BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IF ANY ONE were a 100% Fully human, that leaves NO room for e.g. a supernatural archangel!

My opponent, with his usual level of confidence, declares that the debate title speaks for itself, but does it? I propose to show that he does not. What I intend to show from Scripture is that the human Christ was created as a perfect human in his mother's womb, by holy spirit, in order for him to form the perfect vessel for the personality and memories of God's spirit son. I am very interested to read his opening arguments.
IF ANY ONE were a 100% Fully human, that leaves NO room for e.g. a supernatural archangel!

it's not really the subject on which there is much room for argument. I have presented the only evidence there is, which is scriptural. It is up to those who read this debate to decide whether or not they agree with. I rest my case with the simple statement, but since no one is needed for the personality of the Christ to be inserted into a 100% human, then there is more than sufficient room.
IF ANY ONE were a 100% Fully human, that leaves NO room for e.g. a supernatural archangel!

my opponent appears to completely miss my point. The point I have made, and it's a simple one, is that since the personality of the Archangel, which was put into Christ's 100% human body did not need any room, therefore, there was more than enough room for it. If something needs no more space than is available, even if the available space is next to nothing, the simple answer is that there is more than a enough room. Therefore, since the personality the Archangel occupies no more space than it already is in the 100% human body. There is definitely room for it. Therefore, the proposal for this debate is completely false. One only has to go back to what I said earlier about how Christ became what he was, to realise my point is valid. To the a little, a perfect child came into the world because an egg in Mary's womb. That child developed as a perfect human, and was brought up by faithful Jewish parents. Having been taught by his parents of his unusual conception, and his future role, no doubt referring to the Scriptures to do so, Christ duly presented himself a baptism at the appropriate time. It was then, on baptism, that the entire personality and memories of God's son was transmitted into the brain of this perfect adult. No wonder it was such a shock, even for a perfect brain, and no wonder he had to go into the wilderness to think. However, there was no issue of space inside his perfect human body. This demonstrates beyond any doubt that there most definitely is for an Archangel in a 100% physical human body.
IF ANY ONE were a 100% Fully human, that leaves NO room for e.g. a supernatural archangel!

I find it very interesting, that my opponent appears to be either unprepared, or unwilling, to supply any actual evidence. Of course, to some extent we are both hampered by the fact that there is very little scientific evidence for either case, and what they is comes very much from what are often called fringe sciences. Such as the study of the paranormal. However, my opponent appears to be making a very basic and dangerous assumption. He makes the mistake of assuming, that the personality takes up any space inside the physical body. My contention is, that Jesus was born a perfect human child, due to the operation of holy spirit on an egg in Mary's womb. He was brought up by two loving and conscientious parents. They carefully taught him all about the God to which they were so faithful. No doubt they also told him of the special circumstances of his conception and birth. His perfect mind, as well as the fact that at first he had merely his own personality that he naturally grew up with is demonstrated by his disputing with the religious leaders in the temple at age 13. The only special thing about him at that point, was his ability to think and debate at a higher level than much older adults. However, knowing his special birth, and the fact that he had a special destiny, no doubt he understood much of the Scripture that pointed to his arrival as Messiah, and therefore when he came of age fully, which in Israel was deemed to be 30 years of age, he duly presented himself to his cousin John for baptism. It wasn't until his public baptism demonstrated his commitment to taking on his future role that holy spirit descended on him and gave him the personality and memories of God's son. Even for a perfect mind this was a lot to take in one go, hence his need to wander off into the wilderness to meditate. Hence also the fact that Satan recognised this as the best possible time to subvert Christ away from his role, and by introducing disobedience, and therefore imperfection, into him make any future sacrifice invalid. Because it was done in this way, there was no need for putting the metaphorical quart into an equally metaphorical pint pot. Since the personality of Jesus was completely replaced by the personality of God's son thus making Jesus' physical body merely a vessel to carry that personality around. Of course, that also meant that the original personality of God's son was no longer in the spirit body, because it now dwelt in the perfect physical body of Christ.. Maybe all is not necessarily demonstrated, but the possibility of this happening is more than clearly demonstrated. It will therefore no longer be possible for my opponent to merely reiterate his first two very brief and very basic statements.
Bi-sexual

freedom - by this i mean someone should be free to choose what and who he or she wants to respect. When you say stop with the freedom stuff, do you mean that people who choose not to respect others should be arrested or imprisoned for that choice? I am saying that people who make non heterosexual choices should not compel others to respect them whether through the court system or social mechanisms. and this would apply to anyone. I am saying that people have the right to treat gay/straight people as they want and should not be subject to accusations of bias and the likes
Bi-sexual

