BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christians are NOT able to determine fairly if Jesus is really the True messiah

"My friend, the title of this debate challenges whether a christian can or cannot prove the Messiah-status" No, it does only said that I will have to prove that you cannot be neutral. Your argument was to prove that you are neutral when you look at the prophecies. Thus, what I wrote in the first round stands. You cannot be able to see and be neutral if Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. My argument stands. Please show me that you are neutral when you look at those prophecies. As per Revelation 22, Jesus is speaking 2 "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."[f] 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments,[g] that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But[h] outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. 16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." G-d does not speak in that passage at all.
Christians are NOT able to determine fairly if Jesus is really the True messiah

Clearly, this debate was to determine if christian can be neutral in determining if Jesus was the messiah. I did not debate if Jesus was the messiah or were Jews are neutral to reject the Messiah. Thus my points still stand and what you have said is out of topic. Nevertheless, I will answer some of your objections. "No one can just walk around annulling laws that God had prescribed to Mankind at that time, but Christ did & that is worthy of investigation. " This is actually one of the reason Jews did not accept Jesus. ""You must never eat any fat or blood. This is a permanent law for you, and it must be observed from generation to generation, wherever you live." Leviticus 3:17 "Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Joshua 1:7 Thus, Jesus, (the mainstream Christianity one at least) contradict what G-d told the Children of Israel. "Just because the Christians you have interacted with aren't reflecting the standard that Jesus asks" No, if you read my argument, Christian that follow the New Testament cannot see clearly if Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. They have the punishment of Hell if they reject him and the reward of Heaven if they don't doubt him. You have not answer the objection that I gave you. Most Christians I know read their bible, but because they believe in the new Testament and the new testament states that You are bless if you believe in him without proof. The new testament if full of example of those who accept him and those who deny him, and in the head of the believe, those who reject him go to hell. No where does Jesus say I am God. Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. I am not saying the New testament is consistent on who Jesus is, but look at Revelation 22, there is at least one undeniable quote that Jesus says he is god. Compare to Isaiah 41:4 "I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He."" And again, someone claiming to be G-d should be rejected and that's why the Jews rejected him. Note: I was a christian and read my Bible to and fro until I checked at the claims of Jesus. Then I realize they were not talking about him. None of them!
Cigarettes should be banned from society

While i do agree cigarettes are not the healthiest thing on earth i think that if people want to smoke then it's their own decision. You may as well say that caffine should be banned along with them for it is also a highly addictive drug. Yet nobody blinks an eye and starts yelling at people because they're having their morning cup of coffe. I submit to you that caffine is almost as bad as nicotine (however, i do understand that nicotine is a bit stronger). Again you may as well put a government warning on that. I believe in free will and the thought of will power conqures all, i.e. people can quit when ever they want. If they lack the will power then there is always people to help and support them. Why should other drugs get off so easily?
Cigarettes should be banned from society

When you buy a pack of cigarettes, you`ll find below it a warning pasted,"Government Warning: Cigarette Smoking is addictive." or it could also be said as dangerous you your health in the television. What`s so vague about it is that the government still allows the manufacturing of which when in fact it`s really detrimental to the body. If the government does not want the people to smoke, to prevent lung cancer or what have they, then they should start diminishing advertising Cigarettes in television and radios and print ads. After all, it`s still the same old story at the end of the day. A guy or a girl lights a stick of cigarette, years later, he or she`s diagnosed with lung cancer. With this, i propose.
Cigarettes should be banned from society

"To err is human, to forgive is divine" -Alexander Pope. "Let it be" -the Beatles. I come to you not with statisics, but with understanding and my own opinon. I can not reject the fact that smoking kills, nor ignore the billions of people who say it's wrong but i can accept the fact that sometimes it's all people have. You speak of people wasting time smoking instead of time with family but what about the people who have no family or family that was taken away by someother cause? smoking is not to blame for everything nor the reason of nothing. If smoking is what makes people happy why not let them die happy? People have fun hunting and i'm get shot themsevles some time or another. My point being that life is full of dangers,allow one more.
Cigarettes should be banned from society

