BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Predestination is TRUE

Thank you for accepting my argument and as another brother in Christ I hope we dont fight to much over theology when are real focus is saving others not to say that theology is not important though that is why there must be debates and arguments about matters that are facing the church like predestination. Now to begin I would like to say that God chooses us out of his grace and he is not unfair for doing this you should no that God is always right in whatever he does no matter how we think of the situation that is before us. There are some problems wrong with your analogy you say that God throws out the raft and we ketch it well that is wrong because you are not adding into your analogy that we are dead in spirit. If a man is dead spirtually then how can we save ourselves thats right no one can if they are DEAD spirtually. So you know what happens then JESUS CHRIST our king takes out of death and makes us white as snow. So that we may go bear fruit and make desciples in his name. Praise the Lord. God has and will use the power to do that he says in JOHN 15:16 that "you did not choose me but I chose you to go out and bear good fruit". You see God is all powerful and he chooses us acccording tho his plan and that should be enough for us. This is also another thing that people say is that well why does God blame us for not going to heaven well I say to you are you saying that God is wrong. Please if you believe that GOD is wrong not me but GOD use verses to back you up I know I did. This is not some thing that my parents have debated me into believing this is the real truth and not because I interperate it a certain way but because God has done written down that I WILL HAVE MEYCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY AND COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION. Please if you can tell me what this mean is the bible a toatal contradiction or am I proving a point that is correct. PLEASE IN THE YOUR NEXT ARGUMENT ANSWER THIS QUESTION SOME WAY: I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion please tell me what do you think that God means by that??
Predestination is TRUE

Suppose a man is drowning, but a sailor throws him a life preserver attached to a rope. The drowning man by himself was powerless to be saved. The sailor was his savior. But the man still had to choose to take hold and continuing holding on until he was in the boat. So God is the source and provider of salvation. Salvation is by God's grace. But He has decreed that each individual MUST CHOOSE FOR HIMSELF whether or not to accept the salvation offered. God has power to foreknow all things, but at times He chooses not to exercise that power. His power to foreknow is based on His power to do all things. But He does not do everything He has power to do. Genesis 11:5 - At the tower of Babel, God "came down to see" what the people were doing. Genesis 18:20,21 - God went to see what Sodom and Gomorrah were doing. Genesis 22:12 - After Abraham had proved he was willing to offer Isaac, God said, "Now I know that thou fearest God ..."
Predestination is TRUE

Romans 9:10-19 10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e] 14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? This why I believe in predestination now I want to ask what you think.
The Existence of God

I will not argue the point of validity for the bible any further, because it is more than obvious how conjured up every word in it truly is. If the only thing you can do is to use that horrible piece of 'evidence' then I rest my case. The existence of a God is ridiculous, and the belief in one is even more so. Macro-evolution is most definitely a 'real' thing. This isn't contested by any scientist worth a damn anymore, because every ounce of empirical evidence points straight to it. There are even animals that just over the past hundred years have grown new tails, changed colors completely, grown extra limbs/eyes. Some have even doubled in size! Imagine millions of years, imagine evolution then! No need to imagine it because it's true, but you get the point. I shall end the debate by saying that there is no God. If there were a God, and he/she/it were the God of Christianity than I would never worship it. Ever. I'd rather burn in hell with Satan who killed millions less people than God ever did. Also, if there were a God, he sure as hell would have made a universe more suitable for life than our own. Thank you for taking the time to debate with me, I truly do appreciate it.
The Existence of God

1)) It is logical to use the Christian Scriptures because (1) it doesn't contradict reality and in fact, it testifies about it (2) it's authority is found in its author ( i.e. The Holy Spirit) and writers (i.e. The disciples). Premise 1: The Bible says it. Premise 2: Evidence proves it. Conclusion: what the Bible says is true because it's verified by evidence. 2)) This socio-geographical reality on people's theistic stance is in agreement with the testimony of Scripture in Acts 17:24-31 plus in Matthew 28:19 of the Great commision. 3)) Yes. i believe in evolution. - evolution is descent with modification - change of genome not of an individual but of a population Biological evolution is evident in the natural world (e.g. Antibiotic resistance, etc. ). But i disagree in the phase 2 of evolution and in the common descent theory. I believe that there is common Creator who allowed the micro phase evolution for survival of species in post-fall ( Genesis 3; Romans 8:22). Atheists told me that microevolution ( i.e. The first phase of biological evolution) will inevitably undergo macroevolution ( i.e. Speciation of an organism dramatically results into a completely different specie than its ancestor.
The Existence of God

