BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence

Context The whole Pilate ordeal was symbolic to a sense. Fighting could of meant with words or peaceful actions. Not literally fighting with swords. Also Jesus knew His kingdom was not of this realm so it did not matter anyway. Jesus always stood for peace and acceptance. Also please supply the Book and verse of the "let he who is without a sword go and get one". This debate cannot really be forth for any additional arguments so so far I can just rebuttal. Thanks. P.S. I know you are a Christian, I am to and I would like that we both capitalize Jesus it is a name after all.
jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence

jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence how do all of the following things reconcile? i actually have some theories but they could be better, and am curious if there's anything better. Jesus told people not to intervene in his arrest process: "And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" yet when jesus was before pilate during the arrest, he said if this were his kingdom people would be fighting for him: Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." at another point, jesus said to 'turn the other cheek'. at another point, jesus said "let he who is without a sword go and get one"
I guess it'a hate Christians month.

I would like to say I watched the video and no such argument was provided. I would also like to say some Christians are hurting people no group of people is faultless there are basic principles of Christianity that do encourage discriminative and abusive behavior but in religion as whole many people do not act this way. In every movement good or bad there is a group that is extremist. The test Christianity is based upon does have flaws such as the encouragement of abuse against women, the homophobic views, the sexist and misogynistic parables, and many references to racist principles or slavery being ok. Also sometimes it is hard to ignore the loud minority of Christians that are anti-Semitic, racist, sexist, and homophobic or close-minded, traditionalist, and unforgiving ways along with much manipulating and translating of the original text to fit their own agendas. But many many people in the Christian faith have done things wrong because they are people. But honestly, religion as a whole does harm many because it inducts people into views and ways of life you cannot reason with because they fall back upon faith. You can't change someone racist ways if they are based in faith because people of faith, for the most part, refuse to debate because their arguments only testament or only basis is faith. So if someone is killing in the name of faith many will gang pile onto it to defend their faith. Also, do you personally know these people? How do you know they have hurt no one? But in all ends debates with those of faith are meaningless because the point of a debate is to educate, learn, and find a middle ground but many people are not willing to find a middle ground when it comes to delusions or unfounded principles of faith. Also what des their faith matter is they say they are hurting people its just people hurting people faith should not be the basis of who they are enough to differentiate and say they as Christians are hurting people when it is just people hurting people. Also what was the business with the month titles I am still confused on that aspect. Care to explain?
It is illogical to refute the possibility of God

Thanks for the debate. C1) The Reverse Ontological Argument This argument uses logic to refute the possibility of God. 1. God is a being who necessarily exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. 2. Necessarily existent being are beings who exist in all possible worlds. 3. Anything that is not logically impossible is "possible." 4. It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is a possible world in which God does not exist. 5. If there is a possible world where God does not exist, then God cannot exist in all possible worlds. 6. God is not necessarily existent. 7. God does not exist. C2) Definition of logical refutation To refute an argument, an argument in favor of a proposition must first be presented. If my opponent presented an argument in favor of God, I can use the tools of logic to refute said argument, using common objections such as logical fallacies and by questioning my opponent's assumptions. C3) Definition of God My opponent doesn't bother to define his God beyond him being "Supreme," the "creator," and the "ruler." Many religions believe in a supreme creator/ruler god. It is perfectly logical to refute the other characteristics of such gods. Zeus is posited to live on top of a real life mountain - this can be logically refuted. The Christian God is posited to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent. This can be logically refuted with the problem of evil: 1. An omnibenevolent being must always perform the most benevolent act possible, cannot help not to do so. 2. An omnibenevolent being lacks free will and thus the power to make his own decisions. 3. God cannot be both omnibenevolent and omniscient. 4. God does not exist. 1. An omnibenevolent being can perform only good acts. 2. Inflicting suffering is not a good act. 3. God inflicts suffering. 4. God is not omnibenevolent. 5. The Christian God does not exist. C4) It is logical to do illogical things. It can be logical to attempt to refute the proposition that the sky is blue. In many ways, the blue sky is an illusion and blue is a subjective experience, as anyone with blue-green color blindness can tell you. Even if it were impossible to refute the possibility that there is a God, the academic pursuit of this task can still be logical for didactic purposes.
Jesus is not "the" Son of God - we all are.