Yes,all life should be respected,but a human being is shown the most respect given his superiority and domination over all other life on earth, and as such a human life is priceless compared to that of a swine. Do people give them no respect because of what they are (which is wrong ) or because of who they choose to be (which makes respect a result of their choices), so living things should be treated with dignity,in fact all things, but we should not condemn people because they choose to accept our choices...that is why it's called freedom...
Bi-sexual

*disclaimer: Debate purposes only. #activists The notion that we can compare being bisexual or gay to being black is offensive. People of African descent have absolutely no say on the matter and equating race to being bisexual or gay is simply whitewashing the enormous exploitation and humiliation Africans underwent at the hands of men on account of their skins. People say being gay or bisexual is natural it is nature,others say it is a choice. If being bisexual is nature, the result of natural occurrences of this nature is procreation so if two people of the same sex mate,no procreation occurs, is that really natural? And if it is by choice then one can not demand acceptance by invoking the painful memories of slavery. Also, if I enjoy something but people have an aversion to it, should I equate that to noble principles like freedom from tyranny? I contend that if people are against being gay and what not,that should not be equated to slavery and should be interpreted in a manner that addresses this aversion. And if people do not respect gay or bisexual people,it would be unamerican to impose our feelings on them... live and let live, then again man will condemn all those who challenge his desires whether noble or perverse. Who thought blacks were not good? They we're exploited but everyone understood that they could rebel and could be a threat.
Should calling people the n-word be banned for both whites and blacks.

The reason that I chose this topic is because my english class had a debate about this topic and it interested me of the way many people reacted. The definition of a N is a dark-skinned person from the french word Ne'gre . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger and if you look inside of a dictionary with paper or whaever it says an ignorant person. The reason that I believe the word should be banned is simple actually most black people feel hat white people shouldnt call the a N because they feel that the word is just so offensive another mos of them walk around saying it to themselve. They say it reminds them of when there ancestors were in slavery, but to me it is stupid if white people shouldnt say it because it is offensive, then why should they be able to walk around saying it to other black people.
Should calling people the n-word be banned for both whites and blacks.

I would also like to take the time to verify multiple things 1. N-word-While it is generally assume what the N-word is. I would still like a standard definition from a reliable source(wikipedia will do) 2. Race Factor-A race factor should not be taken in this debate simply because I am black as well. So if my opponent tries to state that "I can't understand because I'm not black", please do not take this into account when you are voting. I now await my opponents opening arguments.
Should calling people the n-word be banned for both whites and blacks.

I would like to apologize for my spelling in the previous round. Let me start by saying by first off I have given my opponent a definition it might not be what he want to read but it is a definition a dark-skinned person. Maybe I should have revised my work. In my statement I said "I feel that the N-word should be banned from the vocabulary of every race", I did actually mean blacks and whites. Since these two races seem to have the most trouble with the word. Like I said from the very beginning I do understand that America states in the Bill of Rights that we have the freedom of speech and yes I do agree that everyone should be able to say what they want. But at the same time if you are going to be offended when someone calls you something but you don't want another race to call you that then why not ban the word "since it just seems to have this huge effect on people." Banning the word(it is not possible but I'm using figure of speech) might be irresponsible in my opponents view but not everyone has the same opinion. My opponents states that "So whenever someone calls me stupid (In the funny stupid way) then that word should be taking out of our vocabulary, even if I'm not offended." but no everyone reacts the same way some people will laugh and some will hop up with their fist in the air. An eleven year old boy even thought that the word should be banned. www.newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/30/effort-to-abolish-the-n-word If that is not inspiring and commitment to what he was then I don't know what is.
Gay Marraiage should not be allowed

"First of all, my opponent has a problem me having an opinion. I have gotten my information from many websites such as www. religioustolerance. org/ and www. bidstrup. com. " --> So? A website is nothing. A specific page would be helpful. "My opponent stated that many animals are homosexuals. Myself and many people have never heard of this. The only instance I have heard of homosexual animals other than humans are a pair a 2 gay penguins nursing a baby penguin. The website my opponent does not have reliable information. " --> It doesn't matter what you and your friends opinions are, but I have an article with scientific research which proves my point. "Internet superstar Chris Crocker who is an transgendered female says gay marriage is wrong. Chris Crocker is really smart so you should listen to her. " --> Chris crocker is an over emotional attention w****. 'Nuff said. "Vote for me or I will cry! " --> Not only is appeal to emotion fail, but it is degrading for you to sink to that level. In conclusion, my opponent has not given a valid argument on the issue, and has not refuted my arguments.
Gay Marraiage should not be allowed

