BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Set Man Up For Certain Failure

Our failures can prevent us, not disqualify, because we all get our judgement day before God. Not all of us will be saved, Matthew 7:21, we must live in accordance with his creed, not with our own creed. When reading The Bible the common theme persists, God will not break his covenant with us, he will show us the light and the light will bring us to salvation. When we read about the things that will separate us from God, they are personal, selfish behaviors. The 10 commandments, 10 rules we must follow, then the beatitudes, and finally the 7 deadly Sins. If there is no possiblity of failure than these lusts and sins would not be present in our lives, for 1 or 2 reasons. Number 1 God did not put them on earth for man to discover. Number 2 Man is built such in Gods image he does not discover these sins and the sins do not pass down from generation to generation. Both of these are false, because greed, lust, gluttony, thievery and murder to name a few are all to common in our lives, it only took one sheep to leave the flock for more to follow. God is all great and ever knowing, but He gave us free will and tempted us with the Devil to do as we please in our lives. We know the path, what is right and what is wrong so actively choosing to do the wrong is denying God in your life and the lives of those around you so you can achieve temporary pleasure.
God Set Man Up For Certain Failure

The Bible is without error, but humans are not. Humans have error, so that is where we need God and The Bible to guide us that is what you seem to be forgetting here. A person can reject all of it, but as long as that person comes back to the path, which is Christ, you can be forgiven and saved. << Coudn'tjhave said it better myself >>The Bible brings up several points about being good in the eyes of God, humility, fearfulness, charity, forgiveness and love. To name a few, but as Christians this is what we strive to do everyday to be better people, not so we get brownie points with God. He knows the difference.<< Right. Love is the only motive God accepts(I Cor 13:1-3). >> There is one thing the be arrogant when it comes to God, that comes in a form of ignorance you do not understand how God works, then there is knowing,denying, manipulating and desecrating God, something Hitler did. Hitler in a sense could be called an Anti Christ, he knew the religion, he denied the religion for his own self serving ways, he killed millions and millions of people for no reason he was arrogant, boastful, mean and lived a life in a literal hell denying God during his whole reign. Now how can you still tell me that man cannot fail? Hitler Failed.<< I have never said man cannot fail. If I did I would be denying my own sins. The subject "God set man up for failoure." I rject that idea. Even good human parents would not set their children up for failure. We try to set them up for success. Our heavenly Father is much more loving than we frail humans. Lk 11:13 - If you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Fatgher give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him? >>Hitler knew what was right, he knew what was wrong he chose to do what pleased him. He acted as if he was a god. You cannot be saved from hell if you did what he did. You deny God, he will deny you. If man was meant never to fail, there would be no suffering, there would be no living. We have choices to make during this life, with Christ we have a 99% chance of success, but we can still fail.<< Thank goodness our failures do not disqualify us from entering the kingdom of heaven. God knows what He has to work with---He is mindful that we are but dust(Ps 103:14)
Social Media is Dangerous to Our Social Culture

Yes, I can agree with you that if we control what we put onto the internet we will minimize our risk of people getting our private information. I will clarify what I meant by third party companies being able to access our information. When signing up for a Microsoft account, the terms and agreements page (the one that nobody ever reads) explains that by creating an account you are allowing Microsoft to give out your information to third party companies. While this might not necessarily be a bad thing it still proves that your information is easily accessible. I know when I go onto the internet 20 hackers are not going to trace my IP address. I was simply trying to make the statement that your information online is easily accessible and we need to be aware and practice internet security. You don't have to always visit third party websites for them to get your information. Sometimes they have already gotten it from another account you signed up for elsewhere. I can also see your point about social media being a tool to use for advice on communication. This may be a true statement however, there are also other better ways to meet people and build confidence in a face to face interaction. There are many church groups, college groups, and even community groups. These are places that you can go and meet like minded people in person and build confidence and get advice on how to communicate. We have so many other options that we are starting to take for granted because of social media. It can poison our society and feed us false information. The news is biased and is full of lies and continues to get worse. Social media can be a great addition to our society. Unfortunately, it is being abused and has become dangerous to our social culture.
Social Media is Dangerous to Our Social Culture