I agree with everything you have just said. You have proved that all humans who have received the breath of life from God are called "sons of God" [emphasis on the lower-case 's']. Another verse that complements this is Matthew 5:9, which states, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called "sons of God" [yet again, emphasis on the lower-case 's'], describing that those who have a personal relationship with God (the peacemakers) will also be called such. The importance of the lowercase 's' is to bring to light the fact that, as you have also stated, humans will be of the highest order, "second only to God". At this point, one can notice that Jesus is not called the son of God, but the "Son of God" [upper-case 's']. Although it is used to further highlight the difference between Jesus' rank and humans, as you have mentioned, this is only present in non-Aramaic languages because they do not use capital letters. Thus, continuing, in one of the first verses that you quoted, John 10:33, there is proof of this intended distinction, where the Jews say, "We are not stoning You for any good work... but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God." In other words, Jesus is not accused of being a "son of God" (second to God), but he is accused of declaring himself to be equal to God. Therefore there is a discrepancy, because (as you have just proved), humans have been deemed rulers over the world, second only to God, and yet Jesus is now declared as equal to God. If we continue reading, we realize that Jesus does not deny this accusation, but says "Is it not written in your Law: 'I have said you are "gods"'?" So either we have to agree that Jesus was saying "gods" (Elohim) as how it is used in Psalm 82:1, referring to judges/magistrates/rulers, or else Jesus was contradicting Genesis by now saying humans are "Gods" (equal in rank to God). To provide even more proof, one most only read the Bible and it is blatantly obvious that humans are deemed 'second in command' to God (and therefore not God), while Jesus is claims to be 'equal' to God, making him the one and only "Son of God". For example, Matthew 11:27 (a more recently written Gospel than John I might add...) "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Jesus does not say "No one knows the Father except the Sons" [plural] (insinuating many Sons of God) but "Son" [singular]. Furthermore, John 14:6 states, "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." If no one can come to the Father except through Jesus, he clearly is "above" any other human being, and equal to God. There are a million different verses showing that Jesus claims to be God, and it is obvious that humans are not equal to God. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that there are not many Sons of God, but only One: Jesus Christ.
Jesus is not "the" Son of God - we all are.

You're absolutely right my quote was from John, and I apologize for that haphazard mistake. Regarding your quote, an assumption is made in the interpretation of Psalm 82 - that the "gods" that David is referring to "magistrates" among humans - even though that distinction is clearly *not* made. Psalm 82: 6-7 "I said you are "gods"; you are ALL sons of the Most High But you will die like mere mortals; You will fall like every other ruler" We can surely agree that the Most High is God. The element of this that we disagree on is that you believe that only "rulers" are being talked to, but it surely can't mean that humans with influence are 'gods', while humans without influence are not. For that I refer to Genesis 2:15, " The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it " . The Hebrew word for "care" is shamar , meaning to "watch, guard, protect". The concept denotes careful and close observation " specifically, an attentive and protective tending. Genesis 2:15 reveals that creation is to be worked, that humans are created to be workers, that work is the plan of God and not a curse, and that humanity is to be provided for through creation. This passage also shows that, even before the fall, the creation needed to be cared for. This aspect of caring for creation means we are to guard, nurture and rule creation, second only to God. That being said - to provide additional proof that we are all directly related to God I refer to Genesis 2:7 "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." In terms of transliteration the word breath is translated from nshamah (nesh-aw-maw') a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect. or (concretely) an animal -- blast, (that) breath(-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit. Meaning that our soul/spirit is directly a part of God, as, like breath, it came OUT of God specifically, and wasn't just put into being like the rest of creation - commonly denoted by the word "formed", also found in Genesis 2:7, in relation to our physical bodies (not a part of God). From this we can assume that our spirit/soul is a part of God, not the whole. What I suggest is that Jesus Christ was a human that truly awoke to this truth - and could say plainly - I am the Son of God.
Jesus is not "the" Son of God - we all are.

