BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Arianism: totally refuted based on Scripture

The topic of this deabte is "Arianism: totally refuted based on Scripture" (emphasis added)As an agnostic on this topic (as well as many others), and based on the topic of the debate, my burden here is not to prove the Arian position, but only to show that there is a rational argument for it based on scripture. John 14:28 provides a basis for that rational argument.I will take my opponents counter arguments one by one. The Sophiology Backround of Nicean ChristologyMy opponet correctly describes Nicean Christology as Sophistry. It was an argument made at a council called mostly for the specific purpose of addressing the Arian controversy. The Council declared a trinitarian notion not entirely found in the Bible. This is the point, there was legitimate dissent from that position. However, it was in this council that Arius and those whose subscribed to his theology were declared heretics.Far from settling the issue, the controversy raged on, and Arius was exonerated just ten years later at the regional First Synod of Tyre, only to be declared a heretic again after his death at the First Council of Constantinople.Arianism does not necessarily deny the divinity of Christ. It only postulates that Christ was created by the Father, and was a distinct, subordinate entity.The Old Testament Wisdom Theology My opponent and I agree that Wisdom, Christ was begotten by God and therefore share a divine nature with him. Just as a man begetting produces a child subordinate to the man.Inter-testamental Jewish Theology As per the debate topic, this section is irrelevant. Non-scriptural Jewish literary works are not evidence under the debate topic. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Book of Sirach, are only canonical to Jews and Catholics. My opponent and I are neither. New Testament Wisdom Theology Most of this argument I agree with, except Christ never actually claimed to be equal with the Father. He claimed to be his son. I myself am my father's son, and that doesn't make me equal to him. Christ is claiming divinity, not equality with the father. His claiming equality with the Father was only the accusation levelled upon him."What then does he mean by the Father is greater than him? Based on the context it's not talking about "nature" but 'position" because Christ was on earth and the Father is in heaven that is why he is going to the Father. The verse doesn't refute the divinity of Jesus but on the contrary it proves it! It's because he call God his own Father making himself equal with God which per se an another relevant scripture within the Johannine texts..."My opponent enter into the same error as the new testament Jews by assuming that Christ claiming sonship and divinity mean he is claim equality.Again, arianism does not necessarily object to the divinity of Christ, it only asserts that he is an entity subordinate to the father.[1] An argument supported by nearly all the verses my opponent himself has cited. Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Arianism: totally refuted based on Scripture

Your verses from Proverbs and Psalms seem irrelevant to this debate and I will respond if you explain how you feel they support your position. In John 1:1 - The answer goes back to the Greek. The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of theos (God) but not before the second. The articular (when the article appears) construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article) predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god. The remaining articles make no divine claim, and a careful reading of the preceding and following verses reveal Christ speaking of God as someone who has sent him, has given him glory, and has given him power. In some, Christ even says he would have been unable to do these things himself. Finally, Arianism cannot be TOTALLY refuted by scripture since Christ himself stated ""You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." - John 14:28 NIV
Arianism: totally refuted based on Scripture

Arianism is a teaching about Christ's relationship to the Father as Father and Son in titles and function not in nature. The Scripture teaches that Christ's relationship to the Father is Father and Son in titles, in function AND in nature. Let the Arians explain these verses: Proverbs 8:22-31 LXX Psalm 45:1 LXX Psalm 110:3 LXX John 1:1 John 1:14 John 1:18 John 3:16 John 5:18-19 John 5:23-26 John 8:58 John 10:28-38 John 17:3-5 Colossians 1:15 Revelation 3:14 * This debate is highly recommended for those who are either Arian themselves or for those who are very knowledgeable about Arianism.
Evolution

