BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
christians should reject that stoning people so much, was ever initiated by God

So as you know I have questioned prop's faith in that of the bible even though we can see that there are different versions of this and that it has changed over the past centuries as much as how each section of Christianity differs from one another and how the church has been manipulated by governments and powerful figures so who's to say they might not have changed the bible. 2. Secondly Christianity has never been a perfect religion that has condoned all forms of violence in fact quite an interesting amount of Christians have caused crimes just as bad. The leaders of the world caused people into slavery and killed many people treating them as if they were lower beings and not equals,so why would they not do something similar to that of stoning? 3. Since my host seems kind enough to be using the bible as his sole source I shall follow in his footsteps and quote what has been said by the bible from both the new and old testament in my second argument so now that i have brought up my main points i await your reply to begin my argument
christians should reject that stoning people so much, was ever initiated by God

So taking your quote we see that in fact Jesus a man known to us as Gods son has told us that stoning is fine and Jesus was Gods messenger that is another good point for us to see that stoning was initiated by God. So in this debate i have brought forth the fact that God agrees with violence and that stoning is violence. Gods son and messenger has also agreed with stoning. And in answer to what prop has just told us about God wont kill people for every little sin under the sky, yet every little sin under the sky is in the ten commandments,Gods word thus using what i have brought forward we can determine that God has in fact initiated stoning both directly and indirectly through a violent approach to sinners
Are we destined to destroy ourselfs

Dr. Jethro Halfwit seems pretty credible to me, but let's assume he's mistaken. Maybe he'll be really pissed off when his theory is proven false. I mean enormously pissed off. So pissed off he'll use his intellect to destroy us all. He'll put banana peels every where when no ones looking, And slip, bang, we're all dead. Deader than a doornail! Dead, dead, dead!!!
Are we destined to destroy ourselfs

I change my mind. Aliens from Mars will destroy us. They are super-duper pissed off, and I mean pissed! I can't stress enough how pissed off they are. Just Google the face of Mars. Look at it. It looks extremely pissed off to me. They are capital "P" pissed, pissed, pissed! Why are they so pissed? Good question. They're pissed off because our rover has over stayed its welcome. There is a mighty big government cover-up about this, but I'm here to blow the lid off this thing!!!!!!!!! According to Dr. Jethro Halfwit, they are so pissed off that they literally tremble with rage. A rage without remedy. Oh my god!!! That is awfully pissed.
Are we destined to destroy ourselfs

I don't believe we're destined to destroy ourselves, however, the millennials might destroy themselves. I'm Gneration X. Sure we flipped the bird to just about everything. Mainly we flipped the bird to divisions, sects, and social classes of any sort. But millennials seem hell bent on being the most racist, divisive, and bigoted generation of all time. They have no inclination towards empathy or solidarity. They view life as a genie in a bottle. They rub it and make demands. Anything that challenges their perspectives are shunned, maligned, and ridiculed. They actually F***ing have the unnerving audacity to consider themselves enlightened when they impose their pity on those they deem less advanced than themselves. They vandalize the past, but replace it with nothing. Anything other than instant gratification is considered a gratuitous hindrance. My generation failed you.We took the hippy notions our parents gave us and kept it to ourselves. We figured we'd give you the freedom to learn on your own and everything would fall into place. The result: a caveman mentality with all the niceties of modernity. "New advances" will not destroy us, but an age of social barbarism will.
The US Should Have Better Gun Control

I find it a little bit ironic that using a picture that has a list of facts on it from a credible website is not credible according to my opponent, while using Wikipedia is. But here are some more websites that back what I say (1) (2) (3). My opponent claims that if there are more gun control laws that people will be safer, but is that true. The top ten cities in the United with the strictest gun control laws are: Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas, Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Newark,and Atlanta; and out of these cities 6 have the most gun violence ( New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, Philadelphia, Newark, Detroit). So gun control in America doesn't work there is an estimate of about 270 million guns in the United States and if gun control is enacted where do these guns go. Well they would go to the criminals who would have black market deals. Compare guns to marijuana, marijuana is illegal to own by federal law, but marijuana is still one of the Untied States largest cash crops (http://abcnews.go.com...) this shows that when someone wants something they can get if even if it is illegal like guns. Look at the logistics of enacting gun control, Australia destroyed 640,381 guns after they made guns illegal it cost the tax payers 500 million dollars now imagine the cost of finding and destroying 270 million guns and we are nearing almost 17 trillion dollars worth of debt, the United States can't afford gun control. While the gun murder rate in Australia is low it doesn't mean they are safe since the 1997 ban on guns accidental gun deaths are up 300%, the assault rate is up 200%, and immediately following the 1997 gun ban overall robbery went up 200% from 1997-2002 and has increased since than 20%. crime Australia is not safe from guns just because they made them illegal (2). Compare that to the United States who has had less crime since 1993. While any death is tragic aren't we going a little over board with it. In the US 3 people die out of 100,000 from guns that means 99,997 don't die from guns. Don't give up liberties for security like Thomas Jefferson said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." While the 2nd amendment can be amended the debate topic is not about amending the 2nd amendment. It is about gun control and he should have changed the topic. Pencils are a tool like guns if used right they are great if used wrongly they are not great. Gun control is not about guns it is about the government controlling you and me. Sources (1)http://dailycaller.com... (2) http://freerepublic.com... (3) http://www.justfacts.com...
The US Should Have Better Gun Control

