BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Judaism

This is my very first debate, so I apologize to everyone for my lack of experience. Here is what I believe: 1 - I believe in one god 2 - I believe in prophets including Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Elijah, and others. (Not jesus) 3 - I do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet. 4 - I do not believe that the Quran was sent by G-d. 5 - I believe in miracles 6 - I believe in Gog u Magog and the Resurrection of the dead. 7 - I believe in heaven and hell (but hell is not eternal in most cases) This might be irrelevant, but in addition to those beliefs, I believe in everything written in the Tanach (Hebrew Bible) and I believe in the Oral Torah (which is written in the Midrashim and Mishnayot) I assume that this round was only for stating beliefs.
Judaism

started this debate not willing to hear any hateful comments, I just want debate with a Jewish to prove my point of view. In this round we will state what we believe in: 1- I believe in one and only god 2-I believe in prophets including Jesus, Solomon, Joseph, Moses and etc. 3- I believe that the prophet Mohammed was the last prophet sent by god 4- I believe in the holy Quraan and believe that it's the last book sent by god 5- I believe in miracles 6- I believe in the day of judgement 7- I believe in heaven and hell
God exists

1.) Good and Evil is a human concept. We base what is good and evil on how we ourselves like or hate things. What one person might consider evil another may consider good. There is no God that sets what good and evil are as absolutes. 2.) Nobody can prove there is no God, but my opponent has the burden of proof that there is, in fact a God. Can my opponent be wrong about "knowing" there is a God? 3.) Only opinions based on facts can be considered rational opinions. Without facts, opinions are worthless. If someone has an opinion that a God exists and it is not based on facts, then the opinion is worthless. My opponent claims "If there is no God, then 9-11, Newtown, and the Holocaust were not bad things. They were all justified." Those events were only justified by certain people. the 9/11 hijackers considered what they did "good" while the rescue workers trying to help, considered what they did "bad". That proves my point that there is no God that sets what good and evil are as absolutes. It's how an individual person sees it. My opponent still has not proved that God exists.
God exists

1.) Yes proving evil and good does show there is a god. What do you believe evil is? Is it something made up or is it real? Do you believe something can be good or bad? There has to be someone who determines what is evil and what is good. 2.) Can you be wrong about anything you know? Can you know something for sure? Are you absolutely sure there is no God? 3.) Proving God is a matter of opinion. I could give some evidence to an atheist and he could believe me and then become a deist. Therefore I proved to him God exist. Now let"s say I give the same evidence to a different atheist. He doesn"t believe me. I failed to prove he exists. Listening to everything you said it sounds like you will never believe in God no matter how much "proof" you get. The fact that you could be wrong shows that nothing is fully proven. If something has been proven, then that means absolute truth exist. If there is no God, then 9-11, Newtown, and the Holocaust were not bad things. They were all justified. What were they justified by? The nature of man. With no God, that is the only law. Everything we do is justified. There is no bad or good. Life is meaningless and we are nothing more than worthless animals. Love, life, family, friends, fun, caring, etc. were all accidents. None of them mean anything. Why are you getting offensive? What I"m saying in your mind is meaningless? But you obviously do care. There must be a reason why you care. Why is that?
God exists

That's right. It is impossible to prove one or the other. Since the burden of proof is on YOU, you lost by admitting that. Even if science can't prove a thing, that doesn't prove there is a God. Proving evil and good doesn't prove there is a God. Proving absolute truth doesn't prove there is a God. You claim "absolute truth can only exist with a god" PROVE IT. You already said God is impossible to prove. You have the burden of proof. I won the debate.
God exists

first of all it is impossible to prove one or the other. i will give some examples and if you dont mind you can give some back why he cant exist. 1.) the creation of time and the universe. 2.) "evil" and "good" 3.) absolute truth. 1.) the universe has been proven by scientist of all sorts that the universe has had a beginning. (ill post citations later) how could it have begun? how was it created? 2.) evil and good exist. please give me examples of how it cant. 3.) absolute truth can only exist with a god, and absolute truth exist.
God existence is clear!!

