BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam VS Christianity

I was a Christian so I knew a lot about the Christian faith. I chose this debate to try to explain why God did what He did the way I was taught. But I am doing so as a person who is an atheist with an open mind, not someone who believe that no matter what you say you would be wrong. Since I was a Christian I can see why people believe it to be the one true faith and because Christianity and Islam are closely related I can see why others would think Islam is the one true faith. Almost parents are making me go to church so I learn why God does what He supposedly does. I also picked this debate in order to learn more about Islam from a Muslims's perspective. God is all-seeing and all-knowing and He let His son be crucified because it was necessary for them to be released from their sins and the sins from previous generations. God wants to forgive us but He also wants us to ask for forgiveness. Jesus does not represent God he is only the son of God. Even though Jesus dies God is still alive. Jesus being crucified is meant to show that God is willing to let his son die to save his people from sin and He also sent His son to preach about forgiveness and love for everyone because that is what they were lacking at the time.
Islam VS Christianity

God controls everything in this universe, so yes, technically, he did crucify his son. Even though the Roman and Jewish leaders did it physically, god ordered them to (since god is the all-seeing and all-knowing, he made the Romans and Jews do it). 'He knew it had to happen in order to save them from their sins', you're just repeating my point in the previous argument. I was asking you to answer the question, not simply state that it's confusing. Also, I'm very confused as to why you're arguing for Christianity when you're an Atheist. I opened this debate in the hopes that his would be an interesting and enlightening debate for both sides. There are many Islam/Christianity/Judaism VS Atheist debates out there so I don't really understand why you chose this one.
Islam VS Christianity

RULES: Pro (me) will be arguing for Islam, Con (my opponent) will be arguing for Christianity. No insults allowed, please respect your opponent. I have a hard time understanding how a loving, merciful god would crucify his beloved son. It's a contradiction to me. Can you answer this question: Why wouldn't god - who's so big and so loving - not just forgive us all? Why would he have to kill the person he loved most in order to forgive us? To Christians god had to come and die for their sins. But it makes no sense because if god wants he can forgive us just like Jesus about the parable of the prodigal son in Luke chapter fifteen: the son comes back to his father, the father welcomes him with open arms and has a celebration. Nobody has to die for somebody to be forgiven because if somebody dies then there is no forgiveness! That just means I took my full price, I'm a cruel judge, I just exact the full punishment, somebody goes and dies and then I'm happy. But if god was loving and kind then he should be loving and kind to his son as well and save his son by some other means. Christians say the son was willing, but notice that that's the representation in the last of the four Gospels. Matthew Mark and Luke show that the son, although willing, was submitting, not offering himself. In the Gospel the story's revised so that Jesus actually offers himself because that just looks better. Even if the son offers himself it doesn't really solve the problem because if the son loves the people so much that he wants to die for them, doesn't the father love the people more than the son loves them (or equal to)? Why doesn't the father come himself? I don't shove my son in the path of a moving car to go and save somebody; I go myself and I protect my son. So the whole thing makes no sense! Christians usually say that the reason the father didn't get crucified instead of the son is because it depends on who it was sinned against. That doesn't make any sense because what they're saying is that if you sin against me, I cannot forgive you until I punish myself... It doesn't make any sense! If I wanted to forgive you, I just simply forgive you! When you say god came down himself and then he died on the cross, that means god died! It's just getting worse. If you said the son died, then at least you have the father to look after the world. But if god died that's blasphemy! Then, who would run the world?
Democrats are intentionally hurting people during the shutdown to blame Republicans

Pro states that multiple offers have been made by republicans to end the shutdown. 1. To fund the government but remove special subsidies for members of congress I would love for Pro to cite this information because if every republican was on board with this I would be shocked. I know the democrats wouldn't be. 2 To fund the government but repeal the medical device tax. Democrats have stated that they will not allow a bill to pass if it pertains to ACA in any way and yes that does. Here is an article on how good an idea it is for republicans to get rid of it. But its just to prove that it pertains to ACA (copy and paste, link wouldn't work for some reason) http://www.forbes.com... As for Pros closing statement I would have to disagree. The democratic party has millions of men and women supporting them who hate republicans. You cannot expect them to back down or concede to such a push by republicans when we are coming up on an election cycle. It would make them look weak in the eyes of voters. All they are trying to do is stay resolute in their decision to defend ACA and any republican efforts. It wont be viewed as the republicans fault across the board because most people understand what they are trying to do. In 1996 its theorized that the republicans maintained a majority in both chambers for the first time since the 1920's because of their firmness on the budget against bill Clinton. That shutdown was viewed as the republicans fault for a while. But the strength they showed got them re elected by their constituents. This scenario can help explain why democrats may not want to compromise. If they show weakness now it could cost them their seats later.
Democrats are intentionally hurting people during the shutdown to blame Republicans

