BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion should have absoluelty no place in politics.

"If a politicians needs to use religion as a source to draw their morals from, then to me they are not qualified to be a leader. Our leaders shouldn't need to be told what is wrong and right by a religion, just like the american people shouldn't be told what is wrong and right by thier elected officals." First, our morality neither comes from within ourselves, nor do they fall down from the sky. Our moral code is developed by being exposed to a particular culture and way of thinking, and we begin to adopt that way of thinking. We are all guilty of deriving our moral codes from an external source. That having been said, what is so innately evil about religion that you so despise it in the realm of politics? A politician is elected as a representative of the American population. If the majority of the American population happens to have Christian morals, then what exactly is the problem with having a Christian representative? Focus on each of the politicians beliefs individually, and religion will vanish from the picture. That's all.
Religion should have absoluelty no place in politics.

While it is true that religion seems to have heavy standing on politics, I personally believe that there is more to this than meets the eye. It is understood that politicians will use many tactics in order to gain votes and climb the political ladder; lying is definitely one of these tactics. Many candidates, with help from their campaign advisers, generate and maintain an image that they believe voters will find appealing. Thus, you see many politicians waving their religion before the crowd instead of an American flag. I agree with you when you say that an atheist candidate may never be elected, and I also agree with you when you say an atheist president may be the best one we can have. However, this is not just a matter of what is best for the country. Because we elect representatives by majority, there are ways to play the system, and the politicians take advantage of this. Simply speaking, there is no choice but to have religion be a part of state. The American population elects people based on what those candidates believe, and nearly 100% of the time, these beliefs are part of a religious moral code. The politicians are not using politics to further their religion, they are using religion to further their politics. As long as the American population remains Christian, so will the people they elect.
Religion should have absoluelty no place in politics.

The constituion clearly states that there must be a sperartion of church and state. It is pretty rediculous how candidates today can bassically run completely on thier faith. I don't understand why people vote for candidates like Mike Hukabee who actually says he will change the constitution to comply with his religious beliefs. I think that elected officals should be impeached for making decsions based on religion instead of what is best for the country. Religion being involved in politics causes nothing but mischief and it is detrimental to the democratic process. It's a shame that an athiest candidate will likely not be elected for some time. An athiest candidate would be able to lead with a clear, unpolluted mind and do whats best for the country. Politicians who rule based on their faith (George Bush) do terrible things for the country because they are only doing what is best for thier own interest.
Religion should have absoluelty no place in politics.

"There is a great need that exists in society. It is a need that people have all around us, but we rarely see as a weakness. It is something in which we so strongly desire to feel like we are a part of something that our own morals are often compromised to satisfy the "greater cause". And that greater cause, of course, is what we refer to as religion." This is a moot point. Our morals never come purely from ourselves anyway, so there's nothing to be compromised if we designate our moral beliefs to a certain religion. The religion is just a name for what we believe, not the entirety of what we believe. "When one allows themselves to become so caught up in the teachings of a particular religion and make their daily decisions entirely because of what some book tells them to do, they are putting an abrupt halt to the degree of critically thinking that their mind potentially has. When we believe in the absolute certainty of the way in which a certain doctrine prescribes, it leaves us very susceptible to being ignorant of the changing values and situations that come with time." Possibly, but this is an extreme example that has absolutely no bearing on this argument whatsoever. Giving an example on how bad it is if narrow-minded fundamentalists ran our country does nothing to strengthen your point. America is made up of a diverse group in which, for the most part, the majority dictates law. *** I am slightly insulted that you have chosen not to respond to any of the points I made in my last post, and decided only to conclude. You still have yet to address many important questions whereas I have answered all of yours in detail. Setting aside the fact that your initial premise, that the separation between church and state is clearly stated in the Constitution, is a lie, your argument hinges on one other aspect: That there is a distinction between religious belief and typical moral beliefs. If a candidate is rushing to ban abortion, and happens to be Christian, can we immediately claim he is violating an invisible "separation between church and state" clause? The answer is NO. I maintain that if a politician is elected, he is elected out of the free will of the American people, according to their wishes. If the American public happens to have Christian morals and wish to elect a Christian politician, there is absolutely no constitutional infringement. In fact, if you suggest otherwise, you yourself are violating the first amendment directly.
Hillary Clinton

