BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Yraelz should delete his debate.org account.

Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent fails his burden of proof. He presents no reason as to why he should close his account nor any arguments at all. Thus, since there is no reason to put the plan in place, you must negate. With that said, let's look at why Yraelz is an awsome person and should not close his account. First, he is a very good debater and attracts people to this site. His arguments are thought out, and he spends a reasonable amount of time on them. He also judges and comments on a lot of debates. Did I mention he is temporarily running the tournament also? If he closes his account, debate.org will look un-proffesional, and there will be more stupid debates about pizza rocking one's socks. Next, there is really no reason to do this. If he does not want to debate, he doesn't have to. He can always just leave his account there, and not pick up any debates. Closing it would be pointless. Lastly, if he shuts down Yraelz, that will lead to an increase of debates on his alter-ego account, Logical-Master. Plus, Logical-Master has recently gone crazy. If Yraelz is closed down, there will be no person to dominate the website. Because of these three reasons, I must say that Yraelz should not close his account. Thank you. P.S. Just kidding about that last argument ;)
Yraelz should delete his debate.org account.

And why not? This will of course be my 100th debate, and I will as far as my knowledge goes be the first debater to have ever achieved so many debates on this website. Followed by dairygirl4u2c, having 99 debates. Thus as it is my desire to delete my debate.org account, the best thing to do having debated 100 debates would be to celebrate by doing something I desire. Therefor I should delete my debate.org account. Who cares to stand in opposition?
iPhone5s is better than SamsungS4

The reason I'm not posting an opening argument at this point, but rather only my acceptance, is because Con has not laid out any rules, nor has he posted his own argument. In fact, everything he has posted above has been plagiarized from several different websites, listed below: . http://www.techradar.com... . http://blog.topapps.info... . http://www.techradar.com... . http://www.extremetech.com... . http://www.iphoneinformer.com... . http://www.extremetech.com... And, well, you get the gist of it. Basically, you can take virtually any part of his argument, copy and paste it into Google, and find a source where it has been taken from identically. My opponent has done absolutely no research of his own, nor is he presenting his own work. I highly advise that voters take this into account when considering conduct points. At this point, I will pass this back to my opponent so that we can, hopefully, have a further debate from this point.
religion is false

religion is belief, beliefs are false or unknown only know is true, how do you know a belief is true? why believe then i am sure christians are convinced of it, like the mother that killed her kid, standing outside looking to the clouds and smiling with her dead kids in the hands, for they went to heaven.. the reason you write so much tells me immediatly that you dont actually have a demonstration that religion is true.. there is no specifik point just tekst, you might as well tell me Jesus was real or that santa really lives in hidden underground caves in spain do you understand that i can write a book and write names have special meaning and then give a list of names? belief that there are snakes under my bed can influence lives.. does that mean there are snakes under the bed??
Sex before marriage

I am grateful for Pro's wonderful conduct but what do you mean by "when done in a responsible manner"?. Is it your way of agreeing with me that we're not talking about individuals but groups ? Also, don't bother with "pre marital sex is a completely personal decision" because I agree with you though I don't think that this is a wise choice. ::Happiness:: It is proven that people who don't have sex before marriage are happier: "What's more, couples who delay sex until their wedding night have more stable and happier marriages than couples who have premarital sex, according to the study, which appears in the Journal of Family Psychology." http://www.medicinenet.com... This is further elaborated and supported by these links: o http://www.telegraph.co.uk... o http://www.independent.ie... o http://www.thirdage.com... o http://www.independent.ie... "But the researchers say their findings are clear, that "the longer a couple waited to become sexually involved, the better that sexual quality, relationship communication, relationship satisfaction and perceived relationship stability was in marriage ..." " http://www.emedicinehealth.com... “Regardless of religiosity, waiting helps the relationships form better communication processes, and these help improve long-term stability and relationship satisfaction,” said Busby. http://www.thaindian.com... ::Love:: 1. If X loves Y, then X would want the best for Y. 2. X has a (very) high sex drive: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... 3. It's no secret that a big factor for cheating and divorce for other X's is sex: http://www.askmen.com... 4. X despite number 2 and 3 decides to only have sex with his wife, in this case Y. 5. Y got what most X's wouldn't dear to do. ::Tires:: There is this saying: "Everybody kicks the tires before they buy a car" Now, as a parent do you want your girl to be one of those tires, someone who is left when a prettier girl comes around ? I believe no. Why ? Because sex is very personal and no matter how you look at it, treating a woman like an object (despite what the media conveys) is disrespectful. ::Talk:: "Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place" Billy Crystal It is true that marriage will always be a bit like gambling. Nevertheless, what is the best way to know that you love this person and when is the best time to celebrate your love ? ::Final Comments:: In some arguments I acted like men don't love women and in others vice versa. This is due to the fact that both instances are realities. I await my opponents response and I hope we can discuss your arguments too !
Sex before marriage