"So now the burden is on you to run into shops buying gifts you are now the devils slave who has seemed to have disappeared as quickly as Santa did." That in no way says anything about God! My position is that there is great debate in regards to God's existence, this confirms that God's existence is not clear. Many people believe in God, but any reasonable person will agree that it's not exactly clear if God exists. This is sufficient evidence to counter my opponents premise as stated. The rest of the stuff about Santa and the Devil is just irrelevant and illogical, so there is no reason to address those particular statements. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My opponent has offered NO AFFIRMATIVE statements showing that it's clear that God exists. My opponent didn't even address the topic which is supposed to be in question here... instead he offered some unintelligible statements about Santa and Satan (the Devil). Please Vote CON! My opponent has offered no reasonable argument to support his position!
God existence is clear!!

As a child you believe in Santa Claus? Most children do. You enjoyed the fact that Santa was a cheerful man, who deserved to give gifts to your children. (If you are a parent you get no credit for Christmas when you have young children as Santa does all the work) You as a Child are born enjoying Christmas every year believe that Santa will come into your house (If Santa was to visit ever house in one night, He would have to spend a 1 millionth of a second at each house) Moving that fast is supernatural. Like the devil who hides, it would be impossible for the eye to see Santa as your eye can only see a maximum of a 20th of a second. So Santa is the devils way for bring in the children into the Physical world (mentioned in my other debate, "Randomness is a lack of knowledge in the Spiritual and Physical world") As a Child the Devil acts like the child is in control by doing nothing on Christmas and the devil (now known to me as Santa) has the burden of running about after presents. When you Grow older you become the devils slave as you do not believe in Santa and therefore the devil anymore. Making your life style converted by physical not spiritual beliefs. And now as a adult with money "You can not serve two masters, money and God." is more avaible, again more involved in the physical world. So now the burden is on you to run into shops buying gifts you are now the devils slave who has seemed to have disappeared as quickly as Santa did. The trap is hell and if you are still a sinner you will go there unless you trust in Jesus (spiritual) and confess you are a evil person in a physical world.
this house supports eco- terrorism

Pro hasn't really rebutted either of my arguments. It doesn't *matter* if it is a effective way of spreading environmental messages; it is still illegal and immoral. For such crimes to be permitted, there would have to be an *enormous* benefit coming off of them, and that simply does not exist with eco-terrorism. Pro has not been able to show a single instance in which eco-terrorism successfully led to reforms with significant positive impacts. It is far more plausible that eco-terrorism would just give a bad reputation to the environmental protection movement; just look at how negatively the EPA is viewed among the public-- it's actions are relatively moderate compared to those of eco-terrorists! Eco-terrorism would elicit an even *more* negative response. It is clear that eco-terrorism should be rejected-- most vehemently so by those who care most about encouraging the public to "go green". The resolution is negated.
this house supports eco- terrorism

well said.. however I still stand my ground in support of Eco terrorism as although there are other ways going about my argument, but the process of informing the citizens and people in different places or ranks in politics will occur faster with Eco terrorism than without it. If we have regular sit ins or conference that can get a few people into interest, taking radical actions guarantees the front page of every newspaper, magazine, the opening story to every news channel this will promote environmentalism and therefore get people more involved about our environment and how such decisions as to making a new company which produces way too much co2 should be cautioned and if possible not be allowed to have a property because it damages the earth, we didn't create the earth so why damage it with our own ignorance? Also, if we compare with the authorities that often use brutal means to put down peaceful protest such as fire hoses and pepper spray, the treatment of Eco terrorists is often worse. unlike terrorism, the crime committed does not aim to create a climate of fear amongst the people it only seeks to influence the people revealing and educating the public as to the many atrocities committed against the earth.
this house supports eco- terrorism

A1: Arson and sabotage are illegal, regardless of how noble the cause is. What the eco-terrorists are doing is a blatant violation of their targets' property rights, as well as an interference to their right to pursue happiness. Eco-terrorism is both immoral and illegal; it isn't justifiable on any level. A2: There are far more efficient and less intrusive ways to raise awareness of environmental issues, such as fund-raisers and public presentations. Eco-terrorism is actually counter-productive because it causes the public to associate environmental protection with the unethical actions of eco-terrorists. Cost/benefit analysis reveals that eco-terrorism is detrimental to its own cause. I'm not sure what exactly the resolution is, but I've shown that eco-terrorism is an all-around stupid idea, so I presume that it has been negated.
this house supports eco- terrorism

