BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Predestination: Does God choose whom He will save (vs arminianism idea)

Predestination vx Arminianism total depravity..........................free will unconditional election............conditional election limited atonement...................general atonement irresistible grace.......................Holy Spirit can be resisted perseverance of saints............falling from grace Calvinism cannot be applied to the Angels of heaven. Calvinism cannot be applied to the Levites. Example of the Angels: 1 The Angels have free will 2 The Election of the Angels is conditional 3 The Angels don't even have an Atonement 4 The Angels can resist the Holy Spirit 5 The Angels can fall Example of the Levites: 1 The Levites had free will 2 The Election of the Levites was conditional 3 The Atonement concerning the Levites was general 4 The Levites resisted the Holy Spirit 5 The Levites fell Is Arminianism in operation today? Yes and no Example of the Angels: 1 The Angels still have free will 2 The Election of the Angels is still conditional 3 The Angels still don't have an Atonement 4 The Angels can still resist the Holy Spirit 5 The Angels can still fall Example of the Levites: 1 The Levites no longer have a free will or anything else 2 The Election of the Levites is over 3 The Levites no longer have an Atonement 4 The Levites cannot resist anything 5 The Levites dead
Predestination: Does God choose whom He will save (vs arminianism idea)

Modern day Calvinists are like modern scientists in that modern Calvinists place salvation in a test tube. Not just one test tube but five. Then each tube is tested with its own ingredient. Nowhere else in all of God's creation does such an operation take place excepting for the scientist's own laboratory. And what is this 'laboratory' but the scientist's own mind. For such a laboratory cannot exist anywhere else. Should it be the goal of the Christian to break these test tubes, (thereby breaking the mind of the scientist)? Or should the Christian work with the scientist and break the enemy instead? The scientist is not our enemy. He is our friend. We will do him no harm.
A Super-Natural Power (God) Exists

For that I am grateful. In debates like these I usually am rewarded with a clearer understanding of the religious debater's position as well as my own. In this discourse I always try to remain open minded and research my opponent’s claims. An atheistic view is one that can be persuaded provided there is given sound reasoning and evidence. I sincerely hope that DesertRooster was as open as I was to discovering any previously held unjustified or false beliefs and is able to reexamine and discard them in favor of a more solid position. The debate was for resolution of whether a super-natural power (God) exists. We quickly determined we were debating the existence of the Christian God as found in the Bible. The universe had a beginning therefore the only explanation is the Christian God: DesertRooster’s argument appeared to me to be a cookie cutter version of the Cosmological Argument and extended it as evidence for the existence of God. He began with the 2nd premise of the classical argument but overlooked many other modern cosmological models of the universe that describe the universe. They are superior to the classic cosmological argument and they have powerful predictive capabilities his argument doesn’t. The argument failed because DesertRooster appeals to a false Trilemma. The argument also fails on behalf of special pleading. DesertRooster offers no explanation for what caused the First Cause nor can he without special pleading which is an illogical argument. The universe is not eternal therefore the only explanation for it is the Christian God: He then tried to show the universe is not eternal by appealing to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The idea is that this proves the universe had a beginning and therefore the Christian God (with every attribute the bible contains about her) exists. This is a non sequitur in which the conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. We really don’t know that the universe had a beginning. I provided several models and their links that show there are good mathematical models that do not require the universe to have a beginning. There are now good reasons for science to seriously consider the multi-verse. This was completely absent from DesertRooster’s argument. The argument failed because thermodynamics does not apply to the universe in its entirety. The Law applies only to closed systems and the universe is not a closed system. This position has not been challenged in the scientific community, let alone refuted and therefore should be rejected.
A Super-Natural Power (God) Exists

I will start with this statement. "The main problem with his whole argument is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the universe in its entirety. The Law applies only to closed systems and the universe is not a closed system." We know this law applies to the universe because the universe is "running down" or "wearing out", things are getting more disorderly. I stand behind this argument because we know the universe had a beginning, so what caused the beginning? Since matter/energy is not eternal (due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics) it must have a beginning from nothing. And the universe could not have created itself from nothing (First Law of Thermodynamics). There are many other reasons how we know there is a God, some arguments are more simply than debating about the origin of the universe because scientist will make trillions of theories trying to explain our universe. At the end of the day it does take faith to know there is a God, but "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20 Thank you for the debate, I enjoyed it. God Bless.
A Super-Natural Power (God) Exists