A pox on you and your one love, I say! Just because you have one love does not mean that Hillary is NOT hot. That is illogical. One has nothign to do with the other, and if you would count out your ability to judge someone's hotness because you have a lover, guy or girl, then you are not the right person to debate this point. Hillary has a body worth tapping, an a*s that just won't quit, a hoohah that drips with love, and a chest that bounces unlike anything since the little red sing-along ball on TV. I say, Hillary is hotter than July. HARUMPH!
Hillary Clinton

It's not that I WOULD bag her flabby a*s, it's that I ALREADY HAVE. Hillary, Bill & I were law students together at Yale. I was at the party where the two of them met, and she and I had already slept together. She was and still is the ultimate buttaface. Yoiu should see her naked. Hot DAMN! She's got the body of a 19 year old. I repeat, "She was the greatest piece of a*s I've ever had, and I've had them all over the world!" Who dares to challenge this fact? Harumph! Harumph, I say!
Hillary Clinton

Buhler? Buhler? Buhler? So, the other day I was driving in my car and I accidentally hit a mailbox. I felt like crap because it was MY mailbox. A cheeseburger came flying out and a chicken stick hit my car window. Well, at the same time I was being chased by the Tokyo Mafia. I had been on the run for nearly 16 hours and I was HUNGRY!!! So I placed a brick on the accelerator, leaned out the window and drove with my foot and reached for the chicken. MMMMMM... Chicken. So right before I grabbed it, a bullet went through the back, then front window that hit my chicken! I crawled back in the car, moved the brick to the brake, got out, and kicked some butt! I grabbed the wheel right off my car and chucked it at the driver. Then with my awesome strength, I ripped the fender off and beat the schnikeeze out of the rest. Well, it was a good thing that they had Chinese Food in the car and I ate that as payment.
shark fin soup

Actually, ocean water goes through filters for us to drink. We eat a lot of stuff that comes from the ocean, that is hard to find in other places. So actually the ocean is very important to us. And also there is only 1/1000 chance you will get killed by a shark. And not only that, but, shark fin soup isn't that healthy. It is very rich and creamy making it unhealthy. (Plus throwing away the sharks makes the places around it smell bad :P)
shark fin soup

Thank you for your arguement but I believe that ... 1. We live on the land. Who cares what happens in the oceans? Although we live on land, we are not detached from it. 71% of the Earth"s surface is covered by ocean. Oceans contain 99% of the Earth"s living space and a huge amount of biodiversity. Scientists believe that there are approximately 240,000 marine species. We also rely on the oceans for much of our food. If we do not practice sustainable fishing methods and manage marine resources responsibly, we will leave an impoverished ocean for future generations. The fact that sharks have existed for 400 million years is testament to their success as a top predator and an ocean caretaker. If sharks are doing such a great job looking after the oceans maybe we should make sure that they are able to continue doing it! 2. If you ban the trade in shark fins, it will just lead to a black market trade. While it is possible that some black market trade in shark fins may continue, as it has with ivory, it is extremely unlikely that the scale of trade after a ban would be as high as it is now. While large numbers of people are willing to risk punishment for the consumption of drugs, it is very doubtful that they would be willing to do this for the "pleasure" of a menu choice. Despite people"s best efforts, there will always be those who will stop at nothing for material gain, but the response of responsible society should be to take all the measures it can to stamp out activities that are detrimental to other species and the planet. A black market in slavery still exists in some parts of the world " does that mean it should not have been abolished? 3. shark fin soup is used only in special occasions. shark fin soup is only used in special occasions like weddings and banquets, or as a luxury item in Chinese culture. Thank you for reading my arguement, I'm proud to oppose (vote for opp :D)
shark fin soup

You know, you have a better chance of getting killed by a vending machine, then a shark,right? And we actually DON'T taste good to sharks, at all. They only go for us because we enter their tretory, which they already claimed. And as for some sharks, such as reef sharks, they only attack if they see humans splashing, thinking it's the sign of a fish about to die. (They are like doctors of the ocean). And as for other sharks, just don't bother them or go far out to sea, swimming and you will be fine ;) Source- Shark Savor Articails
More of the "world is flat" will occur

I mean that arguing about whether people will ever be right or wrong is pointless. 1) Error is part of human nature as we know it 2) We won't ever know what's really "wrong" or inaccurate because we know of our world based on our experiences, meaning that it's entirely possible that the Earth, the universe, everyday life as we know it, is just a conscious sensation which is not based on an underlying permanence. = if everyone has different sensations, everyone's perception of the world is different; in relation to other people's perceptions, none can be true, none can be false
More of the "world is flat" will occur

