BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible teaches that the kingdom of God has been established and exists on earth now."

Well, exactly how long do you need to post a reply? It takes me a maximum of an hour - and that's if I have to look something up. And I'm not directly, actually, and bodily illuminated in my understanding by the Spirit as you are - which I suppose is a handicap for me as far as time goes. Anyway, come up with an approximation as to how long it might take you to formulate a reply, and I'll debate it when I get back into town (which will be next Monday). Right now, I didn't have time to piddle around for 2-3 days while me or you or anyone else types out (what should be) an easy reply.
The Bible teaches that the kingdom of God has been established and exists on earth now."

I would just like to add two more definitions myself. They are: Exist- To have actual being; to be. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Now- at the present time or moment. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I hope my opponent approves of these definitions. To elaberate further, our debate is focused and centered around this statement by our definitions: -The Bible teaches that the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven has been set-up to have actual being on earth at the present time. - I have no further guidelines myself and hope my opponent agrees here. I send it back to her and I wait her argument. GL, AnnaNicole! Back to Pro~
The Bible teaches that the kingdom of God has been established and exists on earth now."

The entire proposition states: "The Bible teaches that the kingdom of God as prophesied has been established and exists on earth now." 1. The standard for proof is the Bible and the Bible alone. No other sources are mentioned in the proposition, nor are they acceptable as proof. Other sources may be cited as ancillary evidence. 2. References to Hebrew/English lexicons, Greek/English lexicons, Greek dictionaries, etc are permitted, of course, for explanations of Greek or Hebrew words or idioms. Definitions of terms: 1. "Kingdom" as used in Dan 2 and throughout the NT. Kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven are viewed as synonymous. 2. "Bible" - the 66 books of the Bible, and a standard translation thereof 3. "Teaches" - conveys the thought by direct statement or necessary implication 4. "As prophesied" - as predicted regarding the fact and the time of it 5. "Established" - was set up, built, firmly fixed Alright. First round acceptance/clarification of terms only. And look, Scotty! I even have it fixed to where you get the last word. You'll have four rounds to prove to everyone's satisfaction that the kingdom has not come yet.
A College Degree Is No Longer Enough

I think you are right when you say we have different understandings of the word "enough". To me, saying that a bachelors degree is "enough" is saying that if you have a bachelors degree, you have a good, better than average, or even guaranteed chance of getting a decent job. Although maybe having a bachelors degree might have been "enough" in a past America, I don't think that, in todays modern, tough economy America, having a bachelors degree is not enough, in my sense of the word. Like I said in my previous statement, companies nowadays are looking for the most educated people they can find, and having a bachelors degree does not make you stand out as it might have in the past, because more and more people are flooding in to get a higher education with the same hope, getting a better job.
The Playstation 3 is a bad system to own.