First of all, you started that any information can be found online, and that it's not anonymous. While that's partially right, as long as you control yourself and don't reveal private information, you will be safe. It's not like the second I go in the internet 20 hackers suddenly trace my IP, then leak out my name, address, and credit card number. If you don't want any third-party websites to spy on your computer, simply do not visit websites that say they're giving away something for free, or anything on those lines. Secondly, you have stated that you will gain more confidence talking face-to-face, and again, that's somewhat correct. With social media, you can build up your confidence and ask for advice how to talk to someone. There's many websites where you can ask anonymously for advice, and that's how you build confidence up through social media to talk face-to-face.
Social Media is Dangerous to Our Social Culture

So it's fair to say that we agree on the matter of humans abusing the system, and with proper discipline we can control our social media usage, and use it for a good purpose. I noticed the point that you brought up about spending time online after a bad day. You stated it was a place to go anonymously and enjoy yourself, which I can partially agree with that's why we are having this debate. But let me ask you this; Do you really think that you are anonymous online? There are so many ways that third party company's can track your computer which then leads to you. Nothing is private on the Internet once it's posted online, it's there for good! There are so many ways that people can get information on somebody just by looking at an online profile. Your statement about spending time online boosting your confidence, a face to face interaction in my opinion will boost your confidence a lot more then an online conversation. I can see your point about social media boosting somebody's confidence, I just believe that face to face interaction is much more rewarding when it comes to social confidence.
Social Media is Dangerous to Our Social Culture

It's fair to say that Social Media does have a few things bad here and there, but it's not the worst thing in the world. In my opinion, it has to be used in a good way. If humans learn to not abuse the system, it will be fair to use. Social Media is somewhere were people have a bad time, they can go anonymous and enjoy themselves. If you have a bad day at school, spending some time online will give you back your confidence and refill your energy- just like you how you refill a car. It's also something you can use when there's nothing else to do. Heck- I'm debating right now because the next best thing I can do is stare the wall of my room. Yes, interacting face-to-face is a better way to make friends, but don't you already talk to everyone every day at school? I can see from your view, that it's been abused by humans for generations, but there will be something a moral lesson taught one day that Social Media isn't everything in life.
Social Media is Dangerous to Our Social Culture

Social media plays a big role in our culture today and will continue to do so for years to come. However, social media has a major problem that I see. From this problem I raise the question; What is social media doing to our social interactions? Social media has started to breakdown our social abilities as humans when we have face to face encounters with people. I believe that there has been a fear development among younger generations when it comes to face to face interactions with people. Conversations with younger generation individuals have become awkward and broken. When was the last time you had a conversation with somebody where a smartphone has not been used at some point in the interaction? I feel like people have become afraid of face to face interaction. This fear has lead everybody to texting. People will text somebody that is sitting right next to them which makes no sense when you could just tell the person. Texting has become more comfortable then face to face interaction which breaks down our ability to communicate effectively and professionally. Social media threatens our social structure if we continue to abuse it and misuse it. Our ability to communicate in face to face interactions has started to lack because of social media. And this is a problem that cannot be ignored, because it threatens our social culture and will continue to do so if we don't take action!
In fair fight, Qui-Gon Jinn would likely defeat Luke Skywalker

TopicIn a fair fight, Qui-Gon Jinn would likely defeat Luke Skywalker. Rules1. Debaters may pull from canon texts, the official Star wars movies, and Wookieepedia to construct their arguments2. BOP: Pro must show that Qui-Gon would likely defeat Luke; Con must show that Luke would likely defeat Qui-Gon.3. All links must be cited in the text of the debate4. Any forfeit, violation of the R1 rules, or violation of the R1 set-up, constitutes a 7-point lossDefinitionsFair Fight - a fight in which neither competitor has any special advantage other than what they would normally be able to do. In a fair fight the rules apply equally to all contestants. Likely - indicating probability and/or plausibilityDefeat - to win victory over. This does not mean Windu must kill Yoda, only render him unable to continue or force him to concede the battle.
Scientific theories should require the ability to be falsified.