I don't feel like typing that much in this round. I am going to make a few points, and then I will sum it up. Do not use the bible as 'proof' or 'evidence'. It is not logical. God exists because the bible says so is not a viable answer. Almost every other holy book on earth claims to be the word of God, so how can you be sure that your book is right? "Because the bible says it is" THE QURAN SAYS THE SAME THING! These are unfalsifiable claims; meaning that no matter what, no one can prove or disprove it to be true or false. If I were to say that I read a book that told me there was an elephant on the sun that was resistant to fire and needed no oxygen to live, and that I knew this was true because the book told me so, you could never prove me wrong. If you said 'well that just isn't logical at all, we know that's not true' that would be my EXACT answer to the question of a God. There is zero evidence that leads any human being to believe in any God. Believing in God comes simply from being raised by religious parents, or due to fear in some issue. The fear of death, the fear of the unknown, the fear of knowledge, the lack of knowledge and etc. If you had been raised in India you would be a Hindu, if you were raised in Pakistan or Indonesia you would be believing in Allah, if you were in Greece a thousand years ago you would be believing in Zeus and Poseidon. Where you grow up, and with whom, has everything to do with what you believe in. If we were both raised in Afghanistan, but had access to this website somehow, we would be having this EXACT same argument over Islam. You cannot argue that, because it is fact. You would argue that no matter what Allah is the one true God, and you would probably threaten me over it. You would argue with the same sincerity as you have been for the Christian God. One last question for you, do you accept evolution? This is important.
The Existence of God

Thanks for answering my questions. You are kind.1)So, curiosity is a flaw according to you. It is curiosity that make people search for answers but this always involves experience. It simply goes hand in hand. Nonetheless, if theism is an evolutionary mechanism for people to survive then what is atheism for?You said that we're EXTREMELY close to discovering both of these things (i.e. what exactly happens after death or how EXACTLY the universe started). How could you say that we're EXTREMELY close to discovering it? If there is an afterlife then there is no need to fear death, right? Everyone fears death. Except if you're a fundamentalist who believes in assurance of salvation (in this case, sola fide of Christianity might have been the most advanced and effective cope up strategy ever made by evolution, isn't it?)2)This is absurd. of course we have evidence for the existence of deity than that of a unicorn myth. The God of the Bible has its veracity on the Scriptures. Premise 1: The Bible says that only one God exists and that all other gods are false deities (i.e satanic in nature whether it 'appears' good)Premise 2: The natural world confirms God's existence through everything that was said about him as reality and truth per se.Conclusion: Being rational creatures, we testify that the God revealed in the Bible does exists according to verifiable and cogent evidence presented in the Bible itself and confirmed by the natural world and reason. Faith fits the facts.3)God did not create imperfection. He did allow imperfection to exist for his glory (i.e. just trait revealed). How could we show God’s holy and just nature without the existence of any transgression against a certain law?I'm looking forward about your comment about my rebuttal in round 2. Do you agree or still disgree? Is my argument logical and coherent? :)
The Existence of God

First, I am upholding Christianity and hence, I am using the Christian Scriptures as my stance.God wants you to believe in him alone.God wants all of your love.These denotes God's worthiness of our everything for by very definition, God is the Creator of all things. He created all things and he created all of it for himself, that is, for his glory ( Colossians 1:16).Glory- ( Hebrew, 'kabod', weight, importance; Greek, 'doxa', weighty, worthiness).God allows suffering to occur every single day.You're totally right. God allows suffering to occur every single day. He's not the source of it. God knows that his plan of creation will eventually lead to chaos through sin but he still continue his plan to create and this is not without a restoration plan ahead of its existence. It means that God has these twofold plan:1) To rescue from eternal punishment in hell those whom he chosen before creation2) To restore the post-fall creation into what it has been in the pre-fall creation (.i.e. very good)Ephesians 1:11 "In him we were also chosen,having been predestined according to the plan of God who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.Romans 8:28""And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are"called according to"His"purpose." Based on this two verses, nothing else happens that is not within the sovereignty of God which either will reveal his nature as HOLY and JUST and not only LOVE.All of the evil doers will be in hell ( showing God's nature of being JUST)All those who does good( i.e. Those saved by grace through faith alone in Christ) will be in heaven ( showing God's nature of being HOLY and LOVE).Example:A 7 yr old child raped and brutally killed by a man. A politician who corrupts his country's collected taxes.A famine in Africa. A child who lies. Etc. All has their due punishment albiet all sins are equal (Romans 6:23, James 2:11).NOTE: It's impossible for a Christian to continue to sin by virtue of his assurance of salvation. The Bible per se warns of fake Christians. God is a jealous God means that he wants all attention to be in him. The context where this trait of God was revealed is in Exodus 20 ( in the ten commandments). It says that that God doesn't want people to worship other gods than him.God is a hateful God. I never read this in Scripture. Overall, as the Scripture said " many are called but few are chosen". :)
The Existence of God