I think the idea behind eco-terrorism is good. This is because the main aim of eco terrorism is to use direct action tactics such as arson and sabotage to promote environmental aims, including the prevention of deforestation, pollution and damage to eco systems... these tactics are non violent meaning they aim to disrupt organisations and damage property and do not aim to harm people. this means that supporting eco terrorism would bring about awareness to the environmental issues that big companies that are constantly releasing CO2 into the atmosphere would be bringing to the future such as extreme global warming and more damage to the ozone layer and in the worst case scenario bioaccumulation from the chemicals leaked into the rivers by companies which is very dangerous to us and a disaster to habitats.
if it is true that Mary and Joseph had children as claimed by some christians

While I have used straightforward arguments, Con has attempted to twist the bible to their own benefit. Some of the things you say are just wrong-"I believe that Joseph never touched Mary as it would be sinful for him" You are saying that it would be sinful for a man to have sexual relations with his wife. This, obviously, is absurd." Joseph, being a God-fearing man, consented to be the protector of Jesus , His own savior, without any thought of having any sexual relationship with Mary, who had been espoused by the Holy Spirit. If he were to sleep with Mary. he would be betraying his mission."a) Jesus doesn't really need protection. (You know, God in the flesh and such) b) Second, the Holy Spirit did not marry Mary. You have no biblical proof for this.c) There is no reason that someone would be "betraying his mission" by having sexual relations with his wife.d) I am fairly sure that Joseph did in fact have thoughts of having sexual relations with Mary, as they were married. Also, this is from the writings of Josephus,[1] a historian not long after the life of Jesus-"and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James,"The name James also matches up with the aforementioned James.Please, consider the evidence, and vote Pro.[1] https://clas-pages.uncc.edu...
if it is true that Mary and Joseph had children as claimed by some christians

Again, I ask for biblical proof for your claims. I am not making excuses or assumptions like you. I belive what the bible says. Why do you belive that? What proof do you have to say that Jesus had no brothers?"I suppose you also want to question the catholic dogma of Mary's Immaculate Conception"You have to realize that this is entirely irrelivant to the topic at hand. "I believe I have answered your objections re brothers with my previous arguments with scriptural verses and logical reasoning. Granting that there is mention of persons saying that Jesus had siblings, my question was: Who were saying this? Were they authoritative people?"So, what you are saying is that you are questioning the accuracy of the Word of God, but accepting the word of men that Mary was always a virgin. "As for her perpetual virginity, for sure many women, like nuns, have remained virgins all their lives."This is a shame isn't it. These women never were able to be married and feel the benefiets of sexual pleasure, which is a gift from God, and is perfectly acceptable within marriage. And all of it from an innacurate and unbiblical dogma installed later from the words of men, not the words of God. Did Christ advocate abstinece? The following is 1 Timothy 4-"Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,"Back to you Con.
if it is true that Mary and Joseph had children as claimed by some christians

I believe I have answered your objections re brothers with my previous arguments with scriptural verses and logical reasoning. Granting that there is mention of persons saying that Jesus had siblings, my question was: Who were saying this? Were they authoritative people? The evangelists were merely reporting what ignorant people were saying, without confirming what they were saying, like those who thought that Jesus was Elijah, John the Baptist brought back to ;life, or some other prophet. I suppose you also want to question the catholic dogma of Mary's Immaculate Conception. You believe what ignorant people said. Mary is authoritative and she said: My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord for he has done great things for me. What great things, do you know that God did for Mary? If I may venture to say so, the great things that God did for Mary were for her to be conceived without sin, and thus be made worthy to carry our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in her womb. For unless Mary was sinless, how could Jesus be born from her. He would be contaminated by her sin. As for her perpetual virginity, for sure many women, like nuns, have remained virgins all their lives. For God nothing is impossible.
if it is true that Mary and Joseph had children as claimed by some christians