I'll get to the constitution bit in a minute, let's start by saying that a photo posted on the internet is not a credible source, we'll start with '96% of guns used for crime were obtained illegally', where do you think they were stolen from? 78% of guns used in crime were made in the US (1). The argument that the US is safer than the UK or Australia is just wrong, in the UK the homicide rate using firearms is 0.07 per hundred thousand, in Australia 0.13 per hundred thousand, in the US 3.21, 46 times larger than the UK (2). The claim that the gun crime figures are going down is all well and good, but they are still MUCH higher than in other MEDCs. My favorite stat from your 'source' was that guns are used four times as often in self defence, against what? Surely self defence when you have a gun and the criminal has a banana and shouting bang, isn't really self defence.It is argued that more guns cause less crime, this is a made up argument, the data says otherwise (3). Selected highlights from this source, you are 12 times more likely to injure 'household members or guests' than the intruder, 80% of homicides in the US are committed by a 'family member, friend, or acquaintance' who would not have got their gun illegally. Final point, 31 Americans are murdered with a gun every day, that's slightly less than those who are killed in the UK in a YEAR.Now, the good old second amendment argument, the crux of this argument is 'this is currently in the constitution, and the constitution should never be changed'. The first argument against this is, what do you think amendment means?? The second is that laws change all the time for the good of the people, I think the good of the people includes the people not being murdered, ergo, this one should be changed.Your pencil example is a good one, I don't believe people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, I agree guns don't kill people, but to look at your pencil example in more detail, let's say that you passed the exam, congratulations, that was all your own work, however, if you didn't have a pencil you wouldn't have been able to do the exam. Pencils don't take exams, people take exams..... with pencils.Guns don't kill people, people kill people...... with guns.(1) http://bjs.gov... (2) http://www.unodc.org... (3) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
The US Should Have Better Gun Control

What makes the United States so great, I believe it is our freedoms and rights; are freedoms and rights are listed in the Bill or Rights in our Constitution. The definition of a Constitution is an established law, custom, or the supreme law of the land(1). Which means the laws in the Constitution and the articles and amendments that are written in it are supposed to be held above any other law that is made in the land. Among the 27 amendments the 2nd one is the amendment that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (2). " It states in the Constitution reminding all those who read this that the Constitution is the higher law of the land that the rights for people to own and have guns shall not be infringed so any gun control legislation should by law be illegal. But besides the Constitution argument lets look at the real statics. If I asked the readers whether they think gun crime has gone down, up, or stayed the same since 1993 most would answer it has gone up. The real statics is that it has dropped by 49% that shows that it is getting better not worse like many people claim it is like my opponent (3). 99.9% of all guns in the United States will not be used for violence which shows that gun control is punishing everyone for the acts of the 0.01%. Enacting gun control won't stop criminals from getting guns, 96% of all guns used for crime was obtained illegally by theft, black market sales, or illegal manufacturing. Going off my opponents argument of Australia and the United Kingdom the fact is when they banned guns armed robbery is up 40% in UK and 44% in Australia and in the UK most of their robberies occur when the victim is at home because criminals don't fear home owners without guns. (4) My opponent is trying to throw out the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people. " Guns are a tool for self defense and I have a good analogy for this argument. If I take an exam for school and I fail whose fault is it? Can I blame my pencil, well I could my teacher would probably not buy it and fail me. But if someone kills another with a gun it is the guns fault and should be banned. Does that make sense of course not people need to take responsibility for their actions and people need to hold them responsible. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sources (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) . http://www.law.cornell.edu... (3) . http://sourcefednews.com... (4) . http://beforeitsnews.com...
The US Should Have Better Gun Control

