BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is Therapy For Learned Helplesness

I'll be damned. I did misspell it. :) Essentially learned helplessness is a mental state where a person has been conditioned to believe that they can't change their situation. Suppose that a baby elephant was tied to a stake which it couldn't pull out of the ground. During it's youth, it learns that it can't do it, so that later as an adult it never tries, despite the fact as an adult it could easily do it. Having learned it was helpless to change it's situation, the adult elephant is suffering from learned helplessness. The teaching of Jesus in the Gospels can be summed up with this verse, Matthew 17:20 : And Jesus said unto them, 'Because of your unbelief, for verily I say unto you, if ye have faith as much as is a grain of mustard seed (a very small seed), ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you. This is often taken to mean that Jesus is saying that with faith you can perform miracles (like move mountains) " which from the point of view of someone afflicted with learned helplessness, the slightest amount of improvement is a miracle. When examined from this point of view, it's clear that Jesus is speaking psychologically and not supernaturally. In fact, there's no need to consider any part of the Gospels supernatural. Instead, the Gospels are much like the Odyssey which uses "supernatural myth" to illustrate lessons to be learned or point to be made. The the only important thing is to understand what the author is trying to get across " unfortunately many people take the Gospels to be literal. They are, in fact, psychological. Faith is key to the Christian religion because faith is essential to get over learned helplessness, a person has to believe their situation can change. The problem is that someone afflicted with learned helplessness believes that they are powerless to change their situation. They first have to believe in someone else who can make it possible, then, with that person acting as sort of training wheels, they can begin to "relearn" what they've learned. Matthew 14:24-32 24: And the ship was in the midst of the sea, and was tossed with waves, for it was a contrary wind. 25: And in the fourth watch of the night, Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. 26: And when his disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit, and cried out for fear. 27: But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good comfort, It is I; be not afraid. 28: The Peter answered him, and said, Master, if it be though, bid me to come unto thee on the water. 29: And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water to go to Jesus. 30: But when he saw a mighty wind, he was afraid, and as he began to sink, he cried, saying, Master, save me. 31: So immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said to him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? 32: And as soon as they were come to the ship, the wind ceased.
According to the bible alone. The Adam of the bible was is God Himself. 99,9% Religions are wrong!

I suggest you re-read the title of the debate you joined. I also suggest you re-read the context of the comment you are misquoting. This debate is about what is actually in the bible not the comment section. I ask my opponent why would anyone list non-biblical sources for a debate that focuses on what is in the bible? Yes I say that Adam is the Father of Jesus meaning Adam was is God Himself. I will attempt to educate. In Hebrew there is no word for Grandfather. Adam was is the first person in the line of David who is the son and great grand father of Jesus. I deny your request for evidence because this debate is about what is actually in the bible. The 99.9% of religions who profane the Sabbath their sun-god Sunday service that teach lies. Did God change the Sabbath? Or did man? Exo_31:13, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Exo_31:16, Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. For the unlearned perpetual mean's forever. I beg to differ I was crystal clear. 99.9% means exactly that. Do you need a math lesson? Example #1: Does that religion pray long prayers in public? Or boast about what they do for a select group of poor people? " Mat 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. Mat 6:5 And when thou prayest thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you They have their reward. Mat 6:6 But thou when thou prayest enter into thy closet and when thou hast shut thy door pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. " Example #2: Does the religion you question serve crackers in church? " 1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place this is not to eat the Lord's supper. " Example #3: Those religions who have sun-rise sun-god service celebrating East'at. Profaning God's Passover. Eating swine, while teaching children to hunt for colored eggs laid by a magic rabbit. Duh! Example #4: Those same religions today who are bending over for same sex marriage and support abortion, in order to protect their tax-free licence allowing them to legally pimp the public. God said His people are stupid=sottish! Jer_4:22, For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
According to the bible alone. The Adam of the bible was is God Himself. 99,9% Religions are wrong!

