BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Holy Trinity is one God, but has three persons.

Ok, so you think that the Trinity is illogical? It actually isn't when you think of the Trinity, think of an apple. An apple is sensed by three things, your eyes, your tounge, and your nose. An apple is not complete without all those things. Same with the Trinity. God would not be complete with out the acts of all three persons. You said that the Bible does not point to a Trinity, it does one place for sure is at the Baptism of Christ. It says "God said, This is my Son with whom I am pleased. Then the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus." That right there takes the argument that Jesus is God's Son. The Son is one with the Father, from the same house and line, so Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit, is the part of God that is still on earth. The proof of the Holy Spirit is like, proving that humans have a soul. The three are perfection, all together they have the perfect function. with out the others, it is not the same perfect God. The whole One God part, is as easy as, thinking of your entire life. You have a family life, a social life, and whatever other types of a life you may have. Put all those together and you have a complete life. Without one, your life would not be the same way, it wouldn't be as good. The Trinity is very logical! ☺
The Holy Trinity is one God, but has three persons.

How can it be one God when each of the persons are distinct? They are totally distinct persons with totally distinct roles. How can they possibly just be one God? When a person thinks of the Trinity, they must think of three separate entities, The Father (usually pictured as old man with long beard), The Son (pictured as Jesus, white or Middle Eastern with semi-long hair), and The Holy Spirit/Ghost (pictured as a ghost). They cannot picture one entity, because the Trinity is composed of three separate persons. To say that these three separate persons make one God is illogical and impossible for the human mind to effectively conceive of. Any attempts of explaining the Trinity by metaphor usually leads to what orthodox Christians call a heresy, that is, Modalism/Sabellanism/Oneness Pentacostalism, and no orthodox Christian would accept that view as an accurate representation of the Trinity they claim is found in the Bible. You have Jesus. His role is said to be the savior of mankind. He is said to be God because it is said that he needed to be God in order to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Although in some instances it seems that he denied deity (Mark 10:18), and prayed to God (Luke 5:16), Christians still insist that he is God. In the instances where Jesus is seen praying to God the Father, Christians say that this is simply the persons of the Trinity interacting. If the persons are distinct, have different roles, and communicate with each other, how can anyone logically say that they are all one God? Christians say that the Trinity must exist because the Bible says that there is one God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, but to that I must wonder why Christians don't try to understand the passages a different way, or admit that in the passages where deity is ascribed to a creation that those passages are flawed. Just because the Bible says something doesn't make it true. The Trinity view is totally illogical, and when you take into consideration what it says (that the persons are DISTINCT, have DIFFERENT roles, did DIFFERENT things, communicate with one another, have seemingly different personalities (Jesus compared to God in O.T.), and etc.), it's impossible to logically accept that it propagates monotheism. It may SAY that it propagates Monotheism, but logically, that is impossible.
The Holy Trinity is one God, but has three persons.

Some people, say that the Trinity is three gods. It is not, it is one God, with the persons of, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. The three persons are all wound together to make one God. It is, and has to be perfect harmony between the three persons. The bible says that all three are equal. They all have different jobs, but all the jobs are of the same importance. They all carry out the same plan, so they work with each other. So they are one God.
3rd DDO Census Debate: Gun Ban

The Resolution:The USFG Should Ban Private Ownership of Firearms.Summary:As the US homicide rate continues to concern citizens, and guns continue to be the weapon of choice, the topic of Gun Control has become a talking point of all the US. Some, however, believe the very ownership of firearms causes homicides, no many the controls placed on them. Back with acedemia and real world examples, both sides have made great strides in the argument for the complete banning of the private ownership of firearms in the US.Rules:- No kritiking.- The Burden of Proof may be discussed during the debate. - Proper formatting must be used (and consistent.)- First round is for acceptance and clarification only.- By accepting the debate you agree to the rules and definitions. The winner shall receive a choice between a $25 gift card to Amazon or Walmart.Pro side is represented by FamousDebater, and advised by FortisAnimi. Con side is represented by Bsh1. Definitions USFG - United States Federal Government Should - used to express obligation or desirability. Ban - to legally prohibit Private - belonging to an individual person, company, or interest, as opposed to belonging to a government.Ownership - the act, state, or right of possessing something. Firearms - a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder.
The South was justified in leaving the Union prior to the Civil War.