The Republicans have offered at least two bills to fully fund the government without repealing, defunding, or delaying the ACA: 1. To fund the government but remove special subsidies for members of congress; and 2. To fund the government but repeal the medical device tax. The administration had the barrier put up around the WWII memorial in hopes of getting footage of aged war veterans unable to visit. That's right, they won't fund a fence at our border, but they'll darn sure build one around a war memorial! It is not the job of one party to simply nay-say any proposal brought up by the other.
Democrats are intentionally hurting people during the shutdown to blame Republicans

How is it that only the democrats are unwilling to compromise? Better yet why should they have to? The republicans introduced this bill with the defunding of ACA as a part of it. Of course this would cause conflict in congress with no possibility of the democrats conceding. This should be 20/20 hindsight for anyone. Almost all republicans in the senate and house are for defunding or repealing ACA and almost all democrats are for upholding or making changes. Both parties are unwilling to give up their goal. The democrats are not purposely harming anyone. Neither are the republicans. They are inadvertently hurting people due to public sector jobs being put on furlough but it isn't on purpose. No funds will be appropriated until they figure out what money is going where and how much they can spend. The republicans will need to cut their losses and give up on delaying, defunding, whatever to the ACA. That is the only thing that will allow a new funding bill to pass. The democrats are doing their jobs by refusing republican offers. Just as republicans are doing their job by making these offers and trying to dismantle ACA. In a sense this house bill has forced the hands of the democrats in the senate because allowing that bill to pass would have meant going back on their voters who are supportive of ACA. The Republicans blame the democrats for this shutdown just as much as the democrats blame republicans. The democrats are defending their position, nothing more.
Democrats are intentionally hurting people during the shutdown to blame Republicans

Disagreement is not an unusual thing in the District. A complete and utter unwillingness to compromise, however, is rare. Government shutdowns are usually ended or avoided with a compromise, the Democrats have refused to accept ANYTHING but what they have wanted from the beginning, and attempting to place the blame of on the Republicans. They are intentionally causing pain by refusing to even take "Yes" for an answer. The Republicans have offered the funding for several programs that all sides agree should be funded immediately. The Democrats are basically say "No, not until we get everything else we want."
Democrats are intentionally hurting people during the shutdown to blame Republicans

Democrats are making the shutdown as painful as possible in order to garner media and public attention and sympathy, and point to the Republicans and "the bad guys". 1. Barricading the WWII memorial in Washington DC. Never before during a shutdown has the government barricaded an open air memorial in Washington DC. The barricading of the WWII memorial was a cheap publicity stunt because it was well know that a group of WWII veterans were scheduled to arrive and see the memorial built to their honor. In hopes of getting publicity over distressed veterans unable to tour the site, the US Park Police (who are still on duty during the shutdown) barricaded the memorial. Unfortunately for the administration this move backfired when, to the delight of cheering onlookers, the veterans of our greatest generation stormed the barricades, torn them down, and took their tour. No other open air monument was barricaded. 2. Politicization of cancer research. Democrats have made hay about children with cancer not being able to get into clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health. Republicans offered a bill to fully fund NIH during the shutdown, the Democrats shut down that bill and proceeded o cry on television about the poor children. I found this one particularly offensive as I myself am a two-time survivor of childhood cancer. 3. Refusal to negotiate. The President and Senate Democrats are demanding that they get everything they have asked for, before they will even sit down at the table with Republicans. To recap at the beginning of this debate, the Democrats wanted a clean Continuing Resolution funding the entire government for fiscal year 2014, the Republicans were willing to give it to them, with an amendment defunding Obamacare. Since then the Republicans have offered several compromises: 1. A bill funding the government but delaying the individual mandate for one year. 2. A bill funding the government and repealing the medical device tax. 3. A bill funding the government and removing special subsidies for members of congress. The Senate Democrats have refused all of these proposals, and refused to go to conference with Republicans unless they get what they wanted from the beginning, a clean CR funding the government through fiscal year 2014.
Democrats are intentionally hurting people during the shutdown to blame Republicans