In the United States, the homicide rate is one of the highest of the more developed world, if you compare the US rate of 4.8 deaths per hundred thousand, with 3.3 of those involving firearms, to countries with tighter restrictions, like Germany (0.8 per hundred thousand), Australia (1.0 per hundred thousand), or the UK (1.2 per hundred thousand), it is clear that there is a correlation between mass ownership of firearms and an increased homicide rate. (Data from http://en.wikipedia.org...) The proof that introducing gun control has a precedent, in 1996 after the Port Arthur Massacre, the Australian government introduced much more restrictive gun control, this is the major factor in the 47% drop in firearm related homicides in the country (http://www.aic.gov.au...). Put simply, if you don't have a gun, killing people is much harder. I'm sure at some point in this debate the age old argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" will surface, to nip that in the bud at the start, the simple fact is that it is people who kill people ...... using guns. There is no need to own a firearm except for sport, it's not like controlling the use of knives, a gun has one purpose, it is designed as a means to kill. The floor is yours.
The US Should Have Better Gun Control

From my sources it states that 39.2% of criminals get their guns from the street or illegal sources, and 39.6% obtain their guns from a friend or family member which doing this is still illegal and if my opponent would have read on it also states that less than 9% of criminals obtain their guns from a legal retail setting. (1) Guns are not meant to harm they are meant to defend that is way Police Officers are given guns so they can defend themselves not go around and kill. Watch this video of Dr. Gary Kleck widely recognized as one of the top criminologists and gun control experts in the entire country. Self defense works in our country. Making stricter gun laws makes crime for frequent because you take away the self defense people have.(2) Robberies are up in Australia and the United Kingdom because the criminals no longer fear the home owners because they don't have a defense like a gun(3)(4). While Australia and United Kingdom does have less gun crime they do have more crime overall because criminals don't fear anyone. The cost comes from making them illegal and having to use police force to gather guns up would cost more than we can estimate. Gun Control is meant to control people, because you can't herd lions, but you can herd sheep. Guns are what give the American people a chance to stand against tyranny. Dictators always want to ban guns because it makes it easy to rule with an iron fist (5). Like what Thomas Jefferson said "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.(6)" I love my 2nd amendment (7) and I want my freedom that my fore fathers fought for. Vote con against gun control because of what control is and what it would do to you. Sources (1) http://dailycaller.com... (2) http://news.yahoo.com... (3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (4) http://www.nationmaster.com... (5) http://americainchains2009.wordpress.com... (6) http://www.goodreads.com... (7) http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.youtube.com...
Whether the Bible is infallible.

This debate is will be deciding whether the Christian Bible is infallible.I will be taking the CON side of this debate, i.e The Bible is NOT infallible (is fallible).Definitions:Infallible: incapable of error. [1]Bible: the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament (66 books) [2]Rules:1. No ad Hominem attacks2. A contradiction will be counted as a fallibility3. No arguments in 1st round.4. No new arguments in final round5. Logic and mathematics are counted as infallible evidence, provided the math and logic are done right.I look foward to a fun debate :)Thanks,MaxSources: [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com...;[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com...;
is Cell better then Frieza (DBZ) pro:Cell con:Frieza

Thanks Pro. In conclusion I would like to draw your attention to the following unaddressed points: Pro doesn't address that Frieza is more successful economically Pro doesn't address that Frieza owns more planets than Cell Pro doesn't address that Frieza creates more jobs than Cell does Pro doesn't address that Frieza clearly has better life objectives than Cell Pro doesn't address that Frieza is quite a capable warrior too Pro doesn't address that Frieza has committed genocide on greater scale, and destroyed many more planets Therefore, we can conclude that on balance, Frieza is substantially better than Cell. The resolution is negated, note Con.
is Cell better then Frieza (DBZ) pro:Cell con:Frieza

thank you con for sticking with me for the debate and here are the reasons why I have oneeven though con argued against my poin it still stands due to the fact that they only attacked the logic not the analysisI have rebutted all their arguments and reconstructed mine Cell is a far more superior being due to the fact that they are combined with the strength of the androids and the Z warriors my opponent has failed to rebut thatso therefore con has won
is Cell better then Frieza (DBZ) pro:Cell con:Frieza

