BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Trinity is not biblical. Totally a man made false teaching.

I will begin with your Second thing. My opponent say's that Gen 1 & 2 Are the same account of on man. 1. Gen 2;1 Declares that the heavens and earth and the HOST OF THEM were finished. Adam was formed in Gen 2;7. After God rested is what is written. 2. Adam had a special job, 'til' He got a special home=Eden, Adam got a special wife=Eve that became Israel. 3. That garden of Eden is a parable that tells a fact. Example one could say he slept with her. Or one could be not so nice and say she gave him head in the back seat. Is my opponent saying snakes can talk? 4. Is my opponent saying that God created and named nations with no people? Gen_2:10, And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. (WAS GOD WATERING ANIMALS ONLY?) Gen_2:11, The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; (DID GOD MAKE THE FIRST GOLDEN CALF BY GIVING GOLD TO COWS?) Gen_2:12, And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. (DID GOD CAST HIS PEARLS BEFORE SWINE?) Gen_2:13, And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. (ADAM NAME ALSO MEANS RED RUDDY Strongs #119) Did some of Adam's children turn black. Or are you saying God created and named a nation and forgot the people?) Gen_2:14, And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. ( Did God create the nation and not create the people of Assyria?) Please explain how Jesus existed in three persons? Yet was not in Eden with Eve and Satan? I agree that before the flood all nations spoke one language. So it will be in the end. So where did Cain get his wife? Are you saying that after killing Able Cain went back and asked Eve to give baby sis to wife? Why was Cain angry when no longer allowed to til? Or did God remove Cain's ability to control the weather and make plants grow. Yet Cain became a city planner? Gen 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD My punishment is greater than I can bear. Gen 4:14 Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall slay me. Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain lest any finding him should kill him. Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived and bare Enoch: "
The Trinity is not biblical. Totally a man made false teaching.

I'm sorry I ha e to make this short. First you have not given me any Bible verses saying Angels are the soles that are in flesh bodies today. Second thing the verses in Genesis 1 and 2 are not two different accounts of God making humans but one is grazing past the event and one is telling the same event but in detail. Third thing you did not even talk or mention my argument about "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Which I would love to hear you rebuke those arguments. Fourth thing There was is and always will be one God. God was absolutely working on his own when he created existence. And Jesus was absolutely God but God is three persons. He is absolutely one entity but he is also three at the same time. John 10:30 I (Jesus) and the Father are one. John 5:7-8 For there are three that testify : the Spirit and the water and the blood and these three agree. Genesis 11:7 "come let us go down there and confuse there language so they may not understand one anothers speech. " John 8:58 Jesus said to them Truly Truly I say to you before Abraham was I AM
The Trinity is not biblical. Totally a man made false teaching.

I actually said the souls that are in flesh bodies today were the angels. Prove different. Or just babble on! I refute your assertion that the bible focus is on many heathen gods. Actually the bible is about what God did to your heathen gods and the king who served them. Again I refute your statement of the unity of any three gods working as a godhead. I correctly divide the bible by saying the God of the Old Testament was working alone. My opponent misuses the New Testament to babble lies against the one true God did form Himself in the OT in the form of Adam. You again babbled about Gen1. NO ADAM YET!!!!!!!! Please explain? Yes God put the souls of angels into men to be born on earth! My opponent posted; Genesis 1:26 "and God said "Let US make man In OUR image after our likeness. And there are many other references to the Trinity throughout the Bible. The New Testament whiles fully recognizing the unity of God emphasizes the fact of the three person. The Bible presents to us a Father who is God John 3:16 a Son who is God Philippines 2:5-8 and John 1:1 and a Holy Spirit that is God acts 5:3 4 yet these are not three gods but the one and and the same God. No Adam who was formed not created, to til=farm=control the weather=God Man. Formed = Strongs #3335 squeezed into the potter My opponent posted: So basically we cant quite understand it with are finite brains but this is how I can best explain it God is one person yet he is three persons as well but he is not three people but one person. So he cant just be one person but he cant be three people as well. If God was the number one it is not 1 1 1=3 but 1"1"1=1. I know its confusing But God wrote and promised in the bible. He will tell us all things. Why is my opponent clueless? Hab_1:5, Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you. Mat_24:25, Behold, I have told you before. I refute my opponent statement of WE! He can not speak for all of humanity! My opponent posted: (Trying to mix what was done in Gen1 was referring to Adam another LIE! Adam was formed Gen,2;5-7) My opponent is confused totally! Adam had a different job, a different wife and a special home=Eden=Israel. So my opponent is ignorant of my point! There is just one Emanuel = God with man in the flesh!
The Trinity is not biblical. Totally a man made false teaching.

