BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Forrest Gump is a true story

Forrest Gump is arguably one of the most enjoyable movies made in the last few decades, but I do not believe it is a true story. A movie which features several clips from various past events does not mean the movie itself is a true story. When discussing whether a movie is a true story or not we must consider the origin of the script, the movie plot in full, and the historical accuracy of the movie in relation to the "true story" the movie is attempting to capture. With this short rebuttal in mind, I will now extend the opportunity for Pro to begin with his arguments before presenting my own. Thank you.
Forrest Gump is a true story

Park benches existing does nothing to affirm your case that Forrest Gump is based on a true story. If that was the case, then every movie that ever featured a character sitting on a bench would be considered a true story. I've shown in previous rounds how this is not the case, and have provided three different counter-arguments showing that Forrest Gump is not based on a true story. My opponent continues to fail at providing actual rebuttals to the three challenges I've raised, all of which remain standing unchallenged by Pro. I, therefore, extend all arguments once more. Thank you.
The Earth can be destroyed.

Ok, then how about the Aerolite, black hole and other stars. The universe is very dangerous, how can you sure that the Earth can't be destroyed! All the thing in the world will be destroyed in one day, how can you sure that the Earth won't be destroyed? And, I've search the meaning of the word "destroyed" in the internet and dictionary. The meaning is "unable to restore" or "to completely consume". The global warming, nuclear threats can also cause the Earth "unable to restore" or "to completely consume"
This economic system will save the world

"I never said EVERYONE can make their own currency!" Well, that's odd considering in your first argument, you said, and quote, "consumers create money" (2nd sentence). And I believe that we are consumers, the people of America I mean. "Also, robbers can't rob from an electronic currency unless they hack." Yes, that is definitely a possibility. You can not rule that out... if anything, many many people will learn to hack just to get some more money... "Unemployed people would be an exception under this scenario." From what scenario? So if people couldn't pay back the money, they're just exempt from this whole economic situation? That is completely ridiculous... "Under proper management the other problems can be taken care of." Ok, this one pissed me off the most. First, my opponent just was lazy and didn't want to answer my questions, because he didn't have an answer first. Secondly, not every problem can be taken care of. Proper management is an opinion, and you can't accurately define "proper management" in terms of government. And what if financial problems hit us, like right now? Is what's happening right now in America considered "proper management"? Considering my opponent gave awful points, dodged my arguments under pathetic arguments, and seems like he really didn't care about this debate, I would encourage you to vote for me. Thank you.
This economic system will save the world

I never said EVERYONE can make their own currency. I certainly didn't mean children could make their own. And I didn't mean that they print it themselves either. Either they have an electronic currency or they manage a currency printed by a mint which prints for many people, as part of a deal with a bank. Also, because they must pay back this currency with labor, robbers can't steal money because they can't pay it back. Also, robbers can't rob from an electronic currency unless they hack. Unemployed people would be an exception under this scenario. Under proper management the other problems can be taken care of.
This economic system will save the world

Oh boy thats awkward! Anyways, to set it up to each person to make money is ridiculous. When does this happen in ones life? When one is a baby? Age of reason? Voting age? Smoking age? Alcohol age? What happens prior to that? What supplies is one given to create this money? What happens if they can't pay back the government? Do they die and they're organs are harvested like in the movie Repo Men? What happens to those with disabilities? Are they screwed over for life? Wouldn't irresponsible parents take all of their children's money? If they lose their money or they are robbed, does that mean they're permanently screwed over? If one dies, where does this money go? It took me 2 minutes to type up all of these questions. All of these are very important and there seems to be so many flaws it almost seems like your trolling... Your move.
This economic system will save the world

I would like to present to you my economic system. under my system, consumers create money, with a government limit on how much, and then use this to buy goods and services, but must then pay it back by working. The firms must produce in accordance with how much money is produced. When the consumers do labor to pay back their debt, this provides the means to production for firms. Because the government or banks set limits on how much credit money can be made, a crash never occurs because economic agents can never go overboard. This is also because the increase in money supply is offsetted by the increase in production which decreases demand and decreases prices. This ensures that recessions never happen and inflation is at a minimal.
Hitler was Worse than Stalin

