BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religions are corruptions of man's interpretation of that which he does not understand...

Mangani, Maybe there would be some direction here if your original opening had direction itself. Look at your topic of debate...one of the worst lines I have seen around these debate issues. What you opened for debate was so broad a topic that it could have been perceived by many people many different ways. Obviously, I took it the way I saw it. Your previous rebuttles have basically stated what you meant to say. How can I argue this point when you didn't even have it formulated in the first place? Have you even re-read your opening statement? There is no clear cut direction to even ponder. Look here is the deal: Your debate topic is the following, "Religions are corruptions of man's interpretation of that which he does not understand..." What does he not understand? What corruptions? What interpretations? and of what? You did not even touch on one of these topics from your own opening topic. How much sense does that make? All you proceeded to do was argue the fact that logic is a "smarter" choice than faith because one must choose knowledge over falsehood. You keep telling me what you meant instead of stating it in the first place. I was prying points that needed to be argued in order to even find out the direction of the intended arguement. How can you even begin to debate that this is one clear cut idea. I am not debating other religions. I am debating the one that I know about and personally practice. Would it not be wrong for me to debate on issues that I do not know about? I'm sorry, but it is hard to debate a topic when the author leaves room for thought and then doesn't want to think. P.S. Your comment on the prophecies is pretty ridiculous. If what you said is true, why couldn't you read the Old Testament and perform them yourself? Because many of the prophecies that were performed were nothing that a mortal man could accomplish. If you agree with what Jesus did, then you must also agree that he was the Son of God.
Religions are corruptions of man's interpretation of that which he does not understand...

I'm not sure where your going with your argument, but your whole "Round 1" focuses on the idea that logic goes further than faith. You basically repeated that thought in numerous ways. To me, fighting for logic is trying to disprove a God/religion. Your main point, like it or not, is basically saying that religion/God is bunk because of scientific/proven logic. Is it not? "If religion were a belief system transferred by God directly to individual, then we would all be perfect saints with all the knowledge of the universe and no need for debate." This is a false statement. Sin entered the world through man. If we were all-knowing and perfect, what would that make us? God. ""All things have a creator"" "This is not an affirmative statement that can be proved or disproved, nor is it a point in this topic" Just like how this whole topic is not an affirmative statement that can be proved or disproved? You are only adding to the fire that you say shouldn't have even been started. All you have done in your argument is restated my points and repeat how they have nothing to do with the topic. Once again, according to your underlying meaning of this argument, my points have everything to do with your beginning statement. Of course science is apart of God. All things are part of God, for He created them. You say I make a contradictory statement, your whole argument has been nothing but a run-around in fancy terms.
Religions are corruptions of man's interpretation of that which he does not understand...

If we examine the historical, geopolitical, and logical aspects of religion we find that though there is logic in many fundamentals of religion- including actual science- it is at it's core the mass representation of the few manipulated by different men by different means and with different results. There are core contradictions for which formulated answers have been long adhered to, yet the logic many times is actually more in tune with the overall doctrine. Even so, the adherents of religions often choose to collectively believe ideas, interpretations, even scientific arguments from those with obvious bias. The argument of faith is used in place of logic, even when logic can eliminate the need for faith in what just cannot be any other way. I have heard arguments that this train of thought- that logic can prove and disprove veracity's and falsehoods in every religion- is not spiritually just because logic eliminates the need for faith, but why believe in God when you can know him? Do you believe that George Washington was the first President of the USA (in it's current state as a Republic), or do you KNOW it because there is no logic against that belief? Though it may be impossible to actually acquire all the logic it takes to rightly interpret every aspect of our universe, it is possible to logically point out myth, truth, fact, and fiction in every religion. There is much fiction in every religion that can be assigned a motive, and a perpetrator if viewed objectively. Ultimately I believe there is one truth, and though I can never acquire the complete knowledge of that one truth- even experts, liftime ministers, scholars, monks, etc. of specific religions never have complete knowledge of established religions- I believe it is more spiritually, emotionally and mentally beneficial for the faithful to become the knowledgeable. Otherwise we will spend the rest of eternity trading one Theocracy for another...
Switzerland Is by far the most politically stabled nation

