BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the christian trinity is an illogical idea

"So here are two person who have the same nature, which is not illogical or contradictory, for two humans can also have the same nature without the first person being the second person. "by this reasoning the son and the father should be considered two separate beings period. which would mean we have three gods as the godhead, when christian theology says we have only one God. the flour analogy doesn't work. i see how both the components and the whole can be called flour. but that doesn't work with the trinity. to be analogous the son would be God but also part of God, part of the whole thing. this might be true linguistically but in practice has problems. the son would be a component if the flour anaology were true.... but theology says he is wholly God in himself. i know you said you are just using an inexact anaology, but you haven't shown how they can be three and one at the same time. (to be sure, to say something is three and one at the same time is on its face contradictory)"The Trinity is a Being which has three minds (persons) within its make up."if this were true we could simply say the son is part of God, he's a component. this is against christian theology. again it gets contradictory cause you are trying to say he's a component yet he's also the whole thing. like saying it's three and one at the same time. your quantum idea is interesting. but that only works at the quantum level and we are talking about someone who is a human. there might be more to the idea and what con is saying is only anaologous. but he hasn't proven it to be true that someone can be one and three outside of quanta. it's like he's proving a shadow might indicate the thing he is arguing to exist but it might indicate something else too.
maarijuana

Adult human beings have the right to be free. In some instances, where actions compromise the freedom of others, freedom can and should be limited. Harm to oneself is a difficult matter and people have varying opinions on it. For instance in Sweeden one has the authority to take their own life, this is not the case in many countries. However, denying freedom is a significant step for one person to do to another and should not be done unless in the most servere circumstances. Is cannabis a severe circumstance? Well, its the least addictive drug on the planet. It's less poisonous than water, its never killed anybody, there is no evidence that it has any health effects (a few weak correlational studies that have recently been discredited does not count) and whilst under the influence one is far more competent than say one intoxicated with alcohol. So, whatever propaganda one believes about cannabis, even if it where true, this does not legitimise dictorial control over people's lives. Free-market, and pluralistic democracies should not outlaw a weed on no scientific basis. Even if it was harmful if one abused it, the state has no right to do this. If the government decided that they didn't like football, and outlawed it, people like you would agree and go along with it. It would be on the grounds that it causes violence, distracts youth and people from work and lives, causes stress and addiction to it, playing footbal causes injury and families waste money gong to see it. Open your eyes my friend, your leaders are not your parents! Thank you, good luck in your debate group.
NBA playoffs are better than the NHL playoffs

See already I can tell your argument is going to be all opinion because you have no facts to back up your opinion ( in all due respect ) yes this years conference finals have been closer in the NHL than NBA but it's still an opinion to say it's more exciting because of you tried to use facts on which playoffs are better , you would be sadly proven wrong . The NBA DOMINATES the NHL in ratings per game in the post season , actually the NHL's playoff ratingslast year are actually pretty sad , last year the first 8 NBA playoff games that were played on TV averaged 3.5 million views each and te first 3 were the top 3 most viewed programs that night by far , the other 5 ranked in the top 7 most views of that day .
Christianity is a polytheistic religion.