Let me just say, it's an honor to debate with you RoyLatham, Pro hereafter. These are the things we discussed in the comments: The notion of Falsifiability as a requirement for science is a rather recent suggestion by Karl Popper [1]in his 1959 work, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery.” Meanwhile science has arguably been around way longer than the 50's. So falsifiability isn’t as well entrenched as Pro makes out, and it’s certainly up for questioning. As Pro said, he’ll have to defend that falsifiability is a criteria for a validly conceived scientific theory. In other words, Pro must defend that it is a necessary condition of scientific hypotheses and theories that they are falsifiable. Definition: A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if and only if there exists a logically possible observation statement or set of observation statements that are inconsistent with it. On the other hand, it is not my burden to show that falsifiability should be removed as a criteria for a valid scientific theory. That is a normative claim and it’s not the logical opposite of Pro’s descriptive claim. Rather my position as Con will be to show, descriptively, that falsifiability is not a necessary condition for a scientific hypothesis or theory. I agree with the definitions however note that the definition of a scientific theory doesn’t include the actual requirement for falsifiability, rather it’s of a suggestive nature, “The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena.” So the strength of a scientific theory is proportional to how bold or risky its predictions are. But since this is just a suggestion for what makes a good scientific theory, then it doesn’t make sense to say I as Con am “arguing for a change in the status quo, which therefore bears the burden of proof.” I agree I have a burden and that’s to show that falsifiability isn’t a necessary condition for a scientific hypothesis or theory. And Pro’s burden is to show the opposite, that falsifiability is in fact a necessary condition for a scientific hypothesis or theory. Here is the discussion on this matter. I hope Pro and I can generate a fruitful dialog! http://www.debate.org...Sources1. http://plato.stanford.edu...
Scientific theories should require the ability to be falsified.

Falsifiability has long been held as a criteria for a validly conceived scientific theory. In this debate I will defend this criteria, and Con will argue that falsifiability is not a necessary criteria for a valid scientific theory. Science is defined asknowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation[1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...]and a scientific theory isa well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force. ... The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena.[2. http://en.wikipedia.org...]This opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. We agreed to the definitions of science and scientific theory prior to the debate. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.I'm looking forward to a good debate.RulesStandard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and for readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence or make new arguments in R4. R4 is for summarizing the debate and pointing out merits and deficiencies of the arguments rather than introducing new contentions.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.
Philanthropy Should Be Compulsory

Correct me if I am wrong but is the first part arguing that charities would be involved in scandals and the only way to stop that would be lots of regulations, etc, which is not good? I could argue that the rate of misconduct is fairly low amongst charities and that much good can still be done even with the possibility of a relatively small number of scandals. I would argue that philanthropy is also a benefit to a whole society. Liberty still exists because people can choose which charity they give to. They may choose to support Liberalism campaigns and if successful could increase their liberty. I would say the last category could be debated. Some people already give to charity. So, their happiness might not go down. Research shows that giving to charity can improve happiness. Significantly more money to charity may tackle some problems that cause unhappiness. So, if it was based on overall happiness, there would be more happiness in the world from a mandate.
Philanthropy Should Be Compulsory

So, I must divide my argument into three categories:Human NatureLiberalismUtilitarianismHuman NatureConfucian philosopher Xunzi devotes a great deal of thought to how humans pursue the Five Utmosts (physical pleasures corresponding to the five senses). It is not unthinkable, or even unlikely, that a charity should be set up by some persons who strive to gain for themselves. One needs only refer to the Wounded Warrir scandal from 2015 to see how this would take place. The only way to continuously pursue such criminals is through increasing government regulation and legislation which pertains to each scam as it comes up. This brings us to....LiberalismIt is inherently immoral, regardless of reason, to force some one to give up of their own resources so that others may benefit. This is not a Taxation is Theft argument, for taxation is used to benefit the whole of Society. However, when one is forced by mandate to provide for philanthropy, their own Liberty is being violated. It amounts to little more than a tithe, a throwback to the superstitious policies which were done away with in 1789. Discussing the individual's Liberty, even the Liberty to be selfish, brings me to ....UtilitarianismSome may see a Utilitarian taking the con in this debate as contradictory. Once I was asked if I am an "Act" or "Rule" Utilitarian. I am an Act Ut.. Suffice it to say here that forced Philanthropy deprives the individual of the Right to his/her own happiness. Thus, the summation of happiness is decreased with each giver, which, since philanthropy would be compulsory, would be a majority of the given population. Hence, it is inherently anti-Utilitarian. In closing, People should be free to pursue their own goals. If those goals are selfish, then sobeit. And if some day the selfish should need help, let them be faced with selfishness. If those goals are philanthropic, then sobeit, and those charitable persons can be lauded. But no compulsion.
Philanthropy Should Be Compulsory