The resolution stands.The supreme court ruled that secession was illegal. The supreme court is the ultimate proof, right by the Constitution, of what is and is not legal in the United States. If the Supreme Court rules that an action is illegal, then by its Constitutional authority, that action IS illegal. Therefore, the south was not legally justified. The resolution stands. The south seceded to keep slavery. Slavery is immoral. The South was not morally justified. Given that southern secession was not justified in either faction of the concept of "justification," I urge that the South was not justified at all in seceding. Vote CON. Thankyou for reading.
The South was justified in leaving the Union prior to the Civil War.

Sorry, for what will (most likely) be a poor quality argument, I have very little time and I thought iyt would be unfair to my Opponent if I just forfeited. The South was justified in leaving the Union because, at the time, the action of seccession was legal. It was not until after the War between the states that the Supreme Court atually debated the issue and ruled against it. However, since we live in a commonlaw society al that is not early against the law is legal. So if it's shown that the South had valid reasons to leave, than its desicion was jutified. Indeed, the North was quite clearly trying to assert it's hegemony over the South. After the disasterous (for the South) Missouri Compromise, and the domination of free state power in thehouse of representatives, it became quite clear that the two cultures, North and South, could no longer live in harmony. The North was slowly chipping away at the institution of slavery which was, at the time, extremely important to the economy of the South. Indeed such as the necessity of slavery that after the war the South's economy wwas utterly destroyed, and its culture repressed. Like I said previously, the South knew that if they stayed in the Union it would lead to war. The South's leaving of the Union was not only an act of self preservation, but a (a the time) legal act of peace. I know not what would've happened had the North let the South remain as it's own, but I can assure you that it would not lead to the deaths of over 500,000 great young men, and the systematic destruction of an entire culture. Anyone who believes that the North/South could have peacefully remained as a single entity at this time is fooling themselves.While slavery is surely unjust, do not think for even a moment that the North was for equal rights/freedom or anything like that. The North's primary goal in abolishing slavery was to economically weaken the South. "Honest" Abe himself even campiagned that he had no interest in abolishing slavery, he only did so as a way to punish the South for it's seccession. So while the institution of slavery was an unjust one, the North was not well intentioned and thus the South as justified in leaving the Union. At the very least, the South was honest about how they felt about the Negro's. The North, sadly, was not.
The South was justified in leaving the Union prior to the Civil War.

I'll start off right away by saying that the burden of proof is not the decision of the instigator, but rather the decision of the topic he chooses. This topic requires shared burden of proof because refuting that something is not unjust does not automatically mean that it is just. It can be in the middle. If pro insists that he does not have to prove anything, I hope the reading audience and voters will side with me, and take that into account when voting.
The Abortion of a Fetus is NEVER Moral NOR and Imperative

@ Burden of proof argument: "Pro must show that abortion is NEVER moral OR imperative. Con must show that in at least one case, abortion is moral OR imperative." This is unfair, the CON has to prove that the abortion of a fetus is moral nor an Imperative. Not just in one case. The CON has to negate the entire resolution. @ Jessica scenario argument: 1) I have not conceded the debate. This is one case that the CON has not proven that abortion is not a moral thing to do. The Con argument is a quantitative analysis of the scenario but does not provide a moral analysis. Thus the CON has not proven any thing. @ Fetus nonviable argument: 1) We can not assume the fetus is nonviable because we do not know all the factors. 2) If the fetus is already nonviable then CON is given to much ground making the debate unfair. 3) The CON has to negate the entire resolution, thus the CON must prove that in all cases abortion is moral AND imperative. 4) I have not toss the scenario aside I mention it in my entire case. @ Fetus health argument: 1) You can not change the scenario and make the fetus UN-healthy. 2) The constraints I am placing are to keep the debate fair. 3) If the real world does not abide my rules or yours. The CON can't assume that the fetus is not viable. @ Definition of None: 1) The definition of none is not in any degree or not under any condition. 2) The opponent has to prove the the resolution is wrong, thus abortion is moral and imperative under any condition. 3) The CON has to negate the resolution and prove abortion MORAL AND IMPERATIVE in all cases. @ Subjective morality argument: 1) I am not forcing the CON to provide a moral system. 2) The CON morality is not one that meets his burden. @ The imperative argument: 1) Once again the CON has to negate the entire resolution and prove abortion moral AND imperative @ Matters of responsibility argument: 1) The doctor is not killing Jessica the "severe medical complication" are killing Jessica. 2) By the CON logic anybody who does not donate to charities that help the poor in developing nations is killing millions of people. IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ACTOR COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE, if the actor does not make a difference the actor is not killing anyone. By your logic because I don't donate money to feed hunger children in Africa, I have killed more people than those killed in the Nazi holocaust. Please meet your burden of proof.
The Abortion of a Fetus is NEVER Moral NOR and Imperative