God wants you to believe in him alone. God wants all of your love. God allows suffering to occur every single day. God is jealous, God is hateful, and yet he is considered to be the ultimate ideal of perfection. If you believe this is perfection you are either under some sort of influence or you are simply wrong. Most likely the latter. This is the obvious reason of non-existence. That is all I will say for now, because if you can prove any of what I just said to be wrong then I would LOVE to hear it. Also if you agree with me than please don't respond, cheers.
canada

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, the people in Canada are so cool. They don't even really get mad when you hop their border. They just look at you and shrug and are all like "eh," Too bad Ernie got shot though. This debate should really be about whether or not we should let moose have shotguns. VOTE NO TO ARMING BEARS!! (R.I.P. Ernie)
Evolution is a valid cosmology for Christians

Argument #1 - A dichotomy between the days of creation in Genesis and evolution is not a dichotomy between evolution and ChristianityAfter all, it is precisely because theistic evolutionists believe that the Genesis creation account is scientifically impossible that we reject it or view it as metaphor. Interpreting the Genesis days as metaphor or rejecting them altogether does nothing to harm essential Christian doctrine.Argument #2 - The nuances of the word yom do not negate theistic evolutionAs I stated earlier, rejecting the days of the Genesis account as error does no violence to essential Christian doctrine. Also, words may be used in metaphor even when they have a set meaning. The word "sea" means a vast expanse of water, but if I told you that I was drowning in a sea of grief you wouldn't ask me how I managed to stay so dry.Argument #3 - The concept of Sabbath remains intact even the first three chapters of Genesis are metaphorIt may even be that God decided to relate the creation account to us in metaphor so that he could use it to teach the concept of the seven day week, knowing that we could not get such a concept from the actua machinations of science.Argument #4 - Original sin and death are not essential to Christian doctrineAs a matter of fact, I attend a church which believes in a literal six-day creation story but does not believe in original sin. All that is really necessary to Christianity is that sin, period, exists. Romans takes care of that problem. Alternatively, there could have been a sin that made humanity fall from God's grace, but it most likely wasn't eating a piece of fruit.Physical death prior to this sin is, likewise, not a problem. It is a spiritual death that the figurative Adam and Eve brought upon themselves, and it is a spiritual death that Christ saves us from.Argument #5 - While viewing parts of Genesis as metaphorical may cause us to question whether Christ's ressurrection was metaphorical, it does not necessitate itIt is up to the individual believer to examine the evidence for their Christology and see if it is lacking. Seeing Genesis as metaphorical does nothing to cause Christians to view the ressurrection as metaphorical, but rather sets us on the path of questioning whether or not it is. This sort of questioning can be a wonderful thing as it can serve to deepen one's faith.Defining essential Christian doctrineI should have done so earlier. I believe it to be the divinity of Christ, the death and ressurrection of Jesus Christ, the atonement of sin and the Trinity.I am familiar with both Bible Info and Reasons. They are fundamentalist groups and hearing such arguments from them is no surprise.
Evolution is a valid cosmology for Christians

-First of all, evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. . https://en.wikipedia.org... -It does not examine the origins of life on earth, that topic relates to the theory of abiogenesis or panspermia. (or in your case through god) -This debate will deal solely with the theory of evolution and its processes compared or contrasted with the Biblical account in genesis, NOT with the initial creation of the universe. -I will lay out my arguments in the next round and look forward to hearing yours, thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic of vital importance.
The Fidget Cube is better than the Fidget Spinner