I believe the PS3 is a bad system to own. 1) The cost. It costs more to make a PS3 than it sells for. So, they have to make all their money on games. But their games SUCK. Which I'll get to later. The estimated cost before the release of the PS3 was $900, estimating based on the components that go into it. But, Sony released it for $600. Sony loses from $241 to $307 for each console they SELL. 2) Graphics + the CPU. Yes, I will admit that the CPU is better than the Xbox 360 or the Wii. But, the fact is that is way too hard to make games on! Many games have been cancelled for the PS3, and Atari, as well as many small buisness programmers, recently announced they're not going to be making ANY games for the PS3. Also, the cost of development soars when they do this, making even less profit for the console. This is a list of cancelled games: Black Blade Bratz Babyz Dirty Harry Eleveon Endless Saga Fear & Respect Killing Day Monster Hunter 3 NBA Live Rayman Raving Rabbids Saints Row Scarface: The World Is Yours The Sopranos: Road to Respect Splinter Cell: Double Agent Thesis WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 Also, the quantity and quality of exclusive games doesn't compare do its competitors. Xbox 360: 91 Halo 3, the fastest selling video game ever. Gears of War, a great early 360 title that is now becoming a movie Saints Row, a game cancelled for the PS3, is becoming the predecessor to GTA. Bioshock, won G4 and Spike TV's game of the year. Project Gotham Racing, #1 was voted best Racing game ever. Wii: 76 What can I say: MARIO AND SONIC. The classics. Super Paper Mario Sonic and the Secret Rings Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games Mario Strikers Charged Super Mario Galaxy Super Smash Bros. Brawl Mario Party 8 Also, good games such as: Wii Sports, a very addictive launch title. Metriod Prime 3, 9.5 by IGN and Game Informer. PS3: 44 umm... there aren't any good PS3 exclusives. Xbox 360 beats everyone of the PS3's best in every genre. 3) Blu Ray: Yeah yeah, blu-ray is good, but it's bound to fail. The fact is, it costs way too much versus a DVD, and it isn't even that far superior. The media doesn't want to change to what Sony wants. Look at the Betamax and how that failed. Oh wait, look at the PSP's UMD discs. They failed miserably. 4) Online play. One of the biggest advantages the Xbox 360 and the Wii is the ability to play online. Sure, PS3 has free online. But it sucks. You can't find your friends. The ability to play most games is not avalible for most games. Also, the Wii has free online play, and it is still far superior. You can eaisly find someone to play with, and start playing. The PSP is an emperical example of how online play failed for the playstation. The PS3 even has the same layout as the PSP.
islam more violent than chrisitanity

I should start off by stating that my opponent has lost this debate because s/he has committed the intellectual dishonestly of copy/pasting word for word, without quotation marks his/her entire argument. If one searches (other than the Islamic verses) the text: ' The historical context of this passage...desist in their unbelief.' and Googles it one will realize that it is taken from the very site that my opponent quoted. This is extremely unfair, as my opponent should not plagiarize their material. I shall therefore in protest not write anything new, but simple extend my previous arguments. I believe that according to debate rules this argument of my opponent should be disregarded because it is also in the last round of the debate, something not allowed. In any case my opponent has plagiarized their material. Even if it is not plagiarized my opponent's argument is factually inaccurate. The word "fitna" means to create mischief, or chaos. That is why the word fitna is used instead of its translation. Fitna means one who disbelieves and causes chaos or problems. Or why is it that in Hadhrat Umar's perios (the 2nd Caliph) Islam had taken over modern day Iraq but Iraq remained non-Muslim for 50+ years?[1] As for the second verse, the cause of Allah here is Jihad, which also includes taking care of a mother, and this fighting is specifically in self defense. The last verse is also that if you are under seige harden your hearts and fight. As I said however I won't engage the argument greatly for my opponent not only provided positive material in the last round, they plagiarized their material. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
islam more violent than chrisitanity

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant ca
islam more violent than chrisitanity

Absolutely not one bit. I think my opponent's accusations are in bad taste to say the least. Since s/he once more did not provide an argument and the burden of proof him/her I deserve to win this right here and now. Even then I will present verses of the Holy Quran, and sayings from Hadith in comparison from Bible verses. I will not write an answer to each verse presented in my opponent's source because I feel that is un-needed. The first verse I present is where the Quran openly condemns unfair violence, it says: "Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors." Quran 5:32 Now keep in mind the Quran believes that Jesus and Moses were prophets, and that they were sent with Islam too, but their followers changed that Scripture. So here the Quran once more reiterates what God has sent to others before: that no one should ever harm an innocent. So there until my opponent provides an argument, seeing how they have the harden of proof, I need not do anything else. This should suffice, I feel I have won because the next round is the last round.
islam more violent than chrisitanity

I would remind my opponent that the burden of proof is on them, and that it is not enough to provide a source, dairygirl must provide a written argument in this debate. The current article is nearly 50, 000 characters plus, it is unfair that I would get only 10, 000 characters. I am sure the voters would agree; so with that I urge my opponent to present an argument. May the best debater win.
islam more violent than chrisitanity

islam is more violent than chrisitanity this debate focuses on nonbelievers, not things such as stoning sinners. if you included this stuff, it'd be even more violent. "The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter." for some of the verses and the link to the above quote see the following link: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... the old testament was violent. then Jesus came and said things like "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". and "turn your cheek". and people generally view Jesus's death as a pacification of God's wrath such that violence is not necessary anymore, and generally violence isn't seen as necessary any more. islam still has commands for violence that doesn't have someone like Jesus standing in the way to stop them.
Physical force is mightier than words