DAT has put forth this opinion, and now I challenge him to back up his claim. DAT makes this claim in response to my position that in some cases it is a moral imperative to abort the fetus. The proposition on offer is that the abortion of a fetus is NEVER moral NOR an imperative. Since DAT has refused to accept this debate (see comments) I now open it to the public. Like I mentioned in my response to DAT below - we will use appropriate medical terminology - there will be no mincing of non-interchangeable words. *********************************************** Definitions: moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong (http://dictionary.reference.com......) imperative: a command; something that demands attention or action; an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity (http://dictionary.reference.com......) moral imperative: a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act. (http://en.wikipedia.org......) *********************************************** To be clear, my statement was: "in cases where the mother and child will BOTH die, abortion becomes a moral imperative?" To which DAT responded: "Abortion is NEVER moral NOR imperitive." I make the case that if we have a situation where BOTH the mother AND the fetus will die unless the fetus is removed, it is a moral imperative to remove the fetus to spare the life of the mother. *********************************************** THE CASE: Jessica is pregnant with a currently unviable fetus. Her pregnancy has developed in such a manner that there is a severe medical complication. Due to this complication is is the case that Jessica and her fetus will both certainly die unless the fetus is removed. If the fetus is removed it will certainly die because it is not even close to being viable. If the fetus is removed, Jessica will certainly live. Both Jessica and the fetus will certainly die if the fetus remains inside her until the point at which it is viable. *********************************************** My opponent's main contention seems to stem from the notion that there is a categorical prohibition on abortion because it is murder. However, there are several problems with this position. 1) Purposeful failure to remove the fetus is akin to TWO murders. 2) Removal of the fetus maximizes benefit to the parties involved. 3) Since murder is a wrongful type of killing, removal of the fetus is not murder, since the medical condition is no fault of anyone's. 4) An unviable fetus is arguably not a person. *********************************************** I contend that if murder is the criteria that makes removal of the fetus immoral, then the fact that not removing the fetus would constitute TWO murders indicates that it is a moral imperative to act in a way that lessens the number of murders committed. Note also that there is no moral difference in this case between "killing" and "letting one die" - if anything, letting someone die while you have the power to save them is worse than actively killing someone. NEGATED.
Using a time machine to go back and kill Hitler would be a bad idea.

My opponent may not argue from semantics, as it is clear what the resolution states, although an exception may be made if he/she comes up with a particularly interesting objection to the resolution. Firstly, an argument against the viability of time travel itself; -- The Classic Paradox -- First, imagine time travel were made possible, and somebody travels back in time in order to meet their grandfather, whom they never knew. Now, say that due to an unfortunate series of circumstances, he ended up killing his grandfather before he got the chance to meet his grandmother. In this case, the time traveller would never come to exist in the first place. But this is logically contradictory, because if he didn't exist, he could not have killed his own grandfather and thus prevent his own existence. It seems that the only way to solve this contradiction is to conclude that the traveller could never have travelled in the first place. -- It could have been a lot worse -- It is true that many, many lives could potentially be saved if Hitler were killed before he embarked on his mad, genocidal conquest. However, it is also true that the war could have turned out much, much worse. For instance, Hitler made many errors in his strategies, and also made prideful decisions at the cost of the war effort. He was, by many measures, an incompetent leader. [1], [2] If he were killed, a more intelligent, war seasoned and equally evil person could rise to power instead, and either drag the war on longer, or win it, which would suck. -- Hitler with a time machine -- Okay, so our time machine appears in a flash of light (or using an unconvincing fade in effect), and our assassin steps out. .. to be shot/captured by a passing German patrol. Hitler seizes control of powerful time control technology, and, well. .. it doesn't take much imagination to see that horrible consequences would ensue. This is, of course, only a possibility, and perhaps our traveller has safeguards against it-but there is no guarantee this is the case, and given the disastrous consequences should it happen, the safe bet is to just leave history well enough alone. [1] . http://worldwar2history.info... [2] . http://www.2worldwar2.com...
Using a time machine to go back and kill Hitler would be a bad idea.