Here is the thing. I am using straightforward facts. The Bible is the word of God as you said before. When the Bible says brother, I don't have to make excuses. It is referring to his brothers. The perpetual Virginity of Mary is simply not Biblical."Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?"Sure, the word for brothers can have other meanings, but this meaning is clear. It is clearly talking about his immediate family. What would be more natural to say-"Isn't that the son of Mary and Joseph? and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?or"Isn't that the son of Mary and Joseph? and the cousin of his male cousins, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?"See, this is a doctrine that is not biblical, and there is no reason for it to be. Sexual pleasure (Within Marriage of course) is a gift from God. There is nothing impure about it.Think about it-Would Mary's perpetual virginity glorify God?No. Mary's virgin birth, however, is a miracle, but there is no reason for abstinence within the their holy union.Is Mary's perpetual virginity reasonable?No. There is no reason that Mary would not have wanted to, and would have, had sexual relations with Joseph.Is Mary's perpetual virginity Biblical?No. I challenge you to give facts supporting your claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin from scripture.
if it is true that Mary and Joseph had children as claimed by some christians

You asked for me to provide verses from the bible, and I believe I have done so. These are the statements made by several christian websi "Some Roman Catholics claim that these """brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for """brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for """cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers." http://www.gotquestions.org... For your information, the first verse was included to show that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, being that it said "Until she gave birth to a son" which implies that she was not a virgin after the birth. Also, to your point- There is a word in Greek that means cousin. When the bible was translated into Greek, why would they use a different word?
if it is true that Mary and Joseph had children as claimed by some christians

Mt 1:24-25 is not a proof that they had children because it does say that they had children. It is illogical to conclude that simply because a couple are married they must necessarily have children. I have relatives who are married and they have no children. Mt 12:46-47 and other verses saying that Jesus had brothers and two sisters are also not conclusive because in Jewish language, the term brothers and sisters can refer to all kinds of relatives. For example, Abraham refers to Lot as a brother but he is his nephew. When Jacob was pursued by Laban, he referred to everyone present as "brothers." "In the presence of our brothers, examine for yourself what I have and take what is yours." Moreover, it is not the intent of the passage to tell anyone that Jesus has brothers but to bring out the message of Jesus that "Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother." Mt 13:55. Anything found in scripture is WOG. But we do not have to understand that this is true. We can also read in scripture the words: "There is no God." And again, "He drives away devils by the power of Beelzebul." In reading scripture we sometimes need to determine who is saying what. In this particular verse (and parallels), it is unknowing persons who are speaking. Incidentally, in Mt 27,56, a certain Mary is identified as being the mother of James and Joseph, probably cousins of Jesus. Jude and Simon are names of some apostles and can qualify as brothers of Jesus. Jn2,12 mentions "his mother and the brothers." But Jn2,1 says "Jesus and his disciples were also invited." Presumably, the disciples and the brothers are the same persons. Acts 1,14 and 1 Co.4:5, and Ga. 1,19 are covered by the previous arguments.
if it is true that Mary and Joseph had children as claimed by some christians

To answer your question-(All quotes are from the NASB.) Matthew 1:24-25--"And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Matthew 12:46-47--"While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." Matthew 13:55--"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" Mark 6:2-3--"And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" John 2:12--"After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days." Acts 1:14--"These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers." 1 Cor. 9:4-5--"Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" Gal. 1:19--But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother I believe these will suffice.
universal background checks r a common sense solution to gun violence

con is being far fetched and radicalradical cause he puts the far fetched scenario of government take over over the present actual reality of gun violence.far fetched. he suggests that one hundred percent of people who are denied a gun will go get one when they might commit a crime. not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. con just says if you want a gun you can get it. he ignores that i pointed out that not everyone will. if you dont have a gun when you might commit a crime due to a background check, a crime would have been prevented. studies show that more guns in an area means more overall death. that means it's more than just popele will kill with whatever they get like knives,,, they are more likely to kill with a gun. sure it's the person who is the problem more than the gun, but when it's so direct, it's fair to say the gun is the problem too.http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...;http://www.motherjones.com...;