Personally speaking, I believe that it is true that Switzerland is by far the most efficient government on this planet, (call me biased). Sure, their elections may spark a fuse here and there, but the government and its people handle the situation in a mature manner. As opposed to their, American counterparts, they are ALWAYS hot about touchy issues, Such as race, abortion, gay marriage. I mean Look at Europe, and Asia, most of these nations have surpassed these issues decades before these thing were even discussed to the American ears. Plus, Switzerland has a direct democracy, which goes well with a population of about 7.5 million people ( direct democracy, meaning that the citizens vote on hot topics and the government has to consider what ever the results may be). Also, when it comes to elections, the people don't vote for candidates, they vote for a political party, and the Swiss parliament decides on which lucky 7 individuals will be appointed in to the group which is known as the Executive Council, which means, that means that instead of one individual having to take all the pressure and heat, the council can delegate a situation among themselves as a team. Go back into October of 2007. Cristoph Blocher, representative of the Swiss People's Party, Won a decent sum of the support of the Swiss people. One of the major issues he argued in his campaign was immigration. One key policy he had proposed, that if an immigrant were to commit a crime, they, along with their families, will have to be deported. Critics also said that the posters he had displayed for his campaign (posters contained pictures depicting white sheep kicking a black sheep off the Swiss flag) were racist, and he received harsh criticism world wide. It will eventually turn out that Blocher's Campaign would turn out successful. Two months later, after the elections, Blocher was ousted from parliament, by the Christian democrats and all that good stuff. The point is, that despite controversial topics such as immigrants, the Swiss remains calm and collective, allowing certain issues to unfold so it can be dealt with in a mellow atmosphere.
are the constant phone tappings and violations of privacy worth it? (adressing the NSA and PRISM)

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin The United States of America was created for one sole purpose, to ensure the freedom of its citizens. What the government is doing is a horrible violation of human rights, to tap the masses over a minuscule chance of a terrorist attack is unjustifiable. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares the following: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Then why is the U.S taking matters in their own hands? Why is this horrible breach of the law let through?
are the constant phone tappings and violations of privacy worth it? (adressing the NSA and PRISM)

They state this is solely used for tapping the common person but what about all the politicians they are tapping? They are taking an "anti terrorist" system and are using to spy on foreign affairs that concern only insiders of said affair. This act of international tapping and spying cost the U.S its relationship with Germany. The "anti terrorist" role of PRISM is nothing but a facade to hide its true purpose.
Resolved: Putting chewing gum underneath a table ought to be viewed as morally good behavior.

Closing Arguments: Little evidence? I don't think so; I have provided sources, a picture of a Sean Spicer?, and pictures of tables! All of this obviously classifies as evidence. Pro points out 'the math thing', but in showing that less people are chewing gum, I have showed that its popularity is not all she claimed it to be. And if putting gum under tables was so great, more people would be buying the gum to do it! I'd like to say that the last picture I provided...actually is a table, and that gold table is available at most stores for like 10 American dollars: it's actually made in China. The last link given by Pro still doesn't show how putting chewing gum under tables is morally good behaviour, thus not affirming the resolution; and this 'holistic dentist' is just basically saying that the mouth has bacteria...which is what I was arguing anyway. My point is that why force tables to live with even more of it? They already go through enough...especially ones that live with children.
Resolved: Putting chewing gum underneath a table ought to be viewed as morally good behavior.

Listen everyone, my opponent brings forward... like... some evidence. But keep in mind the words said by a wise old man who now runs my country: ITS ALL FAKE NEWS. I have proof too. Well sort of. First of all, my opponent sites daily mail. As we know, mail is not always news. Sometimes it's unwanted advertisements or a letter from your aunt. These often have untrue things in them like "the best deal in town!" or "I love you." So how can we trust this other thing she was talking about? I submit that we cannot. Second of all, this whole bacteria in the mouth is a good thing. Did you know that plaque is a defense against germs? Most of the bacteria in your mouth is out to kill that bad bacteria [1]. Someone else would love to have more of your good bacteria. That's one reason why French kissing is also not gross but actually quite good. Third point, wether or not chewing is decreasing, it's still true more people chew gum than 0. My opponent never addressed the whole math thing, so onto even more math, since there cannot be a negative amount of living people in this world, chewing gum's quality will always be rated more than 0. Also money is not table. And that gold table would be worth so much you have no idea omigod. Sources: [1] https://theholisticdentist.wordpress.com...
Resolved: Putting chewing gum underneath a table ought to be viewed as morally good behavior.