Yes Pro, they are going to fight against a piece of legislation that they are most definitely against. Though this has nothing to do with the resolution in which you claim that they are intentionally hurting people during the shutdown to blame republicans. To me it would seem that because of their resistance to the bill and refusal to pass it they should be the ones at fault. To close I will leave you with this: This shutdown is just the result of complete disagreement on both sides. Although people are being hurt because of the shutdown it is the fault of both parties and by no means intentional. I hope the voters will see the that pro is one side of the spectrum attempting to pin a negative view on the other side.
Assuming the two are mutually exclusive, pure capitalism is preferable to pure communism

To all who read my previous statement I apologize. That is an extremely brief description of communism, I could have gone much further in depth but to save your time I did not. I also failed to mention I will be using statistics from different nations which followed Marx's teachings. In capitalist countries all across the world, debt is one of the greatest problems the people face. http://nypost.com.... More people are in debt now than ever before in history, students have crushing student loans and in the housing market prices are skyrocketing. Millenials fresh out of college have to take out tremendous loans just to afford housing. https://www.cnbc.com.... How do we expect youth to be able to pay off these debts in a job market that is a challenge to get into? If you get a serious illness or injury the medical bill could be impossible to pay off https://www.theatlantic.com.... In Karl Marx's theory of communism, these debts are not existent in both socialism and communism. For example In Cuba, The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Democratic Peoples Republic Of Korea health care, education, and housing are/were all provided to the people. Taxes are increased but only so future generations can prosper and advance the world forward https://www.internations.org..., http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org..., https://en.wikipedia.org.... In pure communism since money is abolished all of these would be free as well, without the tax increase. The second part of my debate is jobs themselves. Forcing someone to awaken at six in the morning, forced to carry out routines, and drink performance enhancing beverages just to afford to provide for themselves or their family is sickening. Forcing someone to get a job or starve and go homeless is only a problem existent in capitalism. Since housing is provided to you in both socialism and communism there is no fear of losing a job. A common fear amongst the proletariat in capitalist society is the AI replacement of human jobs. Once again this is not a fear is socialist or communist society as necessities are provided to the people so there is no fear of losing your job to a machine. I hope you were able to understand my debate. I apologize if you couldn't English is not my first language.
Assuming the two are mutually exclusive, pure capitalism is preferable to pure communism

I will start off this debate by trying to reason why the free market is good Competition breeds quality This one is pretty straightforward, people will choose based on quality and price, the free market gives people the chance to choose, people will choose what"s best, therefore we can conclude that the free market will result in the best products being chosen. http://listverse.com... At the bottom of this list you will find that the happiest capitalist countries tend to rank higher in terms of happiness 2. Humans don"t need coercion to give to the needy Many would say a drawback to capitalism is that those with the most money get the best while the rest feed off their scraps, while this is partially true, it neglects the fact that humans are not necessarily inherently selfish, humans are naturally inclined to help each other ( https://www.theguardian.com... ) many billionares have signed the giving pledge, which is essentially a promise to give the majority of their vast wealth up to charitable causes ( https://en.wikipedia.org... ) as you can see, while there will definitely be greed within capitalism, the notion that the wealthy will hoard all their wealth while others starve is ridiculous. On the other hand, communism has caused poverty ( http://articles.chicagotribune.com... ) " Seventeen percent of Soviets live below the poverty line"There"s no magical solution to poverty and it would be naive to claim that capitalism is responsible for poverty. I do not believe any communist states have ever succeeded, I will let my opponent correct me if I am wrong. I will pass let my opponent have the floor now
Assuming the two are mutually exclusive, pure capitalism is preferable to pure communism