I predicted you would use John, because that's the only place where Jesus being the only "Son" (ignore the capital "S", as the Aramaic language doesn't use capital letters). To refute your simple quote, I will use another, of a Gospel that was written much closer to the time of the death of Yeshua (John was the last one, written 60-80 years after the death of Jesus) 31At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone Him. 32But Jesus answered, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone Me?" 33"We are not stoning You for any good work," said the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God." 34Jesus replied, "Is it not written in your Law: "I HAVE SAID YOU ARE GODS"? Here we are given clear proof that there is no distinction between us and Jesus except for our deeds.
Quality innovate unity

Can quality innovate unity? No, obviously not! Quality can never be a cause for getting unity. It is always a result of high intention, sincere efforts, intelligence, direction, innovative execution, perception and ideologies. It represents the wise choice of many alternatives. There are ample of other causes which lead one's path to unity. The first and foremost important path to bring unity at micro and macro level is ideology. Same ideology, same thinking leads unity. The following quote raise out the same: "And all the books you've read have been read by other people. And all the songs you've loved have been heard by other people. And that girl that's pretty to you is pretty to other people. and that if you looked at these facts when you were happy, you would feel great because you are describing 'unity." ― Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower Though same ideologies innovate unity; same qualities do not innovate unity at all. This can be explained by simple example: Two superstars having quality of acting and articulating can never be friends. Here ego and the feeling of up gradation by downgrading other exist. There is a very good Indian proverb: In one scabbard (pouch for keeping sword) there cannot be two swords! Two personalities who are qualitative in same field can never be friends; can never unite. Ya if their ideology meets or if they agree at any topic then they could shake hands. Thus, quality did not play any role in innovating unity. Other factor responsible for unity is 'need'. Mahatma Gandhi was able to unite India because all Indians were eager to seek freedom. The need of independence unite a big sub continent even in that period where telephones and mobile phones were still unknown! Here one may argue that quality of Mahatma Gandhi united people of India. So let me clear that quality of Mahatma Gandhi retained the unity and did not innovate it. The root cause for unity was independence. Thus one can say quality can retain unity but cant innovate it. One more example to clarify my point of view: There is a terrorist who is a good orator. This terrorist convince other innocents that the particular society is not good for them. This way good quality of oration brain washed the innocents and a scenario so created where all were disunited and affected by terror. So point is good quality is misused for dis unifying the already united society! Once again I conclude saying the same that Quality can never innovate unity but the ideologies, sense of need and sense of agreement on a topic creates unity.
Corn is not a Vegetable

Today's debate will be about whether or not corn is a vegetable. 1. Acceptance 2. Main Definitions/Presentation of Main Argument 3 & 4. Rebuttals 5. Resolution/Closing Argument Hint: Definitions can be used in other rounds besides R1 Rules- No semantics No trolling No profanity No vulgarity Violating any of the rules results in immediate termination of the debate.
Corn is not a Vegetable

Vegetable- an edible plant or part of a plant, but usually excludes seeds and most sweet fruit. This typically means the leaf, stem, or root of a plant.Corn or Maize- a grain domesticated by indigenous peoples in Mesoamerica in prehistoric times. If it comes from the reproductive part of the plant, it’s a fruit. If it comes from the vegetative part of the plant, it’s a vegetable.A Fruit comes from the reproductive part of the plantA Vegetable comes from the vegetative part of the plantCorn is a caryopsis, or dry fruit, which is more popularly known as a grain. In order for corn to be a vegetable it must come from the stem, leaves, or root of the plant. As observable in the two diagrams above......... Corn is not a vegetable ;D
An appendix predicts the judge outside the dead mandate.

Once again your taciturn prose elicit my response. Not bewildered, but in honesty and accepting of all evocations. Merry odes as resplendent as the Trogon that abounds the forest and as sure footed as the monster that prowls my daydreams. Any mandate as intimate as this appendix with such conjecture and judged by such obscurity. Will surely, in time be judged not by it's infinite abstraction. But by it's temperate honesty.
An appendix predicts the judge outside the dead mandate.

How will this offset exist over the elite spoof? Under the peasant matures the logical stagger. A supreme calculator pieces the employee. The assumed parrot gossips under an echo. The choice exposure decays in the cotton. Below the acute trade despairs the ruling cheer. The scrap architecture appends a joking alcohol. Can the cake trek opposite an alarmed universal? A researcher terrifies the room beside the mandatory history. Does a keystroke worry? A hospital turns beneath the postscript.
Sparta is better (Ancient Greece) than Athens