My opponent is smart. But I'm more smarter. First of all, my opponent has a problem me having an opinion. I have gotten my information from many websites such as www.religioustolerance.org/ and www.bidstrup.com. My opponent stated that many animals are homosexuals. Myself and many people have never heard of this. The only instance I have heard of homosexual animals other than humans are a pair a 2 gay penguins nursing a baby penguin. The website my opponent does not have reliable information. Internet superstar Chris Crocker who is an transgendered female says gay marriage is wrong. Chris Crocker is really smart so you should listen to her. Vote for me or I will cry!
Gay Marraiage should not be allowed

=== PRO: === "I disagree with my opponent when he states. "Love isn't a requirement for marriage". That statement clearly in my opinion is a unwise statement. " === REBUTTAL: === Yeah, in your opinion. But this isn't about opinions. The fact is arranged marriages aren't for love,but for personal gain. === PRO: === "When my opponent stated the the 4 rebuttal points they did make any sense. I recently talked to my preist about gay marriage and he clearly stated that God, Jesus, and written in the bible that 2 people of the same sex should not get married. God created created Man and Woman (Adam and Eve) for a reason. He did not create 2 men or 2 women. If he did mankind or womenkind would not exist. I believe we would let God down if 2 people of the same sex got married. " === REBUTTAL: === I recently talked to my priest and he said the exact opposite. Your little story is again, opinion. The fact of the matter is that religion should hold no bearing on whether or not someone can go into a marriage with someone. It may be your opinion that it's wrong, but not to people who aren't Christian, or people who are homosexual. Your rights are not being infringed on in any way by gay marriage being allowed. Also, please quote where in the bible it says Gay marriage is wrong. Furthermore, Genesis is fictional. Most animals do have natural homosexual encounters: . http://www.sfgate.com... "Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Females have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly. " === PRO: === "My oponnent mentions that Hell doesn't exist. Well, God made Heaven, and God made Hell. I believe being Gay is a sin and means you should be sent to Hell. " === REBUTTAL === Yeah, now it's your job to prove they do exist. Again, more opinion. === PRO: === "Gay Marriage is bad. " === REBUTTAL: === Cold you at least give one secular point on this?
Gay Marraiage should not be allowed

I disagree with my opponent when he states. "Love isn't a requirement for marriage". That statement clearly in my opinion is a unwise statement. When my opponent stated the the 4 rebuttal points they did make any sense. I recently talked to my preist about gay marriage and he clearly stated that God, Jesus, and written in the bible that 2 people of the same sex should not get married. God created created Man and Woman (Adam and Eve) for a reason. He did not create 2 men or 2 women. If he did mankind or womenkind would not exist. I believe we would let God down if 2 people of the same sex got married. My oponnent mentions that Hell doesn't exist. Well, God made Heaven, and God made Hell. I believe being Gay is a sin and means you should be sent to Hell. Gay Marriage is bad.
Gay Marraiage should not be allowed

Firstly, I disagree with your definitions. Gay [Homosexual]: "Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex". [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Marriage: "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. " [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Gay does not imply a person engages in sexual activities with the same sex. It believes they are sexually attracted to the same sex. Big difference. Love isn't a requirement for marriage. It can be a reason to marry, but it isn't the only reason to marry. === PRO: === "Jesus, God, and the Bible don't want 2 people of the same sex to marry each other. " === REBUTTAL: === 1) Where does it implicitly state in the bible they aren't allowed to marry? Sure, it states in Leviticus 18:22 that "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable", however, marriage does not imply "lying with another man". [. http://www.biblegateway.com...] 2) The bible also states it's justified to sell your daughter into slavery in Exodus 21:7 "if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. " [. http://www.biblegateway.com...] 3) Jesus never actually condemned being homosexual or marrying as a homosexual. 4) Where has a God implicitly stated homosexuals marrying is wrong? === PRO: === "It is wrong to go against anything they believe in" === REBUTTAL: === Sure, maybe for people with Judeo-Christian beliefs, but for Atheists, Agnostics and Non-Theists it isn't. And because less than 100% of people are Christians, it shouldn't be taken as the official religion and moral guideline. === PRO: === "If 2 people of the same sex do love each other, they will go to Hell and I dont want that to happen" === REBUTTAL: === 1) It is completley someones choice to go to hell, should it exist. You shouldn't violate that right. 2) Where's the proof hell exists, and that homosexuals are sent to hell
Gay Marraiage should not be allowed