First and foremost, you indicated in the comments that you had in your possession "non-biblical sources", yet made none of them available on your opening argument. The only piece of "evidence", if you can call it so, are the 5 biblical passages, yet you have no explanation of how they relate to your point. Secondly, your opening argument and the title of this debate contradict themselves. You have posted that Luke 3:38 indicates that Adam is the son of God, yet in your title you make it obvious that you believe that Adam is God himself. Seeing as you haven't taken a firm stance on your exact belief, it is troublesome to find where to start to pick away at your stance. Might I request that you indicate some of the "evidence", along with sources, that were supposed to support your take on this? Along with that, a strong stance in the first place would be incredibly helpful for round two of this debate. An opening point to this however, you say that "99,9% of religions are wrong!" May I ask what 99.9% of religions you are talking about? Is this only Abrahamic religions, those who include the story of Adam in their texts, or all religions in general, where many of the creation stories or early earth stories do not include the Adam part? You didn't make it clear. And what makes the creation/first human stories of other beliefs more credible than yours? I do believe that they have the same amount of evidence as you have provided to me in the first post.
According to the bible alone. The Adam of the bible was is God Himself. 99,9% Religions are wrong!

According to the bible the Adam of the bible was the first Jew. Not all of mankind. So that means Christianity is actually a con-game. I say that this error is the reason Christ will reject the Christian Church. Mat_7:21, Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Mat_7:22, Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Mat_7:23, And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Rev_22:16, I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Luk_3:38, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Gay Marriage isn't Wrong

I don't hate God when I say this, but gay marriage is not wrong. I'm not denying that God isn't real, but do you think he would want us to to consider a marriage a sin. If that is true, then you better stop eating pork because that's against the Bible too. Also tattoos, shellfish/oysters, torn clothes, and long hair. Leviticus was written during a time when stoning was an acceptable punishment for breaking these rules. I think God wouldn't mind if we allowed gay marriage. Don't you agree?
Far cry 5 is the best far cry

Far Cry 5 is the best Far Cry. It has the best graphics and the story line is amazing. It is also much bigger and more expansive then all the other Far Cry games. The guns for hire system is also what makes the game better then all the other games. You can have a dude in an airplane drop a bomb or strafe a certain location if you are being overwhelmed by enemies. The game also has more than one boss. All the other Far Cry games only had one boss which made the game play not very fun. Also beating the bosses in Far Cry 5 grants rewards that are actually useful. The amount of side missions also is a big part of the game. Instead of only having a few, there is a wide variety of side missions to do. The game keeps you guessing on whats going to happen next. The amount of random killings and the amount of ways that you can save a certain person makes the game play more enjoyable.
what makes humanity different than animals

(sorry bout the rule stupid people) ok so I will answer each of his arguments one by one and I wont use paragraphs as I don't have time that's cool right? 1. my opponent first part talks of better intelligence cross apply my first round speech "I will be arguing that we are no better than animals" he speaks of the atom bomb, cars and a lot of other things "Our mental abilities have given us the power to accomplish greater acts of power than the mightiest beasts (consider the atomic bomb). We have tamed fire, tamed land, and tamed all the other animals through this intelligence. We have so tamed other creatures that we put them in zoos on display so that we may observe their stupid yet beautiful way of life with utmost wonder. " "We also create buildings, cars and computers for our own benefit. " now my argument: turn this argument "for our own benefit." that ending particle is my argument. we kill millions of plants, animals, and ecosystems. those "atomic bombs" threaten to destroy our very existence, cars are doing the same but on a different scale. humans insist on control that's what is going to eventually kill the earth so in fact we are worse than animals our "intelligence" is destroying all of us. 2. his second argument. first to quote him " does not actually love the master in the human sense. " first argument: love ok love is illogical as love is "An intense feeling of deep affection" animals feel as well look to when you smack a dog it whimpers seeking approval and forgiveness so to say animals don't feel is saying they have no emotions. some animals mate for life and that's the ultimate form of love, staying with someone 365 for a life time. humans cant lay claim to full life partnership so I say animals have a much better grasp on love than us so turn this now as animals are better again second argument: instinct um to answer this look to all of our presidents, we blindly followed them off our own form of a cliff. we are just as instinctual as animals and he probably shouldn't have thrown this in there. our instincts are to go to war and kill each other vs animals to kill on a singular level no major factor. third: I'm going to lump beauty and morals as no solid beauty argument was made it should be dropped. how do you know how animals feel as they don't speak our lingo doesn't mean they don't feel. morals are what start wars. one person thinks one things bad another thinks its good Bing bang boom 6 million Jews dead and more than 10 million others. war is the thorn in the lions paw for you my friend so long as we kill thousands of our own kind we can never be better than animals pros final argument ok so this was mostly a conclusion 1. agreement he agrees that this is a battle of who's better. 2. all arguments here have all been answered before this, vote con on the facts: I turned his case. everything he said is now a disadvantage. I really wonder how your going to answer this good luck.
Resolved: The egg came before the chicken