Yes, I agree It is possible too have a somewhat healthy life with the horrible burden of cigarette smoking though when you look at Cigarette Smoking from an Economic view point, the average cigarette smoker can spend as much as $2,500 a year on them. Then if you look at the actual statistics: There are some 1.1 billion people who smoke on our planet earth. So, every cigarette a man smokes reduces his life by 11 minutes. Each carton of cigarettes thus represents a day and a half of lost life. Every year a man smokes a pack a day, he shortens his life by almost 2 months. And If a man smoked for 45 years he has robbed himself of $112,500 as well 1.8 YEARS that he could of spend with his family. But yet he was too busy wasting it on "smokes".
Cigarettes should be banned from society

You make a valid point and i, myself, am not a smoker and therefore do not know first hand of it's properties and challenges. What i do know is that life is full of mistakes and people have got to live through them. That (in my mind) is what makes us human. People need to take chances and make mistakes and learn from them or else we would not have humanity as whole. My dad, however, did smoke my entire life and probably 20+ years before. A while back he went to the doctors and he said that at his health level and if he kept maintianing it (while still smoking mind you) he'd probably live to be about 110, he got this result from a blood test. My father has stopped smoking by force of will. (but he did not want to be anywhere near 110)
Cigarettes should be banned from society

Though I do agree that People do have a choice, and a right to their own Opinion / Decision. But, Caffeine dose not have anywhere NEAR the affects of Cigarette smoking. A small amount of caffeine intake by a completely healthy person may have minimal effect. Caffeine is a stimulant and it will elevate heart rate, increase blood flow, and raise body temperature. It increases blood sugar levels and act as a diuretic, meaning you urinate more frequently and reduce water intake. But Smoking can damage the lungs, the heart, and causes other diseases. The most important reason to ban smoking is the effects on smokers and second hand smokers is About 400,000 Americans die each year from diseases all caused by by cigarette smoking.
There's No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster

As I do not have alot of time to respond, i will refute your summary and present some of my own information. "I guess the key points I'm making is that the disasters will occur, no amount of preparedness or response is going to stop that. We should definitely try to lessen their impact, but this is irrelevent. They will happen. Sorry about how long this was, it just takes quite a bit of text to break down all that is said." Preparedness can help save lives, as seen in the tornado of '54, central Kansas. Two hundred residents knew that there was going to be a tornado and gathered in the community center's basment and gathered all the local animals in a safe location. They saved every person in that town, all because of preparedness. This was not what happened in New Orleans, as they had not prepared for a Disaster of great magnitude. Here is some more information on why there is no such thing as a natural disaster. After causes and vulnerability comes preparedness. The incompetence of preparations for Katrina, especially at the federal level, is well known. As soon as the hurricane hit Florida, almost three days before New Orleans, it was evident that this storm was far more dangerous than its wind speeds and intensity suggested. Meteorologists knew it would hit a multi-state region but the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), overseen by a political appointee with no relevant experience and recently subordinated to the Homeland Security Administration, assumed business as usual. They sent only a quarter of available search and rescue teams to the region and no personnel to New Orleans until after the storm had passed (Lipton et. al. 2005). Yet more than a day before it hit, Katrina was described by the National Weather Service as a "hurricane with unprecedented strength" likely to make the targeted area "uninhabitable for weeks, perhaps longer" (NYT 2005). Days afterward, as the President hopped from photo-op to photo-op the White House, not given to listening to its scientists, seemed still not to understand the prescience of that warning or the dimensions of the disaster. This is form the same website, and it may not have been something that could have stopped the hurricane but definitely could have helped solve it later. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
There's No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster

Hello, and thank you for accepting. I concede that I used the complete wrong quote to you, and that quote did not fit. Moving on in my argument, I would like to bring some information from a column by Neil Smith, a distinguished professor of Anthropology and Geography at the CUNY Graduate Center where he also directs the Center for Place, Culture and Politics. It is generally accepted among environmental geographers that there is no such thing as a natural disaster. In every phase and aspect of a disaster – causes, vulnerability, preparedness, results and response, and reconstruction – the contours of disaster and the difference between who lives and who dies is to a greater or lesser extent a social calculus. Hurricane Katrina provides the most startling confirmation of that axiom. This is not simply an academic point but a practical one, and it has everything to do with how societies prepare for and absorb natural events and how they can or should reconstruct afterward. It is difficult, so soon on the heels of such an unnecessarily deadly disaster, to be discompassionate, but it is important in the heat of the moment to put social science to work as a counterweight to official attempts to relegate Katrina to the historical dustbin of inevitable "natural" disasters. that is his first paragraph, stating the direct opinion in the science world. These disasters are not man made, at least not in that sense, but are caused by social and geographical changes. I want to clarify: I do not want to bring the meaning of these two words into this debate, because the name 'natural disaster' does not convey what I am trying to say. A misnomer, if you will. another small bit: First, causes. The denial of the naturalness of disasters is in no way a denial of natural process. Earthquakes, tsunamis, blizzards, droughts and hurricanes are certainly events of nature that require a knowledge of geophysics, physical geography or climatology to comprehend. Whether a natural event is a disaster or not depends ultimately, however, on its location. this is self-explanatory. He goes on to write a paragraph for each of thee categories: causes, vulnerability, preparedness, results and response, and reconstruction. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org... Having brouhg tof rht this resource, I would like to leave you with a quote by Russ Carnahan, D from Missouri. "Americans rightly asked, if this is the way our government responds to a natural disaster it knew about days in advance, how would it respond to a surprise terrorist attack? How would it respond to an earthquake?" Once again the 'natural disaster' by the sense of the word is not applicable. Thank you.
There's No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster

To begin with, I'd like to state that while this is not my first debate in real life, this is my first debate on this site and as such may be a little rusty. Now to the arguing. First: The opening quote for my opponent is "Sometimes it takes a natural disaster to reveal a social disaster." Is that not acknowledging the existence of natural disasters? Either the stance or the quote has to go. Second: I truly believe that a disaster can come completely and catastrophically without any societal reason. For example, the eruption of Krakatoa(sp?) in 1883. Massive devastation "like, really, really massive. Like, darken the skies across the world massive", and it had nothing to do with society, except that it killed people. Which isn't really society's fault... Third: dictionary.com defines a natural disaster as:any event or force of nature that has catastrophic consequences, such as avalanche, earthquake, flood, forest fire, hurricane, lightning, tornado, tsunami, and volcanic eruption. Those things happen, that is how natural disaster is defined "by a pretty standard, acceptable definition I'd say" and thus they are real. The ball's in your court...
There's No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster

As many people know, it is good to keep your opening arguments short. I will begin by clarifying. By the title of my debate, it is pretty obvious what the topic is. I dont beleive that there is such a thing as a Natural Disaster, because in the form of the word "disaster," it is not natural. I will elaborate more in by next argument, but I will leave you with a quote from Jim Wallis, an esteemed preacher: "Sometimes it takes a natural disaster to reveal a social disaster." Thank you and Good Luck to my challenger.
God is Black.

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم Lol... You all are hilarious. Ok I forfeit :) قُلْ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ أَحَدٌ ٱللَّهُ ٱلصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌۢ
God is Black.