Thanks to Kinesis and the readers. It's been fun! 1. Pro's disregard for implicit parameters of the resolution is disappointing, especially in light of his opening plea for a straightforward debate. The theory of branching timelines and the non-disturbance clause of the paradox, which states that no problem occurs unless the creation of the time machine is prevented, are logically sound [1]. Demands for greater certainty are unreasonable considering the imaginary nature of the paradox. These counter-arguments are plausible, have garnered no disproof from Pro, and render null the paradox. As for "side stepping" this argument, my initial negation addressed the central issue of this contention: its inappropriateness. Given the character limit, the space I've afforded this non-issue has been generous. 2. Pro's source lists volatile factors present before the war, but fails to address Hitler's connection to each. Tense foreign relations and disputed treaties mean nothing without a violent leader willing to break international laws and invade countries. Despite claiming that "another bitter leader" would suffice, Pro has failed to even hint at a group or individual with the opportunity, means, and desire to take steps toward genocide in Hitler's stead. Hitler's oratory skills and military insight transformed the defunct Nazi party into the leading political power in Germany [2]. Had it not been for this driving force, the country's path would have been different. Their military was in ruins, the League of Nations was sympathetic to their turmoil, and Europe had no plans for combat [3, see: Hitler's Foreign Policy]. Also, Germany's nuclear program was reactivated on Hitler's orders [4, see: 1st & 2nd Uranverein], eliminating the likelihood of nuclear war without him. 3. Pro has conceded this point. 4. My rebuttal here was clear. Hitler's removal almost certainly amounts to a net gain for the resulting timeline, so a premium placed on lives favors the Con position. Misgivings about power-wielding are baseless without equally probable evidence to the contrary, which has not been provided. Avoidance of my response is tantamount to concession. ::Closing:: Hitler birthed the Nazi party and instigated nearly 50 million deaths. Still, Pro argues that in his absence, a wiser, equally bigoted soldier with equivalent skills in foreign policy, military tactics, and propaganda would not only perform similar enough actions to start a war, but also do a superior job and cause more destruction! This outlandish belief fails in the face of the sureness with which Hitler's death would be a good idea. ::References:: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://thirdreich.net... 3. http://www.bbc.co.uk... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Using a time machine to go back and kill Hitler would be a bad idea.

Thanks to Maikuru for a fun first debate! --Last word on time travel-- I fail to see what is wrong with attacking a debate point by attacking the foundation on which it stands. If time travel is untenable, then so is any attempt to alter the timeline, and thus travelling back in time to kill Hitler is a bad idea. I suspect a conduct point hinges on this, so I implore voters to take note of Con's sidestepping of the issue until my last round, when little room remains for me to defend the contention. The evidence for parallel universes is scanty at best, and lacks falsifiability [1]. The 'self consistency' principle on which the second rebuttal stands presupposes that History MUST be consistent, which is an ad hoc assumption [2] and the third seems at best unbelievably implausible. I shall leave the last argument as it is (though I think it is clear that Maikuru has not responded properly to it- I wasn't arguing against 'damaging' the timeline, but rather against anyone's right to change the timeline) in order to defend two contentions that I think are vital to the debate. 1. WW2 would probably have started at some point even without Hitler. 2. The German war effort would have been more devastating without Hitler's incompetence heading it. Consider this highly detailed, heavily edited wikipedia page on the subject [3]. It lists numerous causes, yet only a fraction of it discusses Hitler's intervention as a cause of the war. Of course Hitler pushed along the war effort with his propaganda skills and soaring rhetoric, but are we really to believe that all these factors would not have culminated in conflict without him? His removal would only delay the escalation of hostilities, not prevent them. Furthermore, Con has not given his reasons for thinking that Hitler alone could have committed the acts Con listed. Another bitter leader could easily have taken control of the situation as Hitler did. For the second, I should point out that Con has not contested that if the war started, removing Hitler leaves open the door for a more competent leader-so the argument that if the war started, it would be directed more efficiently against the allies, culminating in a even longer war or even a loss for the allies, stands. If the first point stands, this does. Finally, delaying WW2 by removing Hitler risks nuclear war. With more time to advance nuclear weapons, and a likely hostile government to support it, Germany might try to end opposition by plunging the world into nuclear war- something that simply cannot be risked. It was only after a set of lucky coincidences that the nuclear bomb was invented in America first, and Con risks upsetting this fortunate historical fact by altering history so radically. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...