Alright, here we go. Throughout time, god has told society that for a species to exist, there must be an egg. In this case, the egg came first and here's the explanation for it. In order for a chicken to first form, it has to come out of an egg. The egg first formed when two different birds mated together to make an egg. The egg then hatched to form what was similar to the modern day chicken. It then started to mate with other birds, and either had the dominant trait, or it kept forming similar chickens that eventually kept evolving through natural selection. Eventually, so many chickens formed that they started mating among one another.
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished and Replaced in the American Voting System

The Electoral College is fundamentally flawed. There are no aspects of the system that make it better than a direct popular vote. It gives smaller states more power than others, allows Electors to completely ignore the election outcomes of the states they are representing, allows the voices of at least 49.9% of state voters to remain unheard due to the winner-take-all system, and sustains the flawed two-party system that even our founding fathers were afraid of when they created this nation. The Electoral College was originally created as a buffer between the government and the people, because the government did not trust the people of the USA. In a country that was made Of the People, By the People, and For the People, this kind of system that completely ignores the people should not exist. It's time to ratify a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to abolish this undemocratic system.
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished and Replaced in the American Voting System

Round 1: Rules/AcceptanceRound 2: Opening Statements (no Rebuttals allowed)Round 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Closing Statements (see important rule regarding this section below)I will be arguing that the Electoral College is no longer needed for Presidential Elections and should be replaced with another system. Con will argue that the Electoral College is still a relevant and just system for determining the President, and is the best way of determining the President.INTRO:The Electoral College is the current system of which the United States of America votes for President, and has been the only system in place since the country's origin.This system determines a winner of the Presidential Election based upon which candidate earned (currently) 270 "Electoral Votes", with each state having an amount of electoral votes determined by population (or, in more detail, a total of Senators and House Representatives in the state).This system has come under fire recently, most notably during the 2000 Election between George W. Bush (271 EV) and Al Gore (266 EV), after a close and controversial race in Florida essentially decided the entire national election.RULES:-During Closing Arguments, no NEW sources may be submitted and responses should be shortened. Think of this as a summary of your strongest points. No requirements for length are required, and you are allowed to address points your opponent brought up in Rebuttals, but try to refrain from writing long walls of text during this round.-Sources are not required, but are extremely recommended as your opponent is allowed to call out an argument without a supporting source.-Forfeits are not allowed other than due to time.-Try to stay professional. Attacking the other user directly isn't allowed. Attack his/her arguments. Profanity is allowed, but be smart in how you use it (as opposed to swearing just because it looks cool and edgy). -Finally, have fun. Despite attempting to win the debate, you should have fun researching the topic and developing strong arguments with that research. Nothing policy-changing is happening here, so try to approach this debate with some amount light-heartedness.
God probably exists. (Version 2).