I"d like pro to realize that I do realize they cannot "prove" one is better than the other. Hence, he cannot fulfill his burden. Pro may have created this debate with a specific purpose in mind, but they cannot assume someone will know it without seeing it explicitly said. Thus, I accepted this debate as for what the topic purely says. In addition, evidence can be used, for example I would concede to certain studies that show one is more effective than the other. Now the arguments: "*Provide satisfaction to any fidgeting desires someone may have. *Reduce stress or anxiety and improve focus. *Be very portable/easy to transport and/or carry." "I feel the spinner meets all the criteria except for one: to provide satisfaction to any fidgeting desires someone may have. I feel the cube meets all of these criteria because it can provide satisfaction to more types of fidgeting than the spinner can." Pro agrees that all the criteria is met by the fidget spinner, except for "Provide satisfaction to any fidgeting desires someone may have." First, this is false, the fidget cube also doesn"t fulfill any fidgeting desire someone may have. The fidget cube doesn"t fulfill my desire to spin in the same way as the fidget spinner. Pro may argue that the fidget cube provides more desires than the fidget spinner, but this is the quantity over quality mindset which shouldn"t be applied in this case because considering quality does play a part in this debate, the quality of a fidget spinner surpasses the fidget cube greatly. I would also say that the fidget cube doesn"t meet the "Reduce stress or anxiety and improve focus" criteria because the fidget cube is loud compared to the fidget spinner, thus distracting and annoying other people around you if you"re in a classroom or library which is where most people fidget. In conclusion, pro cannot prove his side as conceded. But even if you don"t buy that, pro said that the fidget spinner doesn"t meet one of the criteria, but I showed how the fidget cube doesn't meet two of the criteria. P.S. Also, fidget cubes are generally more expensive compared to spinners.
The Fidget Cube is better than the Fidget Spinner

One thing I would like con to realize is that it can't really be "proven" that fidget cubes are better than fidget spinners. It's all about how the person feels. I have created this debate really to see how others feel about comparing the two. I feel evidence cannot be offered in this debate, so really we are just arguing on reasons. That being said, I will establish criteria for which the decision should be based off of. I feel that fidget toys should: *Provide satisfaction to any fidgeting desires someone may have. *Reduce stress or anxiety and improve focus. *Be very portable/easy to transport and/or carry. The fidget cube has more options as far as expressing fidgeting needs goes. Some people like the feel of clicking buttons, while others enjoy rolling joysticks or spinning a ball around. It is much smaller than the fidget spinner, which may make it easier to carry around for some people, although it doesn't make much of a difference for me; they both fit in my pockets very well. The fidget spinner has fewer options as far as fidgeting needs go. The only thing you can do with it is spin it (well, you can do some other tricks with it, but they all go back to one thing: spinning). The spinning feature is said to reduce stress and anxiety, and help you focus better. So, it really depends on the type of person you are. That being said, the fidget spinner is lacking in variety. Those who get it for the purpose of fidgeting are limited in the ways they can do so. They can only spin. That's it. Those who get the fidget cube have more options to go with. If they are in the mood for some clicking, the cube provides it. If they are in the mood for some spinning, the cube provides it. The spinner only provides one of these characteristics. The cube allows you to go back and forth between types of fidgeting as your mood changes. I feel the spinner meets all the criteria except for one: to provide satisfaction to any fidgeting desires someone may have. I feel the cube meets all of these criteria because it can provide satisfaction to more types of fidgeting than the spinner can. For further information, see this link" https://www.stresslesstoys.com... I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
The Fidget Cube is better than the Fidget Spinner

Observation 1: Pro has the burden of proof. This debate doesn"t have a shared burden of proof considering I win by either proving that fidget spinners are better than fidget cubes, or that they"re equal, or by showing pro hasn"t done their job of proving their side. Observation 2: This topic requires that pro establishes some sort of objective criteria for deciding what's better that"s warranted and not arbitrary. Now for the arguments. 1) Pro"s case is lacking considering that his argument only consists of an anecdote which doesn"t account for everyone"s case. 2) Pro"s case doesn"t give some objective criteria for proving that one is better than the other. In conclusion, because of these two reasons we can"t establish whether one is better than the other. Thus, we are in a state where we don"t know. A state of not knowing means that pro hasn"t proven that there is a firm conviction that fidget cubes are better than fidget spinners.
The Fidget Cube is better than the Fidget Spinner

I personally like the fidget cube much better than the fidget spinner. The fidget cube has much more gadgets on it than the fidget spinner, and is therefore more satisfying to fidget with in my opinion. I have a fidget spinner as well, and while it is cool in that it can spin for a while and is quieter than the fidget cube, it doesn't bring about the same satisfaction for me.
a terrorist with a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location should be tortured to get the info

con says it's so apparent that there are more than one way to get info, that it makes my argument 'incoherent'. the problem is that it could easily be the case that there are no other ways to get the info. if you have no leads to find the bomb, and the only lead you have is the terrorist, you would be forced to torture, else you would allow millions to die to protect an ideology.