" Alright, The first thing I noticed what that you haven't refuted all my points, And I ask why. " - If I refuted every single one of your points, We would be here all day. What I and many others do is refute their opponent's main points so that they aren't wasting time. " Yes, It is technically not a country, But pretty much behaves like one. It has its positions of power, Different cities, A military, A political government, However bad, To govern it, And more. " - Then it's NOT just a physical force if it has a hierarchy and has a political government. " I would like Con to in turn show me a modern nation without any protection whatsoever, And only rely on laws and rules. " - Once again, My claim is NOT that a country can subsist off of words alone, I already agreed that it does need some sort of force to enforce rules. " I basically win this debate, Showing how a nation governing with only power would be able to sustain itself, " - You still have not proven how a nation can survive only on raw power and force alone, These " nations" still need laws and rules to run them. Without laws, Regulations, Or diplomacy, It's not even a country in the first place. There is NO country in the world that lives off of force alone. Heck, Even North Korea has a government and has some sort of diplomacy. The bottom line is countries need a healthy balance of physical force and diplomacy. A country needs to live off of both at the same time. Without words, There will be no laws or regulations. WIthout force, There will be nothing to enforce laws and regulations.
Physical force is mightier than words

Dammit your a pro whyyyyy. Alright, The first thing I noticed what that you haven't refuted all my points, And I ask why. I said in my previous essay how we could make a nation with only physical might and no laws. You attempt to refute this by saying:"Without laws, Regulations, Idea's, Or diplomacy, Your nation cannot exist. While it would be possible to have a nation run on just laws and good diplomacy alone, A country with just force alone wouldn't even be considered a nation but rather an army. " That is not true. First I'd like to give you an example of a country that has no military or police force protecting it. However, When I asked you to find me a country, You asked me back to find you a country that exists with virtually no laws. ISIS. Yes, It is technically not a country, But pretty much behaves as one. It has its positions of power, Different cities, A military, A political government, However bad, To govern it, And more. In ISIS, You basically obey the ones with more power. Yes, There really is no rule for it, But it is obvious. They have more power than you. If you disobey or get this very mad or something, You're going to get shot by them. There is no law for killing these people either. ISIS is living proof that a nation could sustain itself with only military might. I would like Con to in turn show me a modern nation without any protection whatsoever, And only rely on laws and rules. If you get your facts wrong, I would have to post that you are wrong and expose you in the comments. I assure you that you do not want that, And I'm lazy and don't want to do it either way. So save both of us time. There is no country without any physical protection. Of course, Maybe a nation that only runs on power won't be successful, As you stated. But it would be enough to sustain a nation with needs. If ISIS grows to be a dominant power in their area, Which I really hope would not happen, I basically win this debate, Showing how a nation governing with only power would be able to sustain itself, While a government and/or nation without any form of protection from inside and outside harm would completely not be able to sustain itself. I enjoyed this debate with you, And it showed me really the different sides of this argument. Thank you for debating with me.
Physical force is mightier than words

" It is also not responsible for holding up governments amidst this chaotic and arguably cruel world. " - To be clear I'm not arguing that the pen is mightier than the sword, I am arguing that both are equally important. In the case of government, You can't have a government without communication or diplomacy. While you do need force to carry out laws, You STILL need the laws and ideas in the first place. There is no point in having an enormous amount of force with no laws or regulations to back it up plain and simple. We see this today with horrible 3rd world countries in Africa, They have the force needed to maintain order but lack the diplomacy, Laws, And leadership needed to guide a nation. " I could make a nation with only words, But it would fail. " - Without laws, Regulations, Idea's, Or diplomacy, Your nation cannot exist. While it would be possible to have a nation run on just laws and good diplomacy alone, A country with just force alone wouldn't even be considered a nation but rather an army. " I would really like Con to show me a few countries without an army or protection from others. " - Name me 1 country that exists without diplomacy, Laws, Or regulations at all. You will find none. The bottom line is that countries need a physical force and words to form a successful nation, A country just runs on force alone wouldn't be successful.
Physical force is mightier than words