I chose to define science, scientific laws, and theories, because some say; science and religion are incompatible. But they are compatible because science just means "knowledge." Sorry for the confusion and for not defining some other terms. Supernatural=God Supernatural- supreme being, above nature, creator, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Exist- Is real, part of reality (not necessarily the physical world though) What I mean by God existing is; He is not part of our natural world, but he is "above" our world because He is supernatural. God is not physical, you cant touch him in the natural world, because well He is supernatural. And we know He exist because of His creation. "For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20 I know God exist, not because I have seen Him face to face, but because I have seen the universe and the only possible way for the universe to be here is because of God. (see previous argument)
A Super-Natural Power (God) Exists

I would like to thank Pro for the opportunity to rebut the case that a Super-Natural force (God) exists. Following the rules for this debate requires me to make an opening argument, therefore, I shall begin. First I am OK with Pro"s definitions for Science, Scientific Laws and Scientific Theory. However I am very curious as to why Pro chose to define words that would presumably have had little contention in this forum while ignoring the elephant in the room. Also I don"t understand what it is that Pro is introducing as a "Supernatural Force (God)" is supposed to be. He will need to clarify that. In the meanwhile and for the sake of clarity lets break it down just a little and define supernatural first. Supernatural: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. Next, we need a definition of God. Actually, God has as many definitions as there are seats in the pews. Let"s go with the traditional god of the Christian bible; Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, etc,. Then finally the term, exists. "Exist" in this debate appears to pertain to a being and nowhere do I find it applied to a force. This needs explanation from Pro. It is tremendously important to realize that no amount of argument or reasoning alone can bring a claim of something"s existence into reality. It will be a tall order to produce convincing evidence for the supernatural. Since the beginning of time no supernatural evidence of any kind has ever been substantiated. This would include ESP, evidence of the paranormal, witchcraft, or even homeopathy. We live in what I believe to be the most wonderful time of the history of the universe. Science has opened the door to the most complete understanding of our place in the universe. We, the cooled down entropic remains of 13.7 billion years of matter are here contemplating our place and origins. We have the ability to learn the laws of nature, develop and use the tools of science and logic. We have designed instruments and tools that would appear to be magical to someone living only a hundred years ago. And after emancipating ourselves of the superstitious beliefs of our past ignorance we can now begin to flourish and thrive. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
A Super-Natural Power (God) Exists

First lets define some terms: Science-(Latin origin, meaning) Knowledge, or "to know" Scientific Laws- are statements that describe, predict, and explain why things in nature behave as they do. (Facts) Scientific Theory- Basically an idea to explain a certain topic. (Idea) And we must understand one thing, if a theory goes against the scientific laws of nature, then the theory is not correct and should be discarded. How do we know a Super-Natural force (God) exists? We can answer this question with another question. What caused the Universe? If there is a way to show that the universe is here because of God, then that obviously proves He is real. So what caused the Universe? There are only three possible answers to this question. (1) The universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist. (2) The universe created itself out of nothing. (3) A Super-Natural Power (God) created the Universe. Is the Universe eternal? Second Law of Thermodynamics- states that entropy( unavailable energy) in an isolated system will always increase. The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that the energy in the universe is constantly moving from a usable state to an unusable state, and cannot be converted back. The Second Law points to: (1) a beginning when, for the first time, the Universe was in a state where all energy was available for use; and (2) an end in the future when no more energy will be available. Compare the universe to your phone as soon as you take the charger out. Your phone is running out of battery (energy, in the sense of the universe) and eventually your phone will completely run out of battery. Same thing applies to the universe the universe is running out of available energy so it can not be eternal. There had to be a point in time in which the universe was created with maximum available energy and minimum entropy. Did the Universe create itself out of Nothing? Nothing- no thing, the absence of everything. Some say that in quantum physics, sub-atomic particle come into being out of nothing. This statement is false because the "nothing" they are talking about isn't truly no-thing. Their "nothing" is a vacuum in-which energy is present, (and we know the energy is not eternal and must have a beginning due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics). The true meaning of nothing isn't just empty space, but the absence of space itself. The suggestion that something can come from nothing, of course, is in clear violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature. As astronomer Robert Jastrow put it, "The creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science "the principle of the conservation of matter and energy"which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Since the universe/matter is not eternal and had a beginning, and it could not have created itself out of nothing, the only explanation is that a Super-Natural Power created it. . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... . http://www.personal.psu.edu...
pizza, best food