This debate is about the positives and negatives of sex before marriage. My stance is that the negatives outweigh the positives. ::Definitions:: Sex: Short for sexual intercourse. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Note: I am not talking about homosexual or lesbian sex but I am talking about heterosexuals. Before: I think that's simple enough. Marriage: "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)" Note: In this debate religion will not be included i. e. I can't say that its wrong because Yahweh said so nor can you say its right because Yahweh does not exist. ::Exceptions:: 1. No peculiar cases ! Obviously, if someone is holding a gun near your head and he'll shoot if you don't have sex, you should have sex before marriage. We are talking about average people in average situations. In other words were talking about groups and not individuals. 1.1. There are exceptions, an exception isn't what this debate is about. We are debating the cons and pros of sex before marriage. I could produce peculiar cases for your position, too ! So please don't go toward this road because I'll simply quote this and the debate will be over. ::Opponent:: He may post his argument in round 2 ; my opponent may use round 1 in any way except by providing his arguments. ::Rules:: You must accept the rules, notes and definitions or you will by default loose on all 7 points.
Sex before marriage

First of all, my opponent has convoluted this debate with his idea of "love. " This has no place in this debate, because there are many couples who love each other, and have no intention of marriage. Moreover, it is not necessary to love someone, in order to have sex with them. So you see, the quality of love is completely subjective, thus further negating my opponent's strange and convoluted OPINION relating sex and marriage. There is not much left of my opponent's argument, except a couple of false assumptions that I will put to rest right away. My opponent claims that electricity is man made. Not only is this completely false, but utterly ridiculous, and if my opponent truly believes electricity is man made, then pre marital sex should be the last thing on his mind. After all, this would be to say that man created lightning, and that when I rub my feet on the carpet and shock my dog, I am making magic. I implore my opponent to look up electricity on Wikipedia. Also, if my opponent questions whether sex boosts self esteem, it is fairly clear that he has never had sex. Also, if he would simply refer to the sources I have already cited, he wouldn't have to ask for them again in his rebuttal. Frankly, my opponent has yet to make a case for his argument. I have shown many positive aspects of sexual intercourse, and how marriage is certainly not required to benefit from these things in everyday life. My opponent has resorted to several convoluted and irrelevant scenarios where pre marital sex MIGHT not be good, but has laid down no foundation for what could be considered a plausible argument. I would like to point out that my opponent has once again broken his own rules by using a "peculiar case", by using an example of someone who likes to kill. This is NOT the norm, so it can not be used in this debate per my opponent's own rules. Also, my opponent is directly comparing murder and sex with this argument, which is laughable at best. Apparently, I am the only one restricted by these rules. I must say, my opponent's conduct has been some of the worst that I have encountered, and his arguments fall far short of what I expected in this debate. I question whether I should bring more arguments, or simply let my opponent defend himself in the final round. With that, I will continue with more positive arguments to uphold the pro. Sex is great for cardio vascular endurance, weight loss, relieves depression, decreasing risk of breast cancer in women, bladder health, and even helps to extend life. Again, these are health benefits that everyone has access to, if they choose to engage in sexual intercourse. My opponent may choose to hold off on these health benefits until marriage, but for the majority, we choose to take advantage of all the healthy and positive aspects of sex, regardless of marriage. . http://webecoist.com... I could continue, but it seems my opponent has much work to do in the final round, so with that, I thank the readers, and urge a pro vote.
Poem about a child I raped