Oh please, my table loves it. If tables didn't love it, don't you think they'd say something about it? I know I get pretty fiesty when I get some unwanted physical contact. But if it's wanted, then I do as the tables do and just let it happen.And then my opponent starts bringing up stuff about the value of table and how putting chewing gum on it is a bad thing for whatever reason. How does putting chewing gum on a table derease its value? It should see a sharp increase in value due to how many people love it. In fact, only $7 per month for a subscription! [1]. Oh sorry. That was the wrong part of the evidence. It was this part here: 75% of Americans chew gum. Out of 300 million people, that means that more than 1 person and less than 300 milin just one large country.Anyway, here's the other math. If 75% of America values chewing gum as something good, then adding chewing gum to a $15 table raises its value by 75% or as we in the math world call it: definitely more than $15.And as for these countries:1. China bans multiple babies, which doesn't overall create a balanced population. So their government is probably stupid.2. Singapore is a single city in Singapore [2], and as we can learn from Touscon, some cities are just really stupid. At least use a country or something m8.3. Dubai banned PDA. That's not a joke. Don't get caught making googly eyes with your sweet love in Dubai or you'll end up in jail [3].Do I even need to say anythng else? I doubt it. Basically destroyed the whole negative case there.Sources:[1] http://www.consultingcase101.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.traveller.com.au...
Resolved: Putting chewing gum underneath a table ought to be viewed as morally good behavior.

HI! I will assume that the 2nd round is for the opening argument only, and that the rebuttals, and closing arguments will respectively after the opening arguments, rebuttals, and closing arguments. OKAY?Opening Argument: Firstly, it needs to be made clear that gum is chewed within a mouth, in most cases. According to this link, it is defined as 'a sweet that you keep in your mouth and chew to gets its flavour, but do not swallow' 1.] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...Why it is Not Morally Good Behaviour to Put Chewing Gum Under a TableMy primary concern naturally lies with the table--it is simply not fair on the table to have sticky, chewed, saliva covered gum to be stuck under it for a prolonged or indefinite period of time. Tables have feelings to, but are unable to give consent to such things. Without the official and explicit consent of the table, this should not be allowed. Or even remotely considered as morally acceptable behaviour; essentially, it is a form of table abuse. It should also come as no surprise to people that tables cost money, even in the event of making your own table, you would still need to collect wood and spend some money on building the table. Why would you then want to desecrate your newly bought or newly built table by sticking chewed gum under it? Even if the table is from a cheap store, it should still be worth something; it should still get respect. Additionally, it is almost as bad to desecrate the table of another person as it is their property. Take a school or university table for example, that table is not yours to disrespect. To finalise my argument, I would like to point that gum is actually seen as a societal taboo in some countries, including Singapore and Dubai: And:
Resolved: Putting chewing gum underneath a table ought to be viewed as morally good behavior.

Welcome to this analysis. Now, my side may seem disgusting at first, but if you really just think about how many animals die from the pollution from landfills, you start to agree with me. Wait, sorry, that wasn't clear. Let me start here: did you know that 100,000 tons of chewing gum is chewed each year? That's a lot of tons. Tons of tons in fact. And do you know where most of that goes? Landfills. Because we throw it away. Honestly, people, are we blind? Think of the poor polar bears. But I have a plan: stick your chewing gum under your desk, under the rails on the street, and under everything but you're Mom's wig. Actually, no that last place works too. Of course, not everyone will, but there's just so much more desk than there is landfill. I just feel like we could really save the polar bears if we started this. So I've proven the benefits. Now onto why we should consider it morally good, but honestly, it's pretty easy to see. Utility: It just makes sense. I'll put it in a syllogism: P1: There is too much gum going into landfills. P2: We have desk space to accomodate the gum P3: duh So we increase our society's utility by doing the thing that increases a polar bears utils (util is a fun word that basically means happy points). And if we can do that, that's really all that matters right. Don't throw your gum away. Throwing gum away is the new disgusting. Putting it under your desk is the new norm. Gitoberitimout. Sources: [1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Resolved: Putting chewing gum underneath a table ought to be viewed as morally good behavior.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Emilrose is my challenger. I look forward to a fun battle to the death with her. REMINDER: This is a troll debate. Pictures, gifs, and humorous videos may be used as evidence. The only thing I don't allow is kritiks. It sucks the fun out of the troll debate to challenge something like "yeah, well, nothing is good to begin with, so it can't be duh." Just follow the assumptions. That's more for the voters so they're not like "wut this is dumb dislike unfollow." And comic sans is a valid font style for troll debates as well. And since I'm the one throwing the status quo over a balcony, I should probably write my constructive first. So for the first round, my opponent will write the two words "I accept," and I'll kick it off in round two. Are we in agreement? We'd better be. Anything else? Let it begin.
Itchy Elbows are WORSE than Itchy Knees