As per the rules laid out in the debate; neither myself or my opponent can add any new refutes or contentions. I will, therefore, re-cap. This is the question: "Is God probable?" It is expressed as a resolution: "God is probable." My opponent's burden is to prove this. He accepted this (rule four) by joining the debate. The Ontological argument, as my opponent has presented (I couldn't find another version of it around the Internets, though I found similar versions) has been, in the end, pointless. Why? Well, if it's logical, then God/Godd (they're the same being) is necessary. Something cannot be probable and necessary at the same. So, the burden has not been met. If my opponent's saw this resolution as impossible or not logical, then it seems he made a bad choice by joining the debate. The burden is: "God is probable". Not: "God is necessary" or "Does God exist", but "God is probable". If this is not logical, then I apologise; I failed to see it as such. But, whether this is logical or not, that is the resolution, and my opponent has failed to meet it. "It is obvious who [has] won this debate". No. On one hand, you haven't met your burden, but on the other, I have clearly shown I misunderstanding of the Ontological argument. Yes, I admit it. Not trolling, but human error. "It[']s that bad..." Well, I'm sorry. I cannot offer anything else. I would recommend a tie. For you: You've failed to meet the burden you accepted [rules four and six], however illogical it may have been. For me: I have clearly misunderstood the Ontological argument; I have committed fallacies. For these reasons, I recommend a tie to my opponent. I cannot offer anything else in terms of fairness. I don't deserve a victory, that's clear. But neither do you (no offense), your burden, no matter how impossible, has not been met. You've shown how God is necessary should your argument be logical. Thus, not probable. Thus, the burden hasn't been met. Well, that's all I can offer. This debate has been back and forth, misunderstood, and no one deserves a victory. I apologise if it looked like I've been trolling; I assure you I haven't. I'll get back to it, and maybe to another debate on the Ontological argument. Kindest regards, J
God probably exists. (Version 2).

Welcome to this debate, everyone! This is a common topic that is oft debated and I want a piece (or another piece...) of the action, so to speak. Now, for the purposes of this debate; I will define God as following: The (notice the definite article - only God) omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent creator of the Universe that is described in the Bible. The rules are as follows: 1) First round is not for acceptance only, Pro must present opening arguments in round one. 2) Fifth round is closing statements only, no new arguments or refutes. 3) A forfeit of a round is an irreversible breach of conduct. If both players forfeit; conduct is "tied". 4) The BoP is on Pro. Con can give arguments to show that God probably doesn't exist, but that is not a necessary burden. 5) You agree with the definition of God as described above. 6) You agree to these rules by accepting the debate. 7) Citing sources alone do not count as arguments by themselves. both Pro and Con will have to actually type up an argument. (Apparently this wasn't obvious with my first version.) I believe that's all; if anyone has any questions, please post a comment. Good luck to all, and allez!
Pick up lines

Oh my God! Stalker alert! Haha! Just kidding!That was really cute!My nerdy (and kind of dirty) pick up line: If you get with me, you'll be (Mg, Fe)7Si8022(OH)2. For those of you who don't know, the above compund's name is cummingtonite. Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://feisty-country-sparkles.tumblr.com...
Pick up lines

Winner is the person with the best pick up lines. R1- acceptance and a cute pick up line. R2- funny pick up line R3- nerdy pick up line R4- dirty kind of pick up line you want to use. R5- whatever you want to use. They can be recycled or reused pick up lines. My cute pick up line: I'll drop a tear in the ocean and the day I find it back, is the day I'll stop loving you.
To reopen debate about credibility of scientific community with Patrick Henry

First let me say Patrick Henry kicked my butt in that last debate. It was my first attempt and my rookie status shined brightly. I have learned a lot from that debate. The worst of it all is that I didn't even get the topic of the debate right. Patrick is absolutely right that the scientific community is well and in tact and has no credibility problems. I can accept most or even all of the data and research collected by scientists with regard to climate change. Now let me see if I can get the topic of the debate right, "I find it literally impossible to believe anything the news media, politicians or environmental activists say about global warming" I only ask one thing of you Patrick if you choose to debate me or anyone else if you don't, not to refer to my evidence as "JUNK SCIENCE". You stated that "PEER REVIEWED" data, research and scientists were the most credible sources for the topic of global warming. All of my evidence will be from "PEER REVIEWED" scientists or "PEER REVIEWED" scientific reports. Cover up #1 not reported or barely reported by all major news outlets copy and paste this,"U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists" This will take you to the link. It is a U.S. Senate report on data collected from peer reviewed scientists many of whom were or still are members of the IPCC I'm going to start with just one of many examples of cover ups or deceptions by the news media, politicians and environmental activists in my opening statement so I can get a feel for the tactics you or anyone else may use to debunk or disprove my evidence and respond accordingly