First thing where in the Bible(I really like to know) does it talk about angels coming from the souls of woman? I also would like to add that no where in the Bible does it talk about angels creating anything and why would God the most magnificent and absolutely powerful and good that no one can comprehend being ever compare him self to angels who are quit magnificent but no where near the level of God when he said US and Our in Genesis 1:26 second when the Bible says Adam was the son of God in Luke 3:8 its just giving genealogy Seth would have been the son of Adam and Adam who didn't have a earthly father but was created by God it could have been called the son of God not that he was a the real Son of God but that he was purely created by Gods hands (Not that he has physical hands by the way) Its like Israel are the Children of God God did not bore them but he created them and made them his people and now technically we are all sons and daughterof God because of Christ. My opponent just dosnt get my argument about the Trinity there is one God but that God is three persons He(God) wants us to have no other gods before him( and no I'm not saying there are other gods just that he is true God) but the God we serve is three persons. Mathew 28:19 therefore go and make disciples of all the nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Why would God who the Bible and YOU said is the only God want to people to be baptized in the name of the Son and of the Holy spirit who you are saying are not God so they have no right to be mentioned alongside a supreme God who want us to only worship him so why are theses distinct people mentioned we don't baptize people in the name of Mossos or Billy Gram or Moody so why the Son AKA Jesus and the Holy Spirit /Holy Ghost are mention alongside the father and if the father is not God then why are we baptizing them in there name. So this must mean if the Bible is true then the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit must be God. Jesus thought he was God and is God the Holy Spirit was mentioned in Genesis the Father is mentioned all over the Bible they may have different names but they are the same God but they are still setperet beings. The Father is not the Son the Son is the Holy Spirit The Holy Spirit is not Father or the the Son and the Father is not the Holy Spirit but they are both GOD.
The Trinity is not biblical. Totally a man made false teaching.

God Exists in three persons --the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit this is called the doctrine of the Trinity. Although the word Trinity is not in the Bible it expresses a scriptural truth in Fact in coined from one of the early Latin Christians to set forth the truth that God is a Tri-Unity of persons. The term Godhead (Godhood) refers to the essence of a divine being and it is a proper statement of truth to say that there are three persons in the Godhead. The Old Testament emphasizes the unity of God that is it asserts that there is but one God in contrast to the many gods of the heathen nevertheless there are intimations in the Old Testament that God exists in a plurality or Trinity of persons. For example the Spirit of God is mentioned in Genesis 1:2 (sorry I don't have the time to write down all the verses so you will have to look them up yourselves) the Son is mention in Psalm 2:7 and 12 Genesis 1:26 "and God said "Let US make man In OUR image after our likeness. And there are many other references to the Trinity throughout the Bible. The New Testament whiles fully recognizing the unity of God emphasizes the fact of the three person. The Bible presents to us a Father who is God John 3:16 a Son who is God Philippines 2:5-8 and John 1:1 and a Holy Spirit that is God acts 5:3 4 yet these are not three gods but the one and and the same God. So basically we cant quite understand it with are finite brains but this is how I can best explain it God is one person yet he is three persons as well but he is not three people but one person. So he cant just be one person but he cant be three people as well. If God was the number one it is not 1+1+1=3 but 1"1"1=1. I know its confusing Basically we as humans with finite brain cant completely understand it I believe but This is the best way I can explain it to you. God is three person yet he is one but he is not one but i
States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

I won't spend too much of my time since my opponent has posted nothing. I will give a brief overview and if my opponent returns, expand on those arguments. Since my opponent forfeited, he will need to present his case as well as rebut mine in the third round. I will then provide rebuttals ask questions which he will answer in the fourth round.My opponent asks that this be an LD style debate. I don't know how to do LD but I will try to do the best I can to define value, criterion and contentions. My opponent and the voters are free to comment on whether I made any mistakes.Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weaponsValue Criteria: Practical purposes amd freedomContentions: I have two contentions but might add more if my opponent returns since he hasn't really provided any arguments so far.1) Freedom to chooseStates should have the freedom to choose whether or not nuclear weapons are beneficial for them. Pro has not elaborated on whether he wants a treaty where states without Nuclear Weapons can join or initiate a world wide ban on Nuclear Weapons. The second option prevents a state from having a choice to control the strength of its own military hence infringes on the rights of the state.2) Practicality States which retain second strike capability can effectively deter other states from attacking it thereby protecting itself with no cost to life and property.Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevented the Cold War from escalating into direct warfare between the US and the Soviet Union.That's it for now but if my opponent returns, we will expand on those arguments as well as my opponent's.
States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

This will be my first debate on this website. This topic is an LD topic from last year, that being said LD debate experience is preffered but not required of my opponent. I am a highschool debater although I have three years of experience so I would also prefer an experienced debater. This debate involves four rounds with 72 Hours of argue time, 8k characters per argument and one week voting period. Please use LD format in this debate ie: a value, criterion, and contentions. Also as a courtesy please do not present new evidence beyond round 2, just expand on arguments already presented. Format: R1: Acceptance R2: Present Case R3 Rebuttals and CX (Con will ask questions in R2 that will be answered in R3) R4 Conclusion and Voters
education in the US should be more like Khan Academy's approach to self learning and growing

This too, is my first debate on debate. org. 1. "If there is a struggling student who is not able to catch up in concepts, self paced learning could help the struggling student make sure he has mastered the content before moving on. He or she can also replay the lesson and jump to parts he needs to learn. " "Self paced learning" can always be done in a regular classroom setting, or even outside of school. At home, or during a commute, students have plenty of time to review notes from lectures, practice via homework, and can ask plenty of questions and get feed back the next day. Students even have time to visit Khan Academy. A teacher in a classroom setting helps monitor what it means to have "mastered the content" with a criteria. With "self paced learning", many students may not know what it means to pace or how to develop a criteria for themselves. Students may become arrogant in their studies and think they already know what they have just learned, but knowing and understanding are two different things. Teachers in a classroom can encourage understanding rather than just knowing. 2. " This also helps fast learners since they can move onto challenging topics without needing to wait for the school to teach him or her" Many "fast learners" do "fast learning". "Fast learners" learn a topic until they know it, not until they understand it. Example: rainy67 knows that 5 + 5= 10. rainy67 UNDERSTANDS that if rainy67 counts 5 items and adds them to another 5 items, rainy67 will have 10 items. However, if you tell someone 5+5=10 and they remember that, they will know "5+5=10" but they will not understand it. That is "fast learning". "Fast learners" have a habit of remembering things, and not understanding them. Which is why learning at a pace that may not be their own is great for promoting understanding, rather than knowing. Good luck to you too, rainy67
education in the US should be more like Khan Academy's approach to self learning and growing

Thank you for accepting. It is my first debate so I'm pretty excited. I am 14 and I wanted to learn more about debate so this is a great opportunity. Anyway, lets begin. If there is a struggling student who is not able to catch up in concepts, self paced learning could help the struggling student make sure he has mastered the content before moving on. He or she can also replay the lesson and jump to parts he needs to learn. On Khan Academy, there is also a very active community which are happy to help if you have questions. This also helps fast learners since they can move onto challenging topics without needing to wait for the school to teach him or her. Of course, since it is only the beginning of these services, they might not have the exact same capabilities of schools but that can easily change when time goes on and if these services get more support. What is beneficial is that teachers don't have to eliminated. Many schools and teachers use this type of method and once these methods expand to be able to teach at the same level and even more than a normal school, many more schools will use this. What some of the below video proof talks about is that you can now help all your students individually rather than have to compromise for one group of learners and only help the other. What's also important is that kids had more fun learning and really like math more than they did earlier. Here are some that already use Khan Academy 3rd Grade 5th Grade http://vimeo.com... Some Irish schools testing the waters, the feedback is very promising for Khan Academy. Good luck Krabman
education in the US should be more like Khan Academy's approach to self learning and growing

Final Rebuttal to 1. My opponent states that I fail to realize that "Khan Academy should not replace but supplement for the better." Yet, if Khan Academy is implemented into the entire US, it will replace old methods of teaching as lectures given by teachers (which is a prominent factor of teaching in the current system) will be replaced by Khan Academy videos. My opponent also fails to understand that every student is not a visual learner and that students may prefer to engage in discussion with a teacher rather than watch videos. Also, the reason kids feel "happier" is because they feel Khan Academy provides a simple solution to complex problems. However, that is not the goal of the current educational system which may provide a rigorous curriculum, give students time to collaborate, and not just develop skills from memory, but genuine understanding. Effective teaching delivers complex criteria; a lot more than a few minutes of YouTube videos.Final Rebuttal to 2. My opponent fails to realize that the current system equally distributes information to a group of students at the same time. This is more effective because there will not be any students viewed as inferior based on how many Khan Academy videos they have seen. Also, in the current system without Khan Academy, if a student needs a challenging curriculum they can become a member of Honors or Advanced Placement classes. Lastly, Khan Academy does not prepare students for private colleges/universities who may not want to implement Khan Academy into their curriculum.My opponent has falsely stated that I did not respond to two of his points. However, I did respond to both points with this statement in round 3:"Rebuttal to my opponent's comment: I have not commented on how teachers can help students on an individual level because that can be done with or without Khan Academy. I have not commented on the children in your video because the statistics are not relevant enough to apply to the entire US."The stats are necessary because the argument is "education in the US should be more like Khan Academy's approach to self learning and growing", if the stats are not relevant enough to include the entire US, then I do not have to comment on them. Good Luck rainy67
education in the US should be more like Khan Academy's approach to self learning and growing

Rebuttalx3 1. While my opponent fails to realize is that Khan Academy should not replace but supplement for the better. What khan academy does is simply allow students to learn at a comfortable pace unlike normally where no matter how comfortable or not you were with a subject you would have to go to the next one. Most students would be required to show work for each problem but would answer it on Khan. Lag and bad internet are trivial and at the same level of annoyance as a teacher who is rushing too fast, you can fix both too. Also, if you would actually look at my proof you would finally realize that kids feel happier doing Khan than conventional math learning. Rebuttalx3 2. You say the only difference between a fast learner and a normal learner is that they memorize the concepts faster. This is only a more important reason for self pace learning systems to be created. The people who have already learnt whatever is being taught in class and want something more challenging they probably could not get that until that lesson. Khan already does that in schools. Letting teachers help students individually based on pace. This would also help slow learners for the same reasons. Also, your examples only help prove the need for Khan Academy, Sally can learn trig in one month and can move on, she can then do something else more challenging while John does not have to move on until he is done learning and mastering trigonometry. And both of them can easily get help from the teacher no matter what the subject is. Also, you still need to respond to the fact that kids enjoy Khan more, this was said in every video. Also, the stats may not be necessary but the fact that kids are learning better in every video and the fact that TRUE self paced learning can be paired with the guiding hand of the teacher is important to recognize. My opponent has not answered to 2 of my points and I have been able to constantly rebuttal his. Vote Pro. Good Luck Krabman Lets see which first timer will get the votes.
education in the US should be more like Khan Academy's approach to self learning and growing

Rebuttal to Rebuttal 1. My opponent states that "-nothing is better than being able to make the lecturer repeat himself..." and "-a teacher can monitor Khan Academy problems done right and wrong and can even come and help the student without him or her even having to raise their hand." But what if a student can make the lecturer repeat himself/herself in a different way relevant to the students' understanding. This can be easily done by raising hands in class. Raising hands also adds discipline by teaching patience. With Kahn Academy, students may have slower internet connections and experience lag. This may not teach patience, instead it may cause frustration for students and distract them from the learning process if they have time to do other things. A more effective way of teachers monitoring problems done right and wrong is grading by pen. This allows teachers to see how students get to the wrong or right answers, to have more effective editing, leave clearer comments, and even leave smileys and stickers (boosting confidence). Rebuttal to Rebuttal 2. My opponent states that "-fast learners are just kids who are able to understand concepts and can solve them well." By this definition, everyone is a fast learner because they are able to understand concepts and can solve them well. The difference is the ability to memorize things FASTER. Example. John takes a year to learn trigonometry. Sally takes a month to learn trigonometry. Sally is able to memorize functions faster, therefore she is a faster learner than John. My opponent also states that " I am not talking about the memorizers." ("memorizers" isn't a word) and "-a fast learner does not mean he or she memorizes." My opponent's statements are false because learning concepts requires memory. To learn algebra one must remember functions, to learn grammar one must remember punctuation. To learn history one must remember events and dates, to learn biology one must remember different types of cells. Et cetera. Rebuttal to my opponents comment: I have not commented on how teachers can help students on an individual level because that can be done with or without Kahn Academy. I have not commented on the children in your video because the statistics are not relevant enough to apply to the entire US. Thanks, Krabman Good Luck rainy67