Poem about a child I raped I haven't seen you for years Police has stormed the house Where we used to play My body, A small barrier An obstacle to the great river No matter how strong the river flows My body will hold And during the storm I still think of you I still wonder where do you awake today Who covers you with blanket when you sleep Do you ever think of me In the warm nights I remember the moments we shared I remember how we played Do you remember Do you ever think of me Like I think of you The greatest pain I experienced When we were separated My body is a small barrier An obstacle to the great river
it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible 2 say that some nonchristians can be saved

it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible to say that some nonchristians can be saved there are four major points in the bible that i can think of regarding salvation of nonchristians. one is around John 3:16 where it says something to the effect of... "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not parish, but have ever lasting life. for God did not send his son to condemn the world, but that that world should be saved through him. and those who do not believe stand already condemned. and this is the condemnation, that God sent the light, but the people rejected the light because their ways were dark". one is in a different spot in John where he says something to the effect of "unless you believe that I AM he, you will die in your sins". one is at the end of Mark, where he says "go forth baptizing people in the name of the father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. those who believe and are baptize will be saved, those who don't, will be condemned". and there are a few spots in the nongospels part of the new testament, where it says things like "those who engage in immorality will be thrown in along with unbelievers". the way to interpret these verses. the first three verses here have a presupposition to condemnation.... rejecting Jesus. And, the first example gave a very specific response on that rejection.... rejecting cause your ways are dark. the last verse gives the indication that 'nonbelievers are condemned". but, if you read the verses holistically, a nonbeliever could and should be considered someone who rejects Jesus, and the least common denominator of all the verses indicates that that rejection should include rejecting Jesus cause your ways are dark. so we see that non only could a hypothetical man on an island who has never heard of Jesus be saved, so could so many people who reject Jesus, but reject him for reasons other than their ways being dark. indeed, an englightened mind who rejects the truth, has trouble in store for him.
it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible 2 say that some nonchristians can be saved

My opponent just made my job a lot easier by saying and I do quote "so as he often says, he is the only way." Jesus is the only way He is in fact the way, the truth, and the life. As being the only way Jesus makes it abundantly clear that his way is by His forgiveness. Take a look at this God has told us that "... it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Revelations 20:11-15, explains this that in this judgment all the unsaved will be judged according to their works and cast eternally into the Lake of Fire. The reasons is they would not believe God and accept His free offer of forgiveness. The only way to be saved is to accept Gods forgiveness. Jesus explains this very clearly when He said He was the Door to Heaven (John 10:9), and in John 14:6, He expanded on that thought: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but though Me." In order for us to have eternal life, we must receive Jesus Christ as our personal Savior. There is no other way or deviation.
it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible 2 say that some nonchristians can be saved

for some reason, con starts talking about john 316 then diverges to the born again verses, and doesn't get into either verse, and then talks about the need for repentance. a couple points about the repent verse... it too has the presuppsition to it of having known and heard "i tell you..." before the required action. also, this verse doesn't specfiically mention Jesus, just repentence. a person can repent according to the natural laws written in man's heart. the "Lord, lord" verses doesn't have anything to do with this debate, as we are talkng about nonchristians, not fake christians, which that verse applies to. the romans road stuff. and the need for jesus stuff. to be clear, those non christians that can be saved, are still saved through Jesus. so as he often says, he is the only way. i gave what i knew to be the only verses that specifically list how nonchritians will be condemned. con doesn't negate anything i said, and gave no other verses that gave that level of specificity, or verses that say they will be condemned. con gives a bunch of verses that are not at all applicable.
it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible 2 say that some nonchristians can be saved