Resolved: Gay Marraiage should not be allowed. I would like to explain the following terms. Gay: When 2 men or women have sex and/or "do" each other in the bed. Marraige: When 2 people of the opposite sex love each other and want to spend there rest of there lives with each other. Now that I have finished explaining my terms I will now explain why gay marriage should not be allowed. Jesus, God, and the Bible don't want 2 people of the same sex to marry each other. It is wrong to go against anything they believe in. If 2 people of the same sex do love each other, they will go to Hell and I dont want that to happen. Thank you.
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god EX 34:14

In most of your reply, you give insults and utter nonsense except for evidence and rational argument. If God does exist then we do belong to him because he is our creator. If you need verses and chapters the read the bible and the new testament. Please start with John 3:16-17. I think we should have a discussion on the problem of suffering and evil as well as any other arguments for the existence of God. For Matt Dillahunty here are some videos for you to watch
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god EX 34:14

Since you are only 15, I will not rip your throat apart even though you flatly deserve it because you like the typical christian are totally 100% incapable of reading. And since you cannot read, you invent excuses from something in which your clearly know nothing about and yet you pretend you do especially on a subject that you claim to have knowledge upon and you really don"t. So what you try to do is bluff your way onto center stage with chips that you don"t have for any poker arena. Bad idea. Especially for someone who does know something, namely me, about this subject. Now I am going to gently use a strike 3 basis for you because you clearly invented excuses, you know it, and you will be out, and this debate will be over. "Holy jealousy" strike 1. There"s no such thing. You invented it. I"ve been doing this for 23+ years and have talked with roughly 22,000 on this subject and NO ONE has ever come up with that turgid silly little drab. Now I did not mention christ, a false prophet - and trust me you most certainly don"t want to get into it as its a losing buffoonery on your part, so the rest of this paragraph will be dismissed. OK sin, well since I am an atheist the proper way to be because I don"t have to constantly look over my shoulder and worry about sin and wonder if I am going to be sent to hell or not. "His kind of jealousy is not sinful because we belong to Him"" Whoa there hot stuff, who is this "we"? Um no. Its you and only you in your entire existence of lonely foolishness. And I, and all other atheists who have an education and intelligence do in no way shape or form belong to this s--t terrorist god of yours in which you cannot even prove exists. Strike 2. Here"s a video just posted to help you with that" - Evidence for god "Your other statements seem to bring up the problem of suffering and evil. As well as the claim that God cannot be proven. If you would like I can elaborate on this further. Particularly on why I object to your statements." No I wouldn"t because you should have. That"s strike 3. You took the lazy way out in which is most certainly not appreciated. You have also not given ANY evidence to support your false claims. And I did say "Chapters and verses only please." in which I 100% know you cannot come up with.
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god EX 34:14

Okay so let us begin. There is a difference between holy jealousy and sinful jealousy. Holy jealousy means that one is appropriately possessive of something that belongs to him or her. For example, I am not willing to share my husband"s heart or body with any other woman because he is mine. I"m happy to share his gifts and energies with the body of Christ and the larger world, and I even love to see that happen, but I want his heart and soul to be exclusively mine. That is a kind of holy and entirely appropriate jealousy. Sinful jealousy is the desire to have something that doesn"t belong to us; another word is envy. When we want something God has not given to us, such as other people"s fame, or material goods, or a job, or favour, or a spouse, that is a sin. Sometimes we see this in a jealous person who wants all the attention of their loved one to be directed to themselves. I have seen people who fly into a rage when they learn that their spouse or significant other has talked on the phone with anyone, or had any kind of conversation with a third person. Such a jealous person desires to have a level of exclusivity that doesn"t belong to them. God exhibits holy jealousy because our love and adoration rightfully belong to Him; He is jealous with a holy jealousy when we love and worship false gods in idolatry. His kind of jealousy is not sinful because we belong to Him and He created our hearts to belong to Him as well. Your other statements seem to bring up the problem of suffering and evil. As well as the claim that God cannot be proven. If you would like I can elaborate on this further. Particularly on why I object to your statements.