I don't believe there is much left to argue, I have already established that Frieza is far superior to Cell I'm several respects. And I had a very hard time reading Pro's rebuttal, given then not a single full stop was used (!). Frieza contributed substantially more than Cell did to the galactic economy, as it evidenced when Vegeta betrayed Frieza, Frieza at the time owned 79 different planets. That's 79 more than Cell did when Cell died. That number was very close to being 80 given that Frieza has effectively sterilised planet Namek of all life before dying. Moreover I have given evidence that Frieza was more intelligent that cell, and had better goals in life. Pro's rebuttals regarding Frieza's lack of techniques is a poor one, as Frieza had a plethora of techniques at his disposal, these include his planetary destruction techniques and kienzen, which is capable of cutting through anything, including Cell.[1] To expose how ridiculous Pro's arguments are let's formalize his argument: P1. If X is stronger than Y, X is better than Y P2. X is stronger than Y C. X is better than Y So let's take another DBZ characters: P1. If Goku is stringer than Bulma, Goku is better than Bulma P2. Goku is stronger than Bulma C. Goku is better than Bulma. This obviously is completely false, especially when you consider the intellectual prowess that Bulma brought to the DBZ cast. She invented the time travel machine, the dragon radar, Gi's, blutz wave generator to name a few, moreover she was a multi billionaire and ran a successful business of her own. Furthermore she was instrumental in the repairs of android 16, who was a seriously powerful ally to the z warrior cast. Only outmatched by the four super saiyans and cell at the time. Compare this to Goku, who is flat broke, and lacks basic intelligence in almost every regard except for martial arts, it is clear Bulma is the more balanced character. The same reasoning applies to Frieza over cell, except now we have Frieza who is a very capable warrior alone, and capable of much the same destruction cell is that Bulma would be incapable of doing for example. Conclusion: The resolution is affirmed, back to Pro.
is Cell better then Frieza (DBZ) pro:Cell con:Frieza

Ok nice rebuttal con but to be honest like in the DB world like in martial arts you need to be strong to survive like seriously Cell gained powers he had Goku's Kamehameha and all that awesome moves like seriously frieza had only one deadly attack that was scary Planet Destructo or something like that so Cell is technicaly the present Z warriors combined exept Gohan but he reached perfection also he killed king vegita just because King Vegita relied on his Sayian warriors and they hung him dry and Bardok he faced frieza and his forces head on so that made a big difference frieza had people friends like his minions they respect him and his body guards they give their lives for frieza so technicaly Cell is technically more of a one man army than frieza also cell had moves that the Z warriors knew also about episodes it took about 7 episodes but for gohans fight only IT TOOK ABOUT 10 literally that is in english DBZ but in Japan episodes that probably took more. Also he did not contribute he just took the money for him self so technically that is called investing not contributing FYI PRONow for the reconstruction first it said better so I am talking about strength so that means better like in strength so that considers as better as you know if you mean better like seriously Cell was made to kill the Z fighters and Goku and Terrorize the world but he gained perfection and he became perfect also Cell can do these stuff like frieza BUT he was programmed so if he was free then he can start a planet trade or alien slavery and be like frieza but more successfulTherefore vote for Pro
is Cell better then Frieza (DBZ) pro:Cell con:Frieza

Thanks Con. Preface Pro seems dead-set on showcasing Cells strength and power. But so what? I already conceded in round 2 that Cell was stronger than Frieza, that doesn't demonstrate that cell is better than frieza however, not at all. By this reasoning Gorillas are better than Humans, since they are stronger than we are. Obviously this resolution is far more open than a direct contest of brute strength of the two characters. To rebut my opponent: Frieza's planet trade business: Pro seems to shrug this point off, as I believe it is an important one. Frieza clearly generated greater capital than cell did, as he was still trading in planets at the time he wiped out planet Vegeta (see Bardock, father of Goku). Therefore it is clear that Frieza contributed more capital to the economy than Cell ever did, substantially more. "Cell was a one-man army" Well, so was Frieza!! Frieza was one the fiercest and deadliest forces known in the universe at the time, with virtually no peers. The only characters capable of matching Frieza in even Frieza's base for, were Goku and Vegeta. And Goku and Vegeta had only very, very recently attained their exceptional strength levels at the time the conflict occurred. Therefore, Frieza was essentially just as effective as Cell in his affairs, which constistest of a mix between his planetary trade business, and role as a tyrannical warlord over the galaxy, and over planet Vegeta. Namek's power levels Pro makes the complain that the power levels of the people Frieza killed were very low, only 3,000. Well this is false for starters, since Frieza also killed King Vegeta, Bardock and Nail, all of whom has power levels exceeding 10,000. Also contrast this with cell, who attacked only Earth, and the civilians there had power levels barely exceeding 5 with the exception of the Z-warriors. Clearly Frieza is confident in the face of tough civilian opposition. The remainder of Pro's argument was hard to read. But I will add 1 more contention: C4. Frieza has superior objectives to Cell Cell's virtually only goal in life was attain 'perfection', which consisted of absorbing 2 androids. This perfect form only brought with it increased power levels and no significantly new abilities. Frieza on the other hand was attempting to attain immortality via. the dragon balls. Clearly if both goals were obtained, then Frieza would be virtually unstoppable, there would be absolutely nothing cell could do that would be superior to Frieza, since the latter would be immortal. Moreover, Cell knew the Earth had the dragon balls on it... Yet did not pursue this goal, and chose the clearly inferior goal. This seems to demonstrate that cell is less intelligent then Frieza.