Christianity has more than one god, but has merely revised the definition of god so that it is seen to have only one. Satan is a god, he is just not called thusly in the bible. They are the same in the respect that they are both conscious, spiritual entities who have power in the physical world. They are the same concept in that regard. It is only the specific details which differ. My opponent stated: "Satan does not hold power in the physical world. He can be influential in our world, as we see most often through the media." My opponent has contradicted herself in this statement. The "media" is in the physical world and influence and power are almost synonymous in this context. If he can affect things in any way that occur in our reality (the physical world), than he holds some power in it. My opponent corrected me that Satan is not actually omnipotent. I had a misunderstanding about Christianity, but it does not serve to undermine the Devils godliness. We can look to other past religions such as Greek mythology or Norse mythology and observe that the gods were not necessarily omnipotent. Different gods focused on very specific aspects of reality, and their power was limited to this aspect. My opponent's quotation from the bible is meaningless, as a god does not necessarily need to be "the Most High" in order to be a god. In all polytheistic religions there are both major and minor gods. And despite this, we are not using the bible's definition of god, we are using the generally accepted idea about what a god can be, as provided by the various religions which have been had by Humanity. My opponent ends her argument with this definition of god: "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe" This is one definition of god which can only be applied to monotheistic religions. It is clearly faulty to ONLY submit this definition, considering it would declare almost all of the gods that Humanity has believed in no longer gods. It is self-evident that this definition cannot be applied given the nature of this debate. These are the definitions of god provided by dictionary.com, "1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. 3.(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. 6.(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol. 7.(lowercase) any deified person or object. 8.(often lowercase) Gods, Theater. a.the upper balcony in a theater. b.the spectators in this part of the balcony." Definition 4 would be the most applicable to this debate, not definition 1, since this is a debate about whether christianity is polytheistic. When I used the word god, it is obvious that I was referring to definition 4, since I would be contradicting myself if I stated that there was more than one of the God described by definition 1.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion.

Now, to address his arguments: The whole basis behind Christianity is that there is one Supreme Being, who created all things - key word there being "one". Satan is not a god, he is the devil. Although opposites are technically "two sides to the same coin" as my opponent states, the word opposite is defined as "contrary or radically different in some respect" - dictionary. com. Just because they are "the same coin" does not mean they are the same concept. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Satan does not hold power in the physical world. He can be influential in our world, as we see most often through the media. Satan can also send demons to possess someone, but I do not believe that demons can possess a Christian, or someone who has given their life completely to God. Satan has the power to attack, but not the power to rule. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Another point: Satan is not omnipotent. Satan can be in the physical world, yes, but he cannot be everywhere at once. Only God has the ability to do that. God created Satan, as Lucifer, his "right-hand man". According to Christian mythology (the Bible), Lucifer tried, in essence, to be God, and God cast him down to earth for it. Isaiah 14:13-15 says "You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. ' But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit. " -NIV. God was saying in this verse that Satan could never be God, or a god, and therefore Satan is not considered a god. ____________________________________________________________________________________ My opponent states: "Satan is considered to not be a god generally, I think, because Christianity has built up a concept that a god can only be a god if it is "good". This is not per the generally accepted definition of god, however, and Satan as described by Christian mythology is clearly a god. " This point, however, does not hold true; God is defined as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe" - dictionary. com. This is defining the Christian God, the God of the Bible. The Bible never says that Satan is a god, and therefore neither does Christian mythology, which is essentially the Bible itself.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion.

I start this debate because it seem so me that Christianity's very foundation is the concept that there is 2 different gods, yet all Christians advocate that there is only one god. Polytheism- "the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods." Alright, Christian mythology has 2 gods: "God" and "Satan". They are both omnipotent beings which transcend the physical world. They are merely 2 sides to the same coin, and are actually identical in concept. The only difference is that one of them is "good" and one of them is "bad". Good and bad can only be defined as the opposite of each other, however, so good and bad are the same in concept. But even if "Satan", the one which is often said to not be a god, is "bad", he is still very much a god. Morality does not define whether or not something is a god. A god does not necessarily need to be good at all, or cooperate with other gods. This same thing can be seen in Greek mythology, in which there are several gods which do not work together. In fact, there is even a god of the underworld, "Hades". Can a clear parallel not be seen between "Hades", who is considered a god, and "Satan" who is considered not to be a god? Satan is considered to not be a god generally, I think, because Christianity has built up a concept that a god can only be a god if it is "good". This is not per the generally accepted definition of god, however, and Satan as described by Christian mythology is clearly a god.
Police Profiling