I want to argue that philanthropy should be compulsory or close to compulsory. A special tax, opt-out charity donations, etc. Five assumptions on why, Not enough money is going to philanthropy. Efforts to significantly increase philanthropy have not been successful. Philanthropy can do good things. {For example, not for profits are better at finding people work than the government}. It is easier to get the money through something like tax than thousands of fundraisers. Italy has a similar system in place when it comes to supporting religions. So, it is doable. People can choose which charity or charities the money goes to.
Philanthropy Should Be Compulsory

Allow me to explain why charities should have to compete for donations: In the current state of play, the charity has to compete not only with other charities, but also with the option of simply not giving. If that latter option were removed, there would be no real danger, as that many executives of various charities are in some way connected to other charities (for example, the Roman Catholic Church tends to give to various charitable groups with connections to political organizations). Thus, the option of not giving makes it possible that an expose on charity corruption will actually do some damage to that charity's execs. As for people pursuing their own best interest, every economist takes this a given. I assume you are referring to drug users, the morbidly obese, etc.. What you need to understand is that the list of own best interests is different for each individual. A druggie views his next fix as in his own best interest, just as you might view buying eggs as in your best interest. By mandating charities, you are forcing people who may have other plans for that money to give it up, and with that their own personal happiness. I see your reasoning for not using Utilitarianism as Utilitarianism. It's needed and it can do good = Increase the sum total of happiness. One reason people may be happier after donating to a charity is that tax write-off many governments offer for doing so. By mandating charity, you not only get rid of that tax write-off, but also add another tax (granted, the money added does not go to the government). So those who give for the reason for tax reasons will be worse off if charity is mandatory. As for the total sum of good, that is best measured by the happiness of each individual. By decreasing the happiness of the donors (who are in the majority), you decrease the happiness and the thus the good. Let us also not forget that, whenever money is involved, people do get greedy. This goes for charity admin also see the RCC for an example
Philanthropy Should Be Compulsory

You raise a good point about what may occur with mandatory philanthropy. I do think though that it is too simplistic to believe that a key part of fraud is linked to charities having to compete for donations. There are many reasons why corruption and fraud exists. {And not every foundation that does not rely on donations with never ending endowments to draw upon has fraud}. I would also argue that the statement that people pursue their best interest is more of an opinion than a fact. {At least, they don't always do it}. I would also note that Zuckerberg's LLC should not be included in the list of bad things. He has not chosen the groups yet . And the LLC allows donations to both charities and for profit companies that can advance charitable aims. I would note that my justification for giving was not based on an Utilitarian argument but rather other issues like, more money is needed and it can do good. I would also argue that just because we don't mandate everything that is good does not preclude mandating this. Just because we can't do everything does not mean we should do nothing. I would also argue that more happiness would come overall. {If we used a U argument} The people who don't give cite different reasons for not giving. Some of them cite reasons that can be countered. They may believe all charities are bad, spend too much on admin, etc. This can be countered by noting there are independent groups that have found good charities, some charities don't spend money on admin {and admin can be a good thing to run a charity}. Therefore, some of the anti-mandate people may shift to a yes vote and increase happiness. The compulsory nature will bring some of the no vote to the point of just accepting it thus reducing unhappiness. It may not increase unhappiness in people already unhappy when it comes to paying tax. They may view it just as the same thing. Plus, all the good that will come from charities I would argue means more good not less