I will be arguing that physical force is more effective than words when you want to achieve something. Before I get into my points though, I would like to say a few things. I recognize that pen, Paper, And words are strong. They can indeed be powerful, Awing, Devasting, Or scared. It is how papers like The Declaration of Indepedence was formed, And was how peace treaties were signed. However, It is not how rights are established, Or enforced. It is obvious that words alone are not responsible for treaties, Like The Declaration of Indepence. It is also not responsible for holding up governments amist this chaotic and aguably cruel world. It is not how laws and rights are upheld. Instead it is physical might, The power of physical dominance, That compels people to EFFFECTIVELY carry out these laws, Ideas, And instructions that were written by the pen or voiced by a protester. Laws and rights are only effective and significant because they can be defended by a physical force when such a time comes. If they were just words, Simply words, Very few will care about them. Let me give an example of this, Actually. If I were to make a country or nation, I could go write up a thousand page book of the laws and history of my country, But on a global scale, Nobody will really care about it. However, What if I were to make a nation that held the power of a hundred nuclear bombs? Obviously, These wouldn't be enough to kill and destroy everyone, But it would be enough to get other nations to recognize me. The mere danger of an all-out nuclear war with the US would make my nation recognized on a global scale. I could make a nation with only words, But it would fail. On the other hand, I could make a nation with only the strongest physical force. I would really like Con to show me a few countries without an an army or protection from others. Physical force is also the one to abolish things like slavery. Yes, We have great figures like Martin Luther King Jr. , Who fought with words, But remember that it was the people who were under threat of physical force from the government that made people comply. I wait for Con to respond
Physical force is mightier than words

Let me get my debate a little bit more clear. What I mean when I say: "Physical might is mightier than words" is basically saying: "The sword is mightier than the pen". The reason I didn't name my debate that is because people might not get what the debate is about. . . There are dumb people out there. Anyways. . . First round will be acceptance only. Opponent must also clarify position so we know we're on the same page. Failure to do so will mean opponent loses the round and must resign the duel, And will acknowledge that they have lost the debate.
Religion has no explanatory power

As my opponent believes religion has no explanatory power and my belief i christian. I do believe that god our christian god created us. First i doubt anyone could make up the bible its allot and theres alot of stuff. To say we were made out of thin air is possible because everything is created, Another look are the documents of the 972 dead sea scrolls that were found in caves. These scrolls gave proof that the bible was written when it was written and thoroughly explains alot and was similar. The world is not even old enough for us to have evolved through chance. 2 years ago a missionary (someone who goes around country's preaching about god) got arrested and sent to be executed. When they loaded there guns to shoot they all jammed up wen they tried to shoot him luck? i dont think so. believe it or not how do you think some people that survive do survive? because they have faith in god. Now you cant say "oh but what about the other Christians who died" mainly because in the bible it states, "There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light." Revelation 22:5 If you read or look up the meaning in the bible it basically means your time comes when your time comes. SO god obviously plans for people to die. If you believe in the big bang theory where something just exploded thats wrong. Where did the explosion come from. And youll probably think ok where did god come from the difference is god states hes is the begging and the end the big bang theory doesn't have a bible or anything. Look at the earth it is the perfect shape and the perfect distance form the sun so we dont experience extreme heat and just different temperatures. An explosion is an explosion the chances are low it could create a perfect sphere. Another reason i look at human cells, the DNA in our cells are made so complex and similar like CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT for each cell it has billions of these letters how can an explosion or something just create something so unique for each human cell. Look at all the other god like Buddha, Zeus and more they only claimed to be gods. They never once claimed mightier than any gods or God himself. But God did say he was mightier and he was the only god. God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. This is why i believe there is a God our Lord.