Argument is wholly plagiarised.http://sikku.blogspot.co.uk...http://www.crossfit.com...http://www.jesus-is-savior.com...And other sources. For this alone, I request a vote PRO, simply due to my opponent's horrible conduct to not bother posting his own arguments. My opponent should not win "better argument" on this ground, simply because Further, my opponent's entire argument refutes the idea of the Miller-Urey experiments. I wish to pose a new experiment entirely, so his entire previous criticisms are null and void. Simply put, my argument is as follows:Either living or non-living things create living things.Living things are not eternal.If living things only cause living things, then the living things cycle creates an infinite regress. (chicken and egg) This is impossible.Therefore, a non-living thing caused living things.Therefore, abiogenesis occurred.Or, in short, either something that is a living thing or not a living thing was the source of living things. Living things cannot cause ad infinitum other living things (biogenesis ad infinitum is impossible). Therefore, abiogenesis occurred.We know this as all things have an efficient cause, as Aristotle showed us. The Thinker famously has an efficient cause: Rodin's vision. In similar ways, a chicken has an efficient cause: an egg hatching. All things have efficient causes. So, thus, must living things. The cause of living things cannot be living things: that is illogical. It must be a non-living thing. Therefore, abiogenesis.I await my opponent's response, and hope that he does not steal his argument from another source. Hopefully, he will simply do the honourable thing and concede this debate and restart it so a meaningful debate can be done.
Evolution

I also define evolution in the context of the debate: that is, abiogenesis. As evolution does not encompass life's origins - the definition being the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms[1], and a different definition would be an attempt to squirrel the topic so PRO cannot possibly win the debate. Thus, we must define evolution as encompassing abiogenesis for the product of the debate. Finally, as my opponent states that it "cannot explain how the first life developed", I simply need to provide a way for evolution (which encompasses abiogenesis) to fully be able to explain how life originated. In other words, it must be valid, rather than more likely than all alternatives. However, I wish to still put forth that abiogenesis is the most likely as well, in order to promote the debate's ethos. As my opponent initiated the debate, I shall await him to create the criticisms of abiogenesis. To save reading time and misunderstanding, I shall simply post the link to the type of evolution / abiogenesis that I am promoting:. http://www.talkorigins.org...I await my opponent's criticisms.
Atheism is Irrational

"Well, if your only reply is that religion is -also- irrational you must concede that Atheism is irrational"Religion is rational, that's not my argument. I'm saying they're on the same level. Calling athiesm irrational is the same thing as calling religion irrational. "Theist is to believe in God, therefore Atheism is to not believe in God, therefore Atheism pertains to God. You are also suggesting that Atheism is the default or neutral position when I think I have already well contended that it isn't. You haven't debated any of those contentions so I can only assume you agree."Okay well a couple of things. Firstly, athiesm cannot pertain to a god. It's not a religion. There aren't any practices or any of the things to make a religion. And it can't partain to a god because it applied to eveyr religion.Secondly, I don't know why my argument against the thing about atheism being below neutral wasn't there, I remember typing it. The general gist was that nobody is born religious, and nobody is bron athiest. I agree with you, athiesm isn't the neutral state. Neither is thiesm. I mean, neither is agnosticism (I'm just reading ahead here to an argument further down). A neutral state would be having no opinion on the matter one way or the other. And me, well I have never seen something like that."Atheism is a religion"no it's not that's our whole thing. We aren't religious. I don't know why most classify it as a religious beleif, it's really not. It's a nickname for not beleiving in god. Not Beleiving. Those two words are what make Athiesm not a religion. If we're gonna start calling athiesm a religion, I might as well start calling someone who doesn't smoke an addict to not smoking. You may think that's an exageration, but that's the situation. Someone who doesn't smoke isn't an addict to not smoking, they just don't smoke. An athiest isn't a part of a religion, he just doesn't think there's a god."it's perfectly rational to beleive god does or doesn't exist."How could this ever defend Atheism?" You kinda took that out of the context of what I was saying. I'm saying both sides are equally rational. They don't have any real backup, and pretty much most athiesm vs theism arguments stand on "prove it". Beleifs are rational, I've stood to that moral all the time, even though most fellow athiests act like a jerk to religious people. But if the situation has turned to religious people acting like jerkss to atheists "beliefs", I'm not sure what to think anymore.
Atheism is Irrational