There are some problems with pizza. 1. Its complexity Pizza faces a severe limitation from the fact that as a food, it is difficult to make from base ingredients. Its use of dairy, flour and meats makes it difficult to have in many places. 2. Pasta is much better. Pasta comes in as many varieties as pizza, and is much easier to make. All you really need is dough, which is found in some form in almost every cuisine around the world. Therefore, Pizza is not the best, it is pasta.
The suffering of mankind [in this life or the after-life is not the fault of God.

Certainly one could claim that other people are responsible for the bad things that they do to others. Their choices are to murder, rape, rob you and that is why those things happens. What about those things which aren't the product of human will? About a quarter million people were killed because of the the Boxer Day Tsunami. Are you telling me that the suffering a child ripped from the arms of her mother and drowned in the ocean just to wash ashore a few days later bloated and white is caused by human choices? ---- i. Okay. Muslim is a fine point of view to speak from as it is just as silly and wrong as other religious viewpoints. ii. I certainly do not believe in God. I don't bother to remain respectful of Santa Claus, Djin, or Fairies as they don't exist. Allah will receive as much respect as the non-existent typically enjoy. iii. Nothing about respecting the non-existent should reflect on the respect shown to me. I certainly exist. You exist and I'll be as respectful to you as I would be to anyone. However, I don't believe there much need to respect the non-existent.
The suffering of mankind [in this life or the after-life is not the fault of God.

Oaky I believe that this topic of debate is pretty self explanitory. Everyday horrible autrocities happen. People are murdered, rapped, robbed, and treated like trash, but God cannot be blammed for these happenings. It is all the doing of man, and whats worse is that lots of people are sent to hell all the time. God cannot be blammed for this either, because that us the fault of that indivisual. Overall we know right from wrong, sometimes we feel as if we cannot help doing the wrong thing when placed in a certian situation, but in most cases we can, we just cannot [or dont want to] see it any other way. Life is just one big test of endurance. Can you endure the challenges it throws at you, or will you fall victum to life's autrocities? Only God can answer that, but only you can make it happen, and if you happen to fall into the losers bracket, God cannot be blammed, nor the guy that stole your car, or your abusive steapfather[just examples]. ONLY YOU! You, as well as every other human being suffer at the hands of other humans, and weather or not you become like those oppresors is not the decision of God nor the fault of God. IT IS ALL UP TO YOU! Well, Im done ranting. Im gonna save my real arguments for the debate, but first lemme set down some groundrules. i. I am a Muslim, as a result I will speak and explain myself from a Muslim POV.. I would greatly appreciate it if the person who ends up being my opponant tries to respect my religion and [if you must] argue against my logic as far as the debate goes rather then my religious views. ii. Though my opponant my or may not believe in God, I would like him/her to remain respectful of him while speaking. iii. Overall respect the debate and stay within it's boundaries please and i will respect you. Thank you. I wish you the best of luck. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you.
A resolution to strength bilateral relations with brazil

BRICAs I said before (and you didn't respond adequately) our relations with the BRIC countries would be redundant through Brazil or damaging. I would also like to point out that India does not equal Brazil. There is nothing to say that they would be anything alike in the political arena. That's like saying "Japan has bad relations with Korea so we'll have bad relations with Korea" when in fact it's quite the opposite. You can't use relations with one country to gauge the success of relations with another.India has nothing to do with Brazil in this debate.There is no "harm" but there are negative consequences of doing so. We'd never be able to face the UN or environmentally conscious Europe if we support Brazil and their clear cutting of the Amazon. We don't need their ethanol and we would give them a chance to gain US intel through Russia and Russia to gain US intel through Brazil. The negative effects are present but the positive ones are no where to be found.ObamaWhether Obama does something or not doesn't mean that we should. Obama once did crack cocaine, should all Americans do cocaine? No. Just because the President does something doesn't make it the right course of action.Also, there could be any number of reasons for the president to visit somewhere. Strengthening of relations isn't the only reason for a presidential visit. The Olympics are going to Brazil in 2016, Brazil is supporting an Argentinian blockade of the Falkland Islands and Brazil is a notorious drug producing country. These are many unfavorable reasons to illicit a political response outside of the ambiguous "strengthening relations" umbrella you put over it.I already mentioned some of the policies:- Tight relations with Iran- Negative environmental impacts- Drugs- Blockading the British held Falkland IslandsThose are all policies we don't agree with. Also, no we don't agree with China's policies which is why we don't have strong overall relations with the country and have made no move to strengthen them. We have economic ties to them only.
A resolution to strength bilateral relations with brazil