Thank you. First we'll need to define "God". Let's assume the common definition, being: "The creator of all things" and/or "The eternal essence of all things" or something to that affect. In that case, then "God" would need to not only assume but possess the quality (s) suitable for these roles. Logically, the color of Black contains all colors on the spectrum. Therefore, God must be (based on our definition (s)) Black. And if we assume that "God" lives in and/or is a part of all things it creates, then logic would assume the supreme representation of God to be Black in both metaphorical and literal terms. بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم
A bill to increase funding for the biosciences

Whereas the bioscience industry has proven to be one to provide substantial growth in the economic, scientific and medical sectors of America, I propose we should decrease the budget of the Department of Defense by 75 billion dollars and reallocate those funds towards a cause which helps not only our citizens but also the military itself, which is the bioscience industry. New York's bioscience industry provides 250,000 jobs, generates $309 million in personal state income tax and over $5.6 billion in wages per year. This enormous economic boost from the bioscience industry has attracted hundreds of millions of federal research dollars and should continue to because the bioscience industry is an industry in which results are potentially limitless.
Bullying is useful

I believe that bullying isn't really that big of an issue these days as it used to be from the 90s back. If there are bullies in the school, it's very easy to get help from an adviser and have the kids sit down and work through their problems. I for one was basically never bullied as a child. Only one time in the 3rd grade where I was playing with sand and 3 kids walked up to me and kicked my sand pile. And I ran at them with my fist and a teacher stopped it immediately. If there is a bully, there usually is an anti-bully. Another student that would stop something like that. Or a teacher or security. Plus cameras everywhere. Easy to get rid of, not a chance. You can't get rid of something like fighting because that would require a literal police state at that point, of just watching everyone do their daily lives. I'll get into more detail of examples and over all effects of bullying as we go on.
Mother Teresa was a saint.

I just want to say how rude it is not to call Mother Teresa a saint. That's just something I had to say like you should be caned or something for real." ....okay. I also can't really say I understand your argument. The first part was just a quote from a Catholic website. It said absolutely nothing about any specific good works or actions that she did. All it did was talk about how she was going to be canonized. But I am glad you brought up the first miracle, because it's so easily disproved. First, the woman actually did not have a cancerous or even a benign tumor, but rather a small cyst. The quote the article I cited in my first argument (that I'm assuming you didn't read), "Her physician, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn't have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine." Quite a miracle! And I guess that's pretty much it for my rebuttal. You didn't do anything to show that she was even a decent person, much less a "saint." Your articles simply talked about her becoming a saint and her admiration for St. Francis. You failed to cite any instances of her actually trying to help combat poverty in her city or anywhere else; you failed to show any cases of individuals that had been greatly helped by Mother Teresa; you simply failed to show that she was a good person. Conversely, I have shown that she was a fraud and a fanatic whose blind faith lead to the suffering and misery of many hundreds of people. I have shown that she has, on more than one occasion, stolen millions of dollars from poor and hard-working citizens and used it to try to bolster her cause, even when asked to return it. I have shown that she spent more time trying to fight contraception, a necessity in impoverished countries, than poverty itself. I have shown that this woman, through her fundamentalism, was a person totally unworthy of the title "saint" or of even being called a good person. However, I'd still like to thank you for accepting this debate. Win, lose, or tie, I'm glad for the opportunity to have such an important discussion. And, hopefully, I will have helped to educate people about who Mother Teresa really was.
Mother Teresa was a saint.

I am arguing that Mother Teresa was not as great as she was made out to be. Please understand that I am NOT using the literal definition of the word "saint" here, which is defined by the Catholic church as anyone who is in heaven and by Dictionary.com as "any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church, especially by canonization." I reject these definitions for the following reasons: I do not believe in heaven and thus do not except the grammar of the first definition, and the word "holy" is far too subjective and empty to me. What I do mean is that she was not a saint as society generally accepts the word to mean. She was not a woman of perfect virtue or selflessness. I am also NOT arguing that she never did anything good. My point here is simply that she also did a lot of awful things that go largely unrecognized by most people, and she does not deserve the amount of respect and reverence that most people give her. (On a side note, I do believe the Catholic church should revoke her canonization.) First round is acceptance. Second round will be my argument and my opponent's argument. Third round will be rebuttals and closing statements. I'd like to keep this debate to three rounds to avoid redundancy. Thank you in advance to anyone who accepts. (Also, if there is any discrepancy in regards to argument, definitions, or anything else, feel free to leave a comment and I'll certainly consider adjusting it.)