"The assertion that there is no God is fundamentally irrational. It is clearly something which cannot be supported with any evidence or reasoning."As is the assertion there is a god. I won't act like a persons belief system is irrational, because it's a person beleif. They're entitled to it. I don't agree with any religion. I don't think god exists, and even though I have nothing to back it up, neither do any of you."The problem with these kind of arguments is that Atheism doesn't pertain to religion, only to God."Well actually, atheism is when someone is not thiest. Meaning, they're not a part of a religion. They don't practice religious beleifs or religious traditions. Most of the time. Except for christmas. Because as much as we don't beleive in god, we do beleive in free stuff.The idea of atheism is that we don't beleive in god. It's not that we don't beleive in anything. We just have come to terms with the fact that god probably doesn't exist. That hundreds of thousands of years ago, people didn't have science. They didn't a format to undertsand the mysteries of the world, so explained with observable facts and just assumed a powerful higher force was responsible. This has grown and grown into organized religions, which in turn have created cultural ways of existing and various "rules" to living. However, now we do have science, and can undertsand how a sunset happens. As for your whole thing about implicit athiesm, we don't try to dress it up as a legit beleif. I don't know where you heard this. We don't try in any way to act like a religion. That's our whole thing. "Agnostic Atheism"Uh yeah, there are hundreds of forms of christianity alone. There isn't one true christianity, there isn't one true beleif. An athiest is allowed to have his doubts now and then. Just like a christian can be one of many forms but still be a christian. The thing about athiesm is really, it's just as rational as any other religion. Do we have anything to back up god doesn't exist? Well we haven't seen him. And while religions have existed seemingly everwhere, most cultural mythologies that never interacted included dragons. And there is no way of convincing me dragons exist. It's perfectly rational in my opinion to think dragons do or do not exist, just as it's perfectly rational to beleive god does or doesn't exist. No way to prove or disprove either.
Atheism is Irrational

"aren't defending atheism, you are just comparing it relatively to Earthly religions"I don't feel the need to defend something. If I was defending it, it would be a clear sign that it is irrational. But it's not, so I'm not. "seem to be making the assumption that atheism and religion are equally rational but provide nothing to support the case." I thought I already pointed out that neither have any real backup, and are just a thing we think. I will say athiesm is irrational the moment religious people say religion is irrational. "There is nothing which would invoke the idea that there is no God" This can be said the same way for religion. A book doesn't apply as evidence, I beleive I've already made my case about dragons. "No child has ever looked at nature or the stars at night and had the original independent thought "there can't be a God". " 1: explain me2: THis would only really be true for a kid in a religious family. He's a kid. He doesn't have that kind of indipendant thought process yet and will grow to decide for himself. Incase you haven't noticed, kids are dumb. They'll beleive 100% whatever you tell them. "Proof is different from evidence"What? "There is no comparitive universal reason to assume atheism."Uh... science. That's how we explain stuff. We don't look at something and think "god did it". We think "atoms did it".Really, all in all, I don't think athiesm is something a lot of people understand. We don't think "nothing did everything and there was never anything ever" we think "YEAH, SCIENCE B***H!". And for the last time, it's not a religion. It's the opposite of a religon. Atheism is when we don't beleive in god. It's not a specific god, it's any god. The non-beleif in a god would logically conclude not religious.And as for intelligent design, there's nothing to suggest that god created everything. Meanwhile, science has shown physical proof and evidence (same meaning btw) of evolution & growth over billions of years.And in case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight.
Consuming mind-altering drugs recreationally should be a crime.

"The human body is "hooked" on many other substances that aren't drugs, like food and water, except to a much larger degree. To advocate for mind-altering drugs to be illegal on this premise should include an advocation for food and water to be illegal as well. " There is a big difference between food and drugs. Food is necessary for survival, is natural, and doesn't really cause the person eating to hallucinate and do bad stuff. Drugs, on the other hand, put that person at a very high risk for doing bad stuff, is not natural, and is not necessary for survival. "My opponent's case relies solely on the premise that something making one more likely to commit crimes should be illegal. " I said something that increases the risk of crime so high should be illegal, not just anything. I would like to point out that my opponent never said anything about drinking and driving. He did not respond because their is no way to counter that argument. Drinking and driving is illegal because it puts people at a very high risk of injury, just as drugs do. "The purpose of government is to protect its people's rights to govern their life and property" That is true. But another purpose of government is to protect people. For example, not being able to murder someone without serious consequences is against a persons right. Following my opponents flawed logic, murder would be legal. "Therefore, such an act of government as Drug Criminalization is an unwarranted and coercive abuse of government authority. " My opponent pointed that theft and rape are crimes justifiable against his premise. If Drugs were to be made legal, they would inevitable cause a large amount of theft and rape. It would cause unwanted violence through drug wars. . http://www.google.com... Therefore, drug criminalization is a valid government program. It may infringe on a persons rights, but as my opponent points out, acts of coercion, like theft and rape, are still crimes. The taking of drugs drastically increases the chance of such crimes and therefore should be inhibited as well. This is very similar to the way drunk driving is prohibited.
Consuming mind-altering drugs recreationally should be a crime.