==Refutations== ///disguised as auto parts and contained in the Boumelhem brothers' shipment seized by FBI and U. S. Customs agents, was a cornucopia of terrorism tools -- flash suppressors for AK-47 assault rifles, parts for AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, 12-gauge shotguns, 750 rounds of ammunition, a police scanner, and many other weapons. FBI agents also uncovered a videotape showing Ali Boumelhem firing automatic weapons in Lebanon and acknowledging that he was a member of Hezbollah. On Nov. 17, he bought a one-way ticket to Beirut, where he was stopped and arrested by federal agents. In Boumelhem's bags, agents found a black ski mask, black combat boots, a camouflage jacket, green khaki pants, and identification cards with at least three different names. Hint: This guy wasn't headed to the golf course to tee off. He was headed to the Middle East to foment terrorism. "These are the garments of a terrorist organization," said an FBI affidavit. --\\ There are 15,241 murders a year in the United States alone. The tiny fraction caused by Arabs is extremely small. If you want to profile, you shouldn't be profiling the people who kill very few but get lots of media attention. ///Now, also, in todays modern society, where the world is very divided by religions and ethnicities, we must realize that religions are almost always divided by the followers race. Like for instance, most Islamic followers are middle eastern, which are stereotypically seen as dark skinned and wearing robes. Lets say your on a plane, and theres a man wearing robes, dark skinned, and keeps looking around suspiciously. Air Marshals are going to be all over him, and rightfully so, but are you going to be the one to stand up and say thats wrong? I mean, there are situations where its morally wrong and politically incorrect, but its better safe then sorry. Do you want to be the reason 100's of people die? or many more humans get into America illegally? Do YOU? \\ This is a blatant lie. Think about how many races are mainly Christian: White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, the list goes on and on. While Arabs do make up the majority of Muslims, there are large amounts of Black and White Muslims. Also, the majority of Arab Muslims live in the middle east, while the a large fraction of Muslims in the US are white or black. You hear stories all the time about an average kid who goes and fights for the Taliban, this is a clear example of why police profiling simply does not work. [2] ==CONCLUSION== I have proven that racial profiling is not effective and insulting. I have refuted my opponents points. I have stated two sources. 1. . http://www.disastercenter.com... 2. . http://www.nytimes.com... I await your response.
Police Profiling

Racial profiling is a great tool for police officers to make decisions on whether or not to pull over a citizen that is suspected to be doing illegal actions, or is doing something to cause legal issues. here is a quick example of how profiling can help in an instance: --Last week, the Detroit News reported on Arab activists complaints about alleged profiling of Arabs in the Detroit area. But, the article, "Arab Americans Criticize Use of FBI Informants," detailed a frightening story of how two Lebanese brothers, Ali and Mike Boumelhem of Dearborn, Mich., attempted to ship loads of weaponry and ammunition over the Detroit-Canadian border to their eventual destination, the Hezbollah terrorist cell in Lebanon. Disguised as auto parts and contained in the Boumelhem brothers' shipment seized by FBI and U.S. Customs agents, was a cornucopia of terrorism tools -- flash suppressors for AK-47 assault rifles, parts for AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, 12-gauge shotguns, 750 rounds of ammunition, a police scanner, and many other weapons. FBI agents also uncovered a videotape showing Ali Boumelhem firing automatic weapons in Lebanon and acknowledging that he was a member of Hezbollah. On Nov. 17, he bought a one-way ticket to Beirut, where he was stopped and arrested by federal agents. In Boumelhem's bags, agents found a black ski mask, black combat boots, a camouflage jacket, green khaki pants, and identification cards with at least three different names. Hint: This guy wasn't headed to the golf course to tee off. He was headed to the Middle East to foment terrorism. "These are the garments of a terrorist organization," said an FBI affidavit.-- Now, also, in todays modern society, where the world is very divided by religions and ethnicities, we must realize that religions are almost always divided by the followers race. Like for instance, most Islamic followers are middle eastern, which are stereotypically seen as dark skinned and wearing robes. Lets say your on a plane, and theres a man wearing robes, dark skinned, and keeps looking around suspiciously. Air Marshals are going to be all over him, and rightfully so, but are you going to be the one to stand up and say thats wrong? I mean, there are situations where its morally wrong and politically incorrect, but its better safe then sorry. Do you want to be the reason 100's of people die? or many more humans get into America illegally? Do YOU? Sources: - http://www.papillonsartpalace.com...
School Uniforms