My argument is that Stalin was worse than Hitler. But I am assuming that the question focuses on violence and evil nature. Although Hitler's name is forever going to be remembered with the holocaust and the ethnic and social cleansing that occurred during the Nazi regime, Stalin was not much better, as he had forced famines on the Ukrainians and his own Russian people, as well as committing genocide. It is arguable that Hitler is more of a 'human' than Stalin. But, the underlying issue is the different ideologies, beliefs and regimes. Hitler believed in a pure Germany, and was supportive to real Germans. Whilst Stalin was only supportive to the people that supported Stalin. Also, Stalin killed many more people than Hitler did. Stalin was determined to be the Russian leader despite Lenin's desire that someone else be selected, preferably Trotsky. Any person that interfered or opposed Stalin was eliminated using dirty and deceitful tactics. Also, Stalin's purges of politicians and prominent social figures to keep his position as leader was evil in nature. Before World War 2, Stalin had executed many people, resulting in the deaths of many million Russians. Stalin used civilians and members of the military to clear land mines by walking through the minefield. He would also force them to the front lines even without weapons. Those that went forward were massacred , and those that turned back were executed by their own comrades. After the war Stalin continued his crimes against his own people. Stalin had to make a choice between industrialization of the Soviet Union, or reinvent his agricultural program. Stalin chose industrialization, which resulted into millions of deaths of his own people. Stalin used gulags and psychiatric hospitals to remove his opposition. He did not care about his people, he cared about the success of his country's industrial and economic aspects. Hitler's programs were not directed against his own people. He was determined to remove his enemies, but he did not direct his killing against his own German people. Sources - http://www.nybooks.com...
Eight Reasons Why Trinity is Invalid.

"1. Quoting Bible is not same with using Bible to support argument. I do not only use Bible, I also analyze Bible. I say Bible does not support Trinity, so to prove my point, I can only use Bible. I say Jesus did not claim any type of divinity, so to prove my point, I can only use Bible and common sense. To prove something in the Bible is not true (faith related issues) I can only use Bible. If Bible contradicts itself, for example, on issue of salvation, then at least one of the points of Bible about salvation is wrong, then Bible cannot be direct revelation and holding Bible as a prove for Bible is wrong and it is fallacy." You used the Bible as a source and you know it. This debate is about the validity of trinitarian monotheism according to the Bible. You used the Bible for your position, so I can too. "2. Please, I do not need you to teach me Informal fallacies, I already studied them, ALL. And there are no fallacies in my arguments." So you cannot handle criticism. Got it. It is also arrogant to assume that you are the only one with knowledge. Stick to the subject at hand. "3. Perfection of God is relevant, because triniterian God cannot be perfect, because if Jesus some how, is the part of God, then He shares all attributes of God with God, so if Jesus is imperfect, then God is imperfect. The shortest verse in Bible is, "Jesus swept", means Jesus cried, crying god, you have to love that. Jesus did not know time of last day, then he is not All-Knowing, then God is not also. Jesus was tempted. All-Powerfull God was tempted by his creation, who would worship to this God (except republicans, of course; no offense, I just don't like republicans)?" The relevant subject is the validity of trinitarian monotheism. If you keep changing the subject, I will be forced to make my own debate where people stick to the rules. "I made points, and brought evidence to support my points. Trinity is not found in the Bible, (both as word and concept) the verses which mostly quoted to support trinity, if you read in the context, then you will come to know, that they have nothing to do with trinity." You cannot logically say that the Bible is not a credible source and then use it as a source. Make up your mind.
Eight Reasons Why Trinity is Invalid.