So your argument is that humans have been wrong about the facts of nature in the past, popular opinion now may be wrong, and we in the future will continue to be wrong. The other side of this argument is sort of a stretch but unavoidable; that is, that everyone's own perceptions are real for them, and there is no objective reality.. so, nothing to be wrong about. How could that be? Well, our consciousness constructs our world based on sensory information. However, who can say that our experiences aren't just that - unique blocks of data sent to whatever constitutes our awareness, with no basis in a static world? You could successfully argue human fallibility will continue in the world that you experience. But, speaking with regard to overall truth, reality, or existence, it is impossible to prove anyone fully right or wrong.
More of the "world is flat" will occur

People have been wrong about a majority of a lot. The world is flat isn't the only wrong we will come across. We could be wrong about many topics: global warming, hunting overpopulation, animals are more intelligent than we think, humans are unintelligent, livestock, honesty within our hearts if we have one, and more! The debater is welcome to come up with more topics, but disagree with "world is flat" like theories.
Evolution and science cannot disprove God or creationism

Well it is obvious that YOU are missing the point of the argument itself. So I will in return address your statements. Firstly... "First of all, I am not advocating the Big Bang, or flash particles. Those were just common examples of Earth theories. My point was that even if they were the reason for the universe, only God could have put them there." I understand your argument, but whether or not God could have put them there is not part of the argument. The fact that this is not able to be tested and therefor proven or disproven by science, because this action cannot be recreated, is the point of the argument. Secondly... "Second, you use a strawman attack on my case. I do not use circular reasoning, as you would have the voters believe." I am in no way trying to have the voters believe you are using circular reasoning, and if that is how I am coming across, then I apologize, but I honestly don't believe I am. Thirdly... "I presented you with the fact that these phenomena could only have come about by God putting them there. You have yet to provide another option. Given that, I can only uphold my case." Whether or not God was the reason of these events is irrelevant to the debate. The topic is whether or not science can be used to prove or disprove God and creation, not what "options" there are for creation. Fourthly... "(So are you saying that since at one point man did not know what a trilobite was, it did not exist? A galaxy? What are you saying?)" I can only assume that you are addressing the point at which I stated "...since the laws of nature, such as thermodynamics, Newton's laws and the Law of Conservation of Mass mentioned by my opponent, did not yet exist at that time, and therefore cannot be studied using science..." I am not saying that just because we didn't know about them doesn't mean they existed, I'm saying that they didn't exist because space and time didn't yet exist at the point in time I was addressing. In conclusion... My opponent has gone entirely off topic and and in his last round, seemed as though he was debating an entirely different argument. I, on the other hand, stayed true to the topic presented at the beginning of the debate. I can only hope the voters see this.
Evolution and science cannot disprove God or creationism

Hmm, you seem to miss the point of my arguments. I will address what you have said. First of all, I am not advocating the Big Bang, or flash particles. Those were just common examples of Earth theories. My point was that even if they were the reason for the universe, only God could have put them there. Second, you use a strawman attack on my case. I do not use circular reasoning, as you would have the voters believe. I presented you with the fact that these phenomena could only have come about by God putting them there. You have yet to provide another option. Given that, I can only uphold my case. (So are you saying that since at one point man did not know what a trilobite was, it did not exist? A galaxy? What are you saying?)
Evolution and science cannot disprove God or creationism

Though my original plan for this debate was for my opponent to argue that science cannot be used rather than it can be used to prove God's existence, I won't worry to much, because I must say, my opponent has presented a well structured argument, though there is one major flaw I see in it. My opponent has said that "the only way for us to have come about is through a God putting us here" and such things to that extent to account for the Big Bang, Flash Particle Theory and Creation. Now, the only problem is that the statement that "God just put it there, and that's why it's there" is not a scientific statement. These acts of God being the reason for singularities, flash particles, et cetera, are supernatural acts, since the laws of nature, such as thermodynamics, Newton's laws and the Law of Conservation of Mass mentioned by my opponent, did not yet exist at that time, and therefore cannot be studied using science.
Evolution and science cannot disprove God or creationism