I accept your challenge. I'll start with your interpretation of John 3:16 this is a classic context argument you are referring to a passage where Jesus is talking about being born again. It says very specifically in the Bible that the only way to be saved is to be born again we must repent and in order to repent you must repent your sins hense this verse "I tell you... unless you repent: you shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:5) Also take a gander at this Matthew 7:21-23King James Version (KJV) 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity This shows us that not just action or speech will save you the Bible says that you must be born again to be saved from hell. You are correct about it saying "unless you believe that I AM he, you will die in your sins". Again context if you read the plan of salvation carefully you can see that you can seen that you need more. Take a look at the Romans road of salvation http://www.stufffundieslike.com... It clearly explains that there is only one way to heaven a fact the bible explains very clearly many times. (Do me a favor the next time you use a verse please give the address it would make finding it more easy thanks)to be born he
Darwin's theory of evolution.

Unfortunately my opponent has failed to understand my argument and therefore could not properly rebut it. Pro stated, "my opponent has only used words and conjecture. I don't understand how this works, so therefore it must be false. 'There is no evidence for p. Therefore, not-p.'" To reduce my exceedingly reasonable case to such a trivial argument from ignorance is a clear display of the very argument Pro accuses me of. Pro admittedly did not grasp my claims and thus could not counter with any logical substance, and certainly no evidence. Pro states, "My opponent uses this form of the fallacy. There is no evidence for how mutations get past the DNA repair mechanism and redundant DNA in reproductive cells. Therefore, not Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet, this isn't the way science works. You must prove the hypothesis false. Thanks for your time and energy reading." Firstly I would point out that this was not my argument. For the third time I must clarify that I am not arguing that mutations cannot be passed on to offspring, this would obviously be a silly argument. Secondly, I do not have to prove a hypothesis false for it to not be true. I can argue the hypothesis that God exists, but you don't have to prove it false for it to not be true. Science works to establish the veracity of an hypothesis through experimentation and observation; science does not determine truth by seeing if a hypothesis can be disproved but by seeing if it can be substantiated. I find it unnecessary to restate my argument and, although Pro has claimed he did not fully comprehend it, he also did not point out any particular areas of confusion. My argument was based on the known function of redundant genes and their inhibition of the cumulation of any sort of information-adding mutations which would give rise to phylogenetic gradualism. My arguments have gone unrefuted while I have conclusively refuted my opponents claims. I hope readers are able to understand my argument and that it might interest them enough to do some further research of their own. If someone thinks they can rebut my argument then I will gladly accept their challenge. Thank you for your time and consideration of my case gains evolution. :)
Darwin's theory of evolution.

I've read through my opponent's argument. I'm not going to lie and say I understand what my opponent is stating. I'm not a Biologist. It takes Biologist years to earn a degree. Many hours acquiring the knowledge to earn their specialized knowledge. I had 72 hours to respond, not years. Yet, I do understand the basics of science. Con has the burden of proof and has failed to falsify Darwin's theory of evolution. How could evolution be proved false? Here's the answer " If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits. If it could be shown that mutations do not occur. If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations. If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection. If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals. If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species. " [3] Impact, my opponent has only used words and conjecture. I don't understand how this works, so therefore it must be false. "There is no evidence for p. Therefore, not-p." [4] My opponent uses this form of the fallacy. There is no evidence for how mutations get past the DNA repair mechanism and redundant DNA in reproductive cells. Therefore, not Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet, this isn't the way science works. You must prove the hypothesis false. Thanks for your time and energy reading. 3. http://rationalwiki.org... 4. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
Darwin's theory of evolution.

OutlineI. Intro II. RebuttalsIII. ConclusionIV. SourcesI. IntroAlways interesting to see that people attack evolution on different fronts. This is part of the reason I didn't bother to make much of an argument for round 1. Since the angle of attack by my opponent is unknown at that point. My opponent is attacking on the mutation becoming permanent and passed on front. Citing DNA repair and redundant DNA as safeguards again mutations.II. RebuttalsClaim 0:DNA repairs, but its not infallible. Warrant 0:"