recent plague of gun violence and mass shootings, increased gun control (encompassing universal background checks) have been proposed in an effort to combat violent deaths. This debate centers around the United States implementing (a) universal background checks for sales and (b) transfers of ownership.I oppose the resolution, affirming that universal background checks should not be imposed by the United States government or any other power, including (though not limited to) independent stores. Below are definitions that are unconditionally accepted upon the acceptance of this debate:Universal Background Check: Requirement of all firearms transactions in the United States to be recorded and go through the NICS - National Instant Criminal Background Check System.United States: United States of America, Federal GovernmentGun Sale: Transaction of firearm typically with monetary gainTransfer of Ownership: Obtaining a gun through private transaction not necessarily involving tradeShould: Encompasses everything, including: moral obligation, safety of citizens, economic benefit, etc. Not limited to a single factor.Please use the first round to accept the debate only and refrain from introducing arguments until the latter three rounds. Thank you!Accepting the debate means unconditional acceptance of all stated above.Best of luck to whomever accepts. Looking forward to a great debate!
Human civilization on earth will end no matter what

The only thing that you have brought up for this is the possibility of parallel universes that we don't know exist. But if time-travel does exist and is possible (as science thus far says it is); then there is a way that life on earth could continue to last forever and ever. Because of the existence of possibility for an event like this to occur (even if the probability is remote) the resolution cannot be affirmed. The resolution (and "no matter what" clause) demands that human time-travel must be mathematically impossible. I will say this again human's are not perfect, so are time machine will not always work properly after the billion's of time's we use it to save our self's one time it will fail and end human civilization on earth as we know it. So the safeguard is that man will just simply go back in time again (or forward into the future) and stop the time-machine failure from occurring in the first place. This scenario is possible. The only thing that you have brought up for this is the possibility of parallel universes that we don't know exist. Absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence. Parallel universes could still be potentially be discovered in the future; and thus the world will not end "no matter what." .. The resolution is negated. PRO must learn not to confuse low mathematical probability for impossibility. PRO again, must still prove that humankind on earth will still end "no matter what."
Human civilization on earth will end no matter what

Again, you have brought up some good point's.But you are being a hypocrite by saying my statement needs fortune telling or speculation, when your augment is based of fortune telling and speculation. Nuclear warfare, pollution and Global warming have the chance of being resolved, but they are here all ready and have the possibility to end civilization on earth in ten years or less.To prove that here is an website about it http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com... 2015 say hello to a ice free arctic.But then there is the inevitable heat death that is going to happen. Your theory to stop this is time travel which we might create to save are self's. This theory has the problem of us changing some thing, and us never being born.The only thing that you have brought up for this is the possibility of parallel universes that we don't know exist. Finally, I will say this again human's are not perfect, so are time machine will not always work properly after the billion's of time's we use it to save our self's one time it will fail and end human civilization on earth as we know it. My opponent now has to prove that human civilization on earth will all ways continue and we will all ways be here.
Human civilization on earth will end no matter what

Most of your argument above involves either fortune telling or speculation; such as "so say we went back in time..." statements where no one can know for sure how events will play out. Whose to know for instance, that pollution and nuclear warfare will not be solved in the future, or global warming won't be reversed? The only things we can know for certain are things that are mathematically impossible, and time travel - at least according to Einstein's theories- is theoretically possible. Whereas scientists speculate that the casualty paradox that you've alluded to (killing off your parents), may be solved by the existence of parallel universes or alternate time lines (http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu...) - we don't know for sure, and neither do you. To close, just because things are improbable does not mean that they're impossible; PRO must still prove that humanity on earth will end "no matter what."
Human civilization on earth will end no matter what

My opponent has brought up a very good point, but the problem is it's very flawed. As we all know time travel can be very risky, and can screw with the future. So say we went back in time to delay the inevitable heat death. We would still end up dyeing, firth of all when we would go back in time we would not be able to live side by side with the people or creature's that are on earth at that time. So we would have to kill them of, but by doing that we would all die to because we where never born. Secondly if we could live with what was on the planet at the time, which is impossible. We still would have do it all over again multiple times and one time out of billion time's we save are self's the time machine and manipulated worm hole machine will fail because nothing can be always perfect. Plus pollution, over population global, warming and nuclear war could all happen before we possibly invent time travel and all these things could make the world inhabitable. Their for human civilization will end on earth. My opponent now has to prove that human civilization will continue on earth and prove me wrong in his rebuttal.
Human civilization on earth will end no matter what

I'm going to say no because its still theoretically possible for mankind in the very distant future to invent a time machine or some other technology means of manipulating wormholes for time travel (which can exist under Einstein’s special theory of relativity & space-time). Thus forever delaying the inevitable "heat death" of the universe while simultaneously prolonging human life on earth by traveling backwards in time. As PRO, my opponent must prove that it is still mathematically impossible for human civilization to continue on earth for eternity, and not just improvable. Thus far I have demonstrated at least one scientific example where civilization can possibly be allowed to exist on earth forever and ever. PRO must now fulfill his own BOP and prove to us that human civilization on earth will actually end - "no matter what."
Is high school more important than elementary middle school

Well, Pro clearly did not deny how high school affect on how you spend your entire life. Secondly, I dont quite understand "... like I said it is more important if you didn't have elementary school you would not be old enough to get a job...", as far as I know, we all age thus we all get old. I interpret it as if you do not go to elementary school, you will not age. Thirdly, as I said before, even we did not learn these elementary things, someone at high schooler age can learn the basic things such as "division multiplication words sentences and many many more things" at higher rate than someone at the elementary schooler age. Even if there are no such thing like Remedial Class or Recovery Class, they can autodidact themself. Plus, "..Many notable contributions have been made by autodidacts." sources by Wiki [1]. Fourthly, "You would not be able to drive work you would be broke without elementary school.", this is how I interpret this sentence, Im not be able to drive to my workplace because I will be broke without elementary school. How do I get the car in the first place if Im broke due to not going to elementary school?In conclusion, high school is more like to prepare yourself to face the reality and affecting on how you going to spend your entire life, plus you cannot continue your study on some college or university with elementary certificate (as far as I know or can you?).[1] first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org...