===Answering my opponent's first objection=== "Once your [sic] hooked, you are probably going to be hooked for a while. " The human body is "hooked" on many other substances that aren't drugs, like food and water, except to a much larger degree. To advocate for mind-altering drugs to be illegal on this premise should include an advocation for food and water to be illegal as well. ===The Flaw in My Opponent's Crime Definition Premise=== My opponent's case relies solely on the premise that something making one more likely to commit crimes should be illegal. Given this, we can derive that sororities should also be illegal. This is because their existence increases the chance of sexual assault[1]. Parties and celebrations should also be illegal because they also increase the chances of rape[1]. School uniforms also increase the chance of rape[2] and should therefore be illegal under my opponent's case. Given that these things are now illegal, the government must seek out ways to decrease the chance of these actions being taken as well and eliminate them, according to my opponent's premise. If people have the freedom to gather in one place, they are more likely to celebrate or party, and therefore such an action should also be illegal. Given that when we follow my opponent's premise, gathering together should be illegal, religion must be illegal as well, because religious groups are more likely to gather on a regular basis than nonreligious groups. It should be obvious that in the United States of America, we should not base our laws on my opponent's premise, because it would lead to Unconstitutional restrictions in the name of fighting crime. Therefore, the slippery-slope crime premise is invalid. ===Why My Crime Defintion Premise is Valid=== The purpose of government is to protect its people's rights to govern their life and property[3]. Under this premise, crime is an act of coercion, denying another their rights to govern life and property. Such acts of coercion would be theft and rape. When government seeks to decrease the chances of such crimes occuring, they themselves commit a crime, by infringing on one's right to govern their life and property according to their own pursuit of happiness. Therefore, such an act of government as Drug Criminalization is an unwarranted and coercive abuse of government authority. I will now allow my opponent to respond. [1] . http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... [2] . http://www.klue.com.my... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Consuming mind-altering drugs recreationally should be a crime.

"Actions that do not infringe on the individual freedoms of others should not be illegal. When an individual chooses to consume mind-altering drugs, they are knowingly governing their own behaviour. " That may be true, but these are drugs. Once your hooked, you are probably going to be hooked for a while. Another reason this argument doesn't work is because of drunk driving. People who are drinking and driving, are knowingly drinking and then driving. Much like this is legal , the taking of mind-altering drugs should be a crime as well. Though my opponent has stated that this debate is not about the crimes committed after, the taking of these drugs puts the person at a higher risk of committing these crimes. Like driving drunk increases the chance for an accident, taking mind-altering drugs increases the chance for a crime. They both follow the same logic, and should therefore either be legal or illegal. Since drunk driving is illegal , the taking of such drugs should be illegal as well. "Their taking of such drugs is not an act of coercion, and therefore, such an act cannot justify jail time. " Then a serial murderer would not be jailed either. His act is not of coercion, and following my opponents logic, he should not be reprimanded for his actions. This of course is not true, therefore my opponents arguments are not true. Mind-altering drugs are mild, but still are drugs. Though these may be legal, it will nevertheless lead people to other drugs that are illegal. Much like any other drugs, people develop a dependence on them and may act violently to obtain such drugs. . http://www.emedicinehealth.com... . http://www.newscientist.com... And as seen in this article, mind altering drugs have a tremendous impact on a persons ability to think. If someone were to not follow the instructions and take this drug alone, he puts himself at a higher risk of doing something very stupid. Increasing the risk for injury or crime so high should be made illegal. -Mind-altering drugs should be illegal for the same reasons drunk driving is.
Consuming mind-altering drugs recreationally should be a crime.

This debate concerns the actual consumption of mind altering drugs, not any crimes potentially committed thereafter, which individuals should still be liable for. Contention: 1. Actions that do not infringe on the individual freedoms of others should not be illegal. When an individual chooses to consume mind-altering drugs, they are knowingly governing their own behaviour. Their taking of such drugs is not an act of coercion, and therefore, such an act cannot justify jailtime.