1. Quoting Bible is not same with using Bible to support argument. I do not only use Bible, I also analyze Bible. I say Bible does not support Trinity, so to prove my point, I can only use Bible. I say Jesus did not claim any type of divinity, so to prove my point, I can only use Bible and common sense. To prove something in the Bible is not true (faith related issues) I can only use Bible. If Bible contradicts itself, for example, on issue of salvation, then at least one of the points of Bible about salvation is wrong, then Bible cannot be direct revelation and holding Bible as a prove for Bible is wrong and it is fallacy.2. Please, I do not need you to teach me Informal fallacies, I already studied them, ALL. And there are no fallacies in my arguments.3. Perfection of God is relevant, because triniterian God cannot be perfect, because if Jesus some how, is the part of God, then He shares all attributes of God with God, so if Jesus is imperfect, then God is imperfect. The shortest verse in Bible is, "Jesus swept", means Jesus cried, crying god, you have to love that. Jesus did not know time of last day, then he is not All-Knowing, then God is not also. Jesus was tempted. All-Powerfull God was tempted by his creation, who would worship to this God (except republicans, of course; no offense, I just don't like republicans)? 4. Translations can have contradictions. Do you have originals? This is a ritoric question, of course you don't have originals. If you say we have original greek manuscripts, none of two manuscripts are same, means this manuscripts contradicts each other.5. About Jesus speaking greek, it is an assumption, not fact. You do not have evidence to support your assumption. And as Bible says, Jesus was sent to House of Israel, and not all jews spoke greek.I made points, and brought evidence to support my points. Trinity is not found in the Bible, (both as word and concept) the verses which mostly quoted to support trinity, if you read in the context, then you will come to know, that they have nothing to do with trinity.Thank you for reading, ..... and we are part of great imagination.
Eight Reasons Why Trinity is Invalid.

My opponant needs to make up his mind. Either the Bible is a credible source or it is not. It is not logical to use the Bible to support your argument, then oppose me for doing the same. Anwhoo: Pro says: All my opponent had done just quoted Bible. No proofs, no facts or evedences to support her position. Ordiniray Christian mind. She did not ask questions, may be she knows I have answers to all her questions. I say: That is an ad homenim argument absurdem. Attacking your opponant's character to win the debate. That is a logical fallacy and it has no place in this debate. If you can use the Bible as a source, so can I. You did not ask me to do anything else. Pro says: If you want to prove your point, bring some evidence. I hope in this round, she will answer my questions, here they are : 1. Is God Perfect? I say: completely irrelevent. The subject of this debate is the validity of trinitarian monotheism according to the Bible, not whether the Bible is a credible source, and nothing more and nothing less. Pro says: 2. Is the Word of God Perfect? I say: stick to the subject. I am here to debate trinitarian monotheism. You cannot keep changing the subject. Pro says: 3. Can the Word of God have internal and external contradictions? No, but translations can. I do not believe that translations are the word of God, but just a translation. Next. Pro says: 4. If No, How would you expalin contradictions in OT, and NT? I say: errors in the transmittion and translation are the problem here. Pro says: 5. If you say it is Insprition from God, but work of man, then it is not Word of God. I did not say this. Pro says: 6. Do you have any evidence that Jesus spoke greek? Many Jews of His time spoke Greek, so it would make sense to say yes. Pro says: 7. Do you have any evidence apostels of Jesus wrote gospels? I say: not currently. Pro says: 8. Does Jesus or God confirms divinity of Holy Spirit (show facts)? What kind of facts? Pro says: Thank you for reading. You bet, I hope neither one of us is offended, and I am grateful for this debate. I am about to lose power, so you might not hear from me for e few hours. Debatcha then. :)
Eight Reasons Why Trinity is Invalid.

All my opponent had done just quoted Bible. No proofs, no facts or evedences to support her position. Ordiniray Christian mind. She did not ask questions, may be she knows I have answers to all her questions. If you want to prove your point, bring some evidence. I hope in this round, she will answer my questions, here they are :1. Is God Perfect?2. Is the Word of God Perfect?3. Can the Word of God have internal and external contradictions?4. If No, How would you expalin contradictions in OT, and NT?5. If you say it is Insprition from God, but work of man, then it is not Word of God.6. Do you have any evidence that Jesus spoke greek?7. Do you have any evidence apostels of Jesus wrote gospels?8. Does Jesus or God confirms divinity of Holy Spirit (show facts)?Thank you for reading.
Eight Reasons Why Trinity is Invalid.

I am not the best religion scholar, but I will take a swing at it. Let's address the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) first. Deuateronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!" This means that there is one God. Next: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." This means that in the beginning, Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. The two were one. It is confusing, but it is in the Bible. Acts 5:3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." Since Peter said that Anaias lied to the Holy Spirit, and that He lied to God, that means that the Holy Spirit is God. 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." This one means that there is one God that exists in three persons. Pretty straight forward. John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." It is important to know that cultural context of that I AM statement. That is the name that God said to Moses in Exodus, so Jesus was claiming to be God. John 10:30 I and My Father are one." This one implies the divinity of Jesus in two ways: He said that He and the Father are one, meaning that He is God, or part of God or however that works out, and He used the possessive "My" in reference to the Father. Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence." The term firstborn is a status of a importance, not a birth order. In ancient Hebrew times, the first born son was given the highest honor. The rest explains itsself, in my humble opinion. John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Although not explicit in this verse, Jesus was claiming to be God, because only God can be the way, the truth, and the life. John 8:19 Then they said to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also." This could be used in favor of Trinitarian monotheism. John 8:36 "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." Only God can set people free, and Jesus does that, so He has to be God.
Does the Bible support marriage equality.