Athnes was a demacrocy that gave us many cultural advances. Sparta was a state that relied solely on slavery. Spartan society was made up of two classes, soldiers and slaves. One historian noted that you wouldn't be able tell how powerful sparta was by looking at it because it was so small and simple. This is because literly the only thing they were good as a city at was war. Other then helping fight the persians and bringing down athens, sparta had little influence on history. They were simply a society that conquered and enslaved rival populations to sustain themselves. Not only were all men soldiers, weak infants were left outside to die. In closing sparta was a militaristic slave state that didn't have any real affect on western culture at all, unlike athens.
Sparta is better (Ancient Greece) than Athens

in Athens, women need to follow rules of their husbands or their father. They couldn't have the property from the family. In Sparta, women had many rights that other Athenian women did not have. In Sparta women were stronger and they chose their husband, own big buisnesses or much more. They could also join the army. In Athens women did chores at home, but in Sparta the women can do anything as their family battled. Also the army here is strongest in Greece. the oligarchy governments are experienced-- the Athens one could not substain their city state at war. moreover, the Athens are too overpopulated, girls had no freedom, and may not have enough resources.
My Choice can beat your Choice

Here in this debate, my opponent and I will each choose a Hero. Then we will settle the argument of which one would be the victor in a fight. Rules are as follows: 1. Only one version of the character/traits are allowed (no regular/ultimate/alternate grouping, only choose one) 2. Marvel, DC, Vertigo, Darkhorse, and Image will be the primary sources. 3. No sidekicks, teams, or minions can help. 3. Can choose a Hero, Villain, or Sidekick. 4. Only allowed to use the weapons or technology that your choice would have logical access to (must be proved) [no random Kryptonite] 5. Must state the Origin, universe, and version of your Choice {for clarification purposes} Here is how the rounds will go Round 1- Acceptance (feel free to ask me for clarification here as well, if need be) Round 2- Selection Round 3 - Opening arguments Round 4 - Rebuttals Round 5 - Rebuttals / Closing Arguments This seemed like a fun idea, so I figured I'd try it out. I welcome anyone to give it a go, and hope it goes well enough to do this frequently.
Is Chocolate Milk Better than White Milk

Stating that chocolate milk tastes better is purely opinion. People do indeed drink chocolate milk more than "that other milk" you describe it as, but this does not make it healthy to humans. To be complete with this debate, I'll be covering all aspects of chocolate milk, including: Its elemental buildup, its usage today, and how it influences the human body. After graphing the general overview of chocolate milk, I will then compare it to the overview of "that other milk". Sound good? Good. The most common way chocolate milk is made, is by taking regular whole milk (or "that other milk" by your preference) and blending that whole milk with a powder (typically cocoa) and sweeteners such as sugars. Both "that other milk" and chocolate milk come from the same cows, contrary to some people's beliefs, but the key difference between the two is that chocolate milk is richer in sugars and carbohydrates than whole milk is. Yes, we are taught that carbohydrates are used as the basic unit of energy storage, but there are different types of carbohydrates, the most unhealthy being sugar. A small amount of consumption of these sugars won't have a significant amount of harm to your body, but large amounts can lead to obesity and diabetes in its consumers, and eventually heart diseases and cancers. (Source: http://www.self.com...) While most people from the Pro stance of this topic do think that flavored milk is tastier, it is not healthier, similar to most things we eat. We can continue to drink chocolate milk, but this will only damage us as time passes. It is much safer to drink the regular whole milk, with a little less flavor, but removing those excess sugars that grow to harm us in the future, than to drink chocolate milk, which has been shown to have those influences on the human body.
Complete World Peace is Bad

As you are the instigator and have not specified if we have a shared BOP, I will not be sharing it. " From World peace, we would suffer much less casualties and that would lead to overpopulation. " In this statement you are assuming that war is the only thing that is keeping the world from overpopulating. More babies were aborted in 2008 than people died in 7 wars combined. That means war casualties are incredibly low and would not be able to control population to the extent you are perceiving it. " With this casualty, crime rate would go up and the world would start to break apart from all the killing and theft" China is the most populated country in the world. My source will say that crime rates in the United States are far higher than China even though they have millions more people. If overpopulation would create crime, why does China have lower crime rates than the U. S. ? "The environment would also be drastically changed. With overpopulation, we would need to inhabit the preservation of nature, which would lead to the deaths and even extinction of our friendly species. " I am using China as an example again. They have just passed an environmental protection law. Yes overpopulation could cause problems for the environment but these problems can be prevented with simple regulations. "This would only cost more money to our debt and there would be a chance for it to worsen. " The U. S. has a tax on carbon emissions right now. This tax takes money from the businesses that are harming the environment and gives it to the government. This money could be used to protect the environment further or just go to our debt. On a side note, I believe one who calls for population control should be the first to volunteer their own life. . http://www.nationmaster.com... . http://www.indexmundi.com... . http://cnsnews.com... . http://www.theguardian.com... . https://www.cbo.gov...