I believe that itchy elbows are far worse than itchy knees for numerous reasons! 1) Itchy elbows are easier to scratch. That being said, you can scratch your elbows till they're raw if you can't control yourself! 2) Itchy elbows are hard to cover up. Everyone knows that if you're scratching an area for too long, you're going to have red splotches on your skin - which can look really unappealing! 3) Itchy elbows are just awkward! Nobody wants to walk around around scratching their weenus all day.
Islam should be considered a terrorist organization

I accept the challenge. My opponent has not given any solid arguments as to why Islam should be considered a terrorist organization. You should not judge a religion upon what 5% of it's adherents do, the same goes for any religion. It should be judged upon it's fundamentals, in this case it is the Quran and the authentic hadiths (sayings of Muhammad). Only two groups in our society promote the “Quran teaches terrorism” myth: anti-Muslim pundits and Isis extremists. Both are wrong. They cherry pick from the Quran, completely misunderstanding it. 5:53 says, “… who so kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”Back to my opponent, thank you.
Islam should be considered a terrorist organization

Islam is one of the most radical "religions" there is and is also one of the most followed. Not only do they act upon violence there own text rewards them for it. They proceed act upon violence in the name of Allah whether it is to beat a homosexual to death even though they can"t change or to blow up Thousandsof people on buses, in the streets, and in normal places where you"re not suppose to fear for your life like the mall or a resteraunt. I see them as a terrorist organization over a religion becuase religion although has to do with belief has morals. Most of the other major religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and buhdism have the moral of religion as a belief in an overall being but they don"t normally blow themselves up and there text doesn"t reward them for violence. What kind of "religion" should allow one to blow up a bus full of people and then be rewarded with 72 virgins and shall be gifted. That"s not a religion that"s a radical terrorism group who"ve been brain washed by people to make them believe that they"re doing what"s right but all they"ve showed the world is that they aren"t a religion that believes they should have rights. They show that they are a religion that needs to be ended becuase when all your religion shows is terrorism, oppression, and hateful crime you lose the right to be considered a religion of belief and are now just a religion of terrorism and hate.
Yo mamma smack down

Um... Yo mamma joke rap battles? Interesting rhymes there. Yo mamma is so stupid, when I told her to "cry me a river build me a bridge and get over it", she actually devoted her life to doing that. Yo mama is so ugly, when she entered herself into the amateurs beauty pageant they had the audience sign a lease basically saying that they understood the consequences. Yo mamma is so ugly, one time they mistook her for a gorilla and shot her at the zoo. Back to you.
Yo mamma smack down

One time I legit made yo mamma cry by telling these: Yo mama is so stupid, she saw a CarFax commercial and tried to sue the company when a fox didn't come out of her mobile phone. Yo mama is so ugly, when she told her doctor that she might be pregnant everyone in the office burst out laughing Yo mama is so stupid, when she saw "What Does The Fox Say?!" She actually thought that everything the fox said in the video was the sound of an actual fox. Checkmate.
Blue is better than green

"Green reprints life, without trees which ahve green leaves we would all be dead" The color is irrelevent. You could have trees with yellow leaves, and they'd still save our lives. Color does not effective how good a tree it is, age and size does. Without water, we wouldn't live, I could make the same point. Technically we *could* survive without trees since some people did back in the caveman days. Without water, we have no drinks. We'd all die within 3 days. Wood is beneficial, but people can survive without it.
Social Networking Sites are Harmful

The 'Pro' is here, And I am a GIRL! I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a rï¿½sumï¿½ with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. "The most effective networking is face to face," says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. "There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online." Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future. Help from ( http://www.businessweek.com... )