Here is my evidence, as previously stated in my very first argument. I will put it in the KJV if you do not like the ESV. Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Romans 1 " For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." Both of these passages are my evidence, they are in my first argument. I do not understand why you do not think that I have evidence. I also am allowed to do my own arguing and not solely rely on other's work. For these reasons, you may not conclude that I have no evidence. So my points that I have now made in my first and third posting have gone unaddressed while my opponent has mainly attacked arguments that I did not make. These points go to me and I again state that you should make arguments based on what I have written. If you ignore that, we are not having an actual debate.
Does the Bible support marriage equality.

To start the second round, I will revisit my points and look at my opponent's points as well. So my opponent failed to address every point I made, that the Bible comes straight out (no pun intended) and states that homosexuality is an abomination and is dishonorable, unnatural, and indecent. These points are in my favor as of right now. To look at my opponents argument, I first want to ask a couple questions. Is posting links of other people making other arguments fair? I do not know, I have never seen this before. But from what I can tell, it goes over the character count and is not your own work. Regardless of that, I will address all of the points that gaychristian101.com made. For the first article on David and Jonathan, the author does not understand the relationship as it is. The Hebrew word for love as my opponent means is agape. That word never appears in those passages, and the relationship they form in a deep friendship and political pact. The article does not prove that it is a homosexual relationship, just states that it cannot be proved otherwise. This is not an argument for his side, and is not a winning one. For Sodom and Gomorrah, I did not quote that passage, and that is a straw-man fallacy, setting my argument into a easier one to defeat and attacking that. Please stick to the points that I made, or make your own, do not attack points that I did not make. The same goes for the Adam and Eve passage, the Leviticus passage, the 1 Corinthians passage, the Arsenokoitai passage, and the Leviticus passage. for the gay centurion, all the article says is a possibility of the centurion being gay, a one out of two chance. Since Scripture is always to be understood in context of other similar passages when looking at a difficult topic, this centurion cannot be gay because Jesus blesses him, and he would address that issue if it was there. But once again, that article does not establish the centurion as gay, merely allows for that possibility. Since the burden of proof is on the Con's side, and there is no proof, that point should go to Pro also. If you could , update me on using links in arguments and if that is good to support your argument of even make it. I would love to know.
Does the Bible support marriage equality.

I will be using the Kingames Version Bible. Davaid and Jonathan: http://www.gaychristian101.com... Sodom and Gomorrah: http://www.gaychristian101.com... 1 Corinthians 6: http://www.gaychristian101.com... Adam and Eve: http://www.gaychristian101.com... Lev. 18:22: http://www.gaychristian101.com... Jude: http://www.gaychristian101.com... Gay centurion: http://www.gaychristian101.com... Arsenokoitai: http://www.gaychristian101.com...
Does the Bible support marriage equality.

In this debate I will be basing my arguments off of one item - The inerrancy of Scripture. When Scripture says something, it is God speaking and is 100 percent correct 100 percent of the time. I cannot argue this subject without being granted this point. Basically, my main point is that the Bible, God's holy, inerrant words, states that homosexuality, which refers to all types of gay, lesbian, bisexual etc... is an abomination in his sight. Leviticus 20:13 states that "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." This argument is plain and clear and not open to different interpretations. Committing gay acts is an abomination. Romans 1 says "Therefore God gave them up in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another."They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen. For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." In this passage homosexuality, both gay and lesbian, is called dishonorable, unnatural, indecent, and are punished for their sin. God will not support dishonorable, unnatural, indecent acts. Nor does he punish those He supports. For these reasons I cannot believe that God accepts marriage equality. Once again, thanks to KJVPrewrather for this great topic. I am looking forward to an intelligent, civil debate!