Alright, lets begin. Most of my opponent's arguments are simply facts, so I will attack his conclusion as follows: "you cannot use science or evolution (which arose from scientific studies) to claim that God does or does not exist." So, as my opponent pointed out earlier, science is the study of natural laws. If you would, recall Newton's Laws, as well those of thermodynamics, and conservation of mass and energy. "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed during the process of a chemical reaction." This is science. Now notice, that you exist. You are here. How did you get here? Well, people have tried to explain this for a long time. The Big Bang? Flash Particles? Creation? Given the above "scientific" rule, the only way for us to have come about is through a God putting us here. ==BIG BANG== "According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread." OK, so the universe sprang from a dense singularity. Where did this singularity come from? How did it come about? Well, using science, we can only assume that-if the big bang were true-it would have to come from God. There is no other way the singularity could have come about. ==Flash Particles== The same theory applies here. These particles must have come from somewhere. Since they could not have come into existence by themselves, God must have made them. Since they could not exist within science, a Supernatural must have created them. ==Creation== This is in fact how the universe came to be. In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. There is no other option, since according to science, matter, energy, light, and others can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, God must have made the matter, energy, light, and so on. There is no other scientific explanation. That being said, I conclude round two. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://csep10.phys.utk.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution and science cannot disprove God or creationism

Very well, I will begin I have one main argument that I will open up with for you to rebut First off, science, as most of us know, is the study of the natural world, examples of which are biology - the study of life, and physics - the study of matter and energy. Scientists use these different fields to study, make hypotheses about, et cetera, the universe. God, as according to the Bible, is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being of the supernatural, who is exempt from the numerous laws of nature. Whether or not you believe God to be real or not, this is not arguable. In such, science, which is used to study things of the natural universe, cannot be used to study or make claims about things not of the natural world, namely God. Ergo, you cannot use science or evolution (which arose from scientific studies) to claim that God does or does not exist.
Catholics are correct when it comes to the Virgin Mary

Please note, that this debate is intended to be within the context of Christianity. Opponents will argue for or against Mary (Wife Joseph and Mother of Jesus as found in Christian teachings, traditions, and sacred scripture) having a high importance in the belief system. I am not requiring one to be Christian, or even religious. If you do take up the "con" position, please note I will be using proof texts, arguments, syllogisms, historical arguments, etc. that come from Christian (especially Catholic) sources. We are pretty much going to have to agree that the Christian worldview is correct and true, or else we will just be talking at each other....or the debate will spill over into other topics (e.g. Does God exist? Is Jesus God? and so on). I only make that disclaimer, because I've had experiences on this site where someone will just hijack the debate into a completely different topic. But hey, can't stop you from doing what you're doing to do. This is simply a request. 4 Rounds. My position: The Catholic Church teaches (and correctly so) that Mary is: 1. The Mother of the second person in the Holy Trinity 2. Mediatrix and co-redemptor with Christ 3. Worthy or Christian veneration Con may take Round 1 to start their argument, or simply accept. Shooter's preference. Thanks, and good luck.
Catholics are correct when it comes to the Virgin Mary

I hope to present my case as to why I believe the Catholic Church DOES NOT accurately represent Mary as written in the Holy Scriptures. I hope this debate will be a benefit to both of us as well as the viewers. I will begin by rebutting the 3 points made by Pro: 1. "The Mother of the second person in the Holy Trinity" This is only partially true. Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ while He was on 🌏. She was His earthly mother and took care of Jesus like any mother would. However, Jesus has existed though eternity and being that He is God, we know God has no mother. Therefore, Mary is the mother of the human side of Jesus while He was on earth and Joseph is His father but not His divine nature. But Scripture tells us they only acted as His earthy parents but His true Father was God. When Jesus was "lost" and His parents were looking for Him, He rebuked them by asking if they didn't know He had to be in His Father's house (Luke 2:49). . http://biblehub.com... 2. "Mediatrix and co-redeemer with Christ" Yet another Catholic invention. Nowhere in the Holy Bible do we ever read that Mary can save people or redeem them from sin. Luke 1:46-47 reads, "46 And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God MY SAVIOR" Mary proclaims God is her Savior. How can we say Mary can save people when she herself needs a saviour? . https://www.biblegateway.com... Also, Scripture tells us that there is only mediation between us and God. "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). . https://www.biblegateway.com... The Bible is very clear that Christ alone is our mediator and redeemer. 3. I agree. We should respect Mary as a saint and servant of God. We should also respect Abraham, Moses, David, John the Baptist and Paul and all the other prophets and apostles. There is no need for special treatment for Mary. I respect Mary as I respect all the other patriarchs of the Bible but as a Christian, I would deem it blasphemy to equate her with Christ. As a Bible-believing Christian, I think there is nothing wrong with reverence for saints but only One Being is worthy of praise and worship. That is God our Lord and Saviour. Good luck to Pro for the next round.