School uniforms are an act of defiance against the state as it exists. Any way to criticise the state so openly is through its future -- therefore, it can be seen that schools are the best way to do this.I concede my opponent saying that uniforms are unconstitutional - but this is the exact reason why they are such a good thing.School uniforms are an act of defiance against the EmpireCharlie Post, Review of Empire, 2002 According to Hardt and Negri 'the multitude has internalized the lack of place and fixed time; it is mobile and flexible, and it conceives the future only as a totality of possibilities that branch out in every direction.' (p. 380) Almost any act of 'negativity' - the refusal to work, migration from one part of the world to another, confrontations with the police, strike action - are equally powerful forms of resistance because 'the construction of Empire, and the globalization of economic and cultural relationships, means that the virtual center of Empire can be attacked from any point.' (p. 59) Our act of defiance is directly attacking the norms that exist, the laws that are in place. Our act is an act of negativity - and this is the only way to attack the Empire.The Empire has a tri-fecta of methods to intervene; The Empire can crush everyone militarily, morally, or judicially. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, [Prof @ Duke;Prof @ ColleL8;ge International de Philosophie, 2000 “Empire” Harvard University Press, http://www.angelfire.com...] explain in detail that the Empire in the status quo can exist to crush anyone under any means that they deem necessary - the status quo of Empire loving and the rejection of school uniforms furthers this power, and will crush the future.Government coercion causes the worst atrocities in history – every coercive policy justifies atrocities like the nightmares of Cambodia, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany Browne '95 explains in depth that government coercion (see, government intervention within stopping school uniforms) gives the state unbelievable power. When we don't criticise, we give them the power to commit the worst atrocities in history - we can only stop another Holocaust if we affirm.So, yeah, government is bad m'kay?
Human nature does not make libertarian socialism impossible to work in practice

I will again divide my arguments between negating my opponent's assertions and proving my own. First, my opponent claims that he has proved that MAB and RA are large parts of human nature. This is not the case. He has proved that these are desirable traits in evolution. This, however, does not mean that they are definite, large parts of human nature. He has said "I in my case have drawn on documented findings into the general characteristics universal to humanity." In reality, his sources point toward general findings on evolution rather than characteristics universal to human nature. For example, his only source for the existence of MAB is about the fact that relationships between animals and humans are beneficial, not that MAB is an essential part of human nature. Competition com·pe·ti·tion  noun 1.the act of competing; rivalry for supremacy, a prize, etc. 2. a contest for some prize, honor, or advantage: 3.Sociology . rivalry between two or more persons or groups for an object desired in common, usually resulting in a victor and a loser but not necessarily involving the destruction of the latter. Competition on the other hand is an essential component of natural selection. It is in the competition for limited resources that allows certain traits to become superior to others. Let us take a look at something simple, such as the increase in height from the ancient hominids to the humans to today. The reason that we are taller now is that ancient hominids who was slightly taller than others were able to reach food that was higher than other food. This advantage meant that taller hominids were more likely to reproduce and pass on these tall genes than others. If, instead of taking advantage of this height, a taller humanoid had used MAB to share the extra food, then all of the hominids would be equally likely to eat and reproduce in this respect so there would be no advantage in height, and there would be no reason for a growth in height. The competitive nature of the hominids would have made natural selection take place. Because natural selection requires competition, then it must be part of human nature, or else humans would not likely have evolved. We have lived in many different societal conditions throughout history. Competition has existed in virtually all of them. This shows that competition is a big part of human nature. Therefore, I encourage my opponent to answer the following question: What is one major conflict in human history that has not revolved around competition? Because competition is inherent in human nature, humans will always be competing over limited resources, thus libertarian socialism would not work. I believe I have sufficiently shown why evolution is part of human nature and why my opponent has not fulfilled his BoP in proving that MAB and RA are large parts of human nature. I look forward to his rebuttal. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.labtimes.org... http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://www.talkorigins.org...