First round is acceptance only No new arguments in the final round As you can probably tell from the fact that my opponent is a self proclaimed Stalinist, he will be taking the side of communism To clarify, in pure capitalism the government still exists, but only as an "umpire" as in making sure contracts are enforced, etc. no regulations, that will be up to the free market. I will let my opponent explain what he believes pure communism to be Have a good debate
Humans do not need religion for morality

"Starving = humility = inner light of religion. simple." - ConNo, just stop, you are adding tags and such to concepts that YOU define humble, that YOU define moral or immoral. That is what you are currently doing, and it backs up the point I made in round two:"Death is not inherently moral or immoral, again, concepts and ideas cannot have any form of negative or positive morality. It is the people who create these ideas and concepts or think of them, that make them subjectively moral." - ProThere is no inner light of religion stop with the woowoo, unfalsefiable claims. they will be ignored if this continues. Humility is not something that was started by religion, nor is humility part of religion. being humble is something people do to yeild for example to others more suited for whatever line of work is going on at the moment. (probably a bad example, I'll have better ones)"Wrong. all animals have souls, that's an indisputable fact which is self-explanatory and self-evident." - ConNo, they do not, you have to proof these claims. You cant just see a soul. Send me a report of any one time a docter had ever seen a soul. Or an x-ray had detected something like that. It hasnt happened. Evidence Con, you need evidence. Or at least a completely logical explanation that people can understand. "that's an indisputable fact which is self-explanatory and self-evident." - ConThats pretty self evident, for no explanation, logic or reason to back it up at all, just make a claim with something to support it for once."Wrong. Simple cause/effect. if you have a steak, you know a cow died. this is obvious cause/effect. giving the steak to a starving man = death is moral = death is humble = death is a creation of God." - ConI can see where your going with this but a cow dying and you giving steak to the homeless man has nothing to do with death, its a completley seperate issue. Death as I said, is a concept, so it is you who give it tags like, "death is humble, moral, ect"And you cannot claim death is a creation of god if you do not have evidence that god exists. You cannot proove god, but that doesnt make it true, it just makes it easier for it to be wrong."Wrong. children are born with souls - how come you never see children do immoral things? Untainted soul = pure = religious, as religion is cause/effect." - ConYou see them do it all the time, go watch your kids at the playground at school take away some other kids toy, watch as they scream at eachother and bite eachother and steal and such. They are babies and children. They dont hold common sense and complex morality until they actually live for a few years."Soldiers are effect of war. cause/effect = religion so your point is invalid.when you burn a fire you turn fuel to ash = cause/effect. cannot have fire without the fuel, thus can trace back the origin of the fuel to god." - rest of Con's argumentIn the end you didn't even respond to half my second round post. Thats fine, if they arn't refuted less work for me and less things to reply to. How intellectually dishonest.
Humans do not need religion for morality

"'if you feed a starving man, he is no longer starving. this is objectively moral thus = religious' - Con How does this have anything to do with religion?" Starving = humility = inner light of religion. simple. "'Wild animals kill food for themselves. Thus death can be moral = cause/effect=morality.' - Con Irrelevant, that is survival, that is their natural instinct. Has nothing to do with morality." Wrong. all animals have souls, that's an indisputable fact which is self-explanatory and self-evident. "Death is not inherently moral or immoral, again, concepts and ideas cannot have any form of negative or positive morality. It is the people who create these ideas and concepts or think of them, that make them subjectively moral." Wrong. Simple cause/effect. if you have a steak, you know a cow died. this is obvious cause/effect. giving the steak to a starving man = death is moral = death is humble = death is a creation of God. "Religion is not inherently immoral nor is it inherently moral. No one is born with a moral compass. And ideas cannot have morality. Morality applies to sentient beings that can reason with each other and form a society or community." Wrong. children are born with souls - how come you never see children do immoral things? Untainted soul = pure = religious, as religion is cause/effect. "Also, some things may have a grey area, as in, you cant please everyone. (Like if we sent soldiers to save stolen information, that would be good for us, but bad for the enemy.)" Soldiers are effect of war. cause/effect = religion so your point is invalid. when you burn a fire you turn fuel to ash = cause/effect. cannot have fire without the fuel, thus can trace back the origin of the fuel to god.