Also I would like to add that: Consider the fact that since the George Bush administration, the US has built a strong bilateral relation with India, the largest democracy in the world. During the Obama administration, under the leadership of Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, the US continues to establish strong bilateral relations with India, which, as I have already mentioned is part of BRIC. Establishing strong bilateral relations with Brazil is consistent with the US stance toward BRIC countries. The relationship between India and America has been very successful and, therefore, the relationship between the US and Brazil will also be very successful. There really is no harm in creating bilateral relations with Brazil...Whether they cut forests or not. What do you think we do in America... we are worse! We dump chemicals in large bodies of water and there are many other things the US does to harm the environment. And also if creating relations with Brazil is unfavorable then how come President Obama went to Brazil recently? He went to Brazil to strength our relations, so we do show the need to form relations with them. Basically you are arguing that we dont agree with Brazil's policies, but let me ask you this since you mentioned China (since it is part of BRIC), I was wondering if you believe the US agrees with all of their policies. Every country has its different views and we should repsect them. Also please mention some of the policies we are against.
A resolution to strength bilateral relations with brazil

BRICThe United States entering into stronger relations with Brazil in order to strengthen ties with BRIC is redundant because the United States already has close ties to India, strong economic ties with China and are entering into chilly relations with Russia.President Putin is already showing his Anti-American attitude in the news [1] and entering into relations with a close friend to Russia could be bad politically with the United States and act to strain future relations between the two nations. Entering into BRIC would not only be redundant in some areas but in poor political taste in others. EthanolMost of your argument is centered around created a "strong global ethanol market" when this is not a US priority or interest. As we can see from the graph in source two [2] American ethanol consumption matches up nearly perfectly with our production and importing ethanol is not needed. You also cite that ethanol can be produced cheaper in Brazil but then leave out the fact that the cost of importing the ethanol from Brazil would offset the price difference in producing here in America. The United States is home to some of the largest corn fields in the world and our agricultural production is top notch, importing ethanol would be unneeded and expensive. The demand is not there to justify improving relations with another country for the sake of ethanol since our supply matches our demand domestically. Anti-US InterestsBrazil also enters into some policies that are against US policy.Brazil has strong ties to Iran - a strong enemy of the United States. [3] Brazil is clear cutting forests and causing environmental destruction. [4] Since Brazil is engaged in policies that the US doesn't favor, relations with them are outweighed negatively and are therefore undesirable. * The United States has no need politically or economically to enter into BRIC for various reasons* Ethanol is not a viable or justifiable reason to improve relations with another nation* Brazil engages in policies the US doesn't agree with.We should not improve relations with Brazil. [1] http://www.reuters.com...[2] www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/data/docs/ethanol_production_consumption.xls [3] http://articles.cnn.com...[4] http://news.mongabay.com...
A resolution to strength bilateral relations with brazil

I strongly support the proposition that the United States should strengthen its bilateral relations with Brazil. Brazil has the world's seventh largest economy, and Brazil is also part of BRIC. BRIC is an acronym which refers to the nations of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. These countries all have economies that are developing at a fast pace and they are considered to be at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development. Moving on to my first contention, American ethanol isn't as efficient as Brazil's ethanol. Although the United States is the world's leader in ethanol production, Brazil's ethanol is more efficient. According to the Economist, "Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane whereas American ethanol is made from corn. Sugar cane ethanol has an energy balance seven times greater than ethanol produced from corn. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol . U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol." If the US established stronger ties with Brazil, together they would form a powerful global ethanol market. Expanding world ethanol markets would help the USA and other nations reduce their dependence on foreign oil. If we formed this "global ethanol market," Brazil and America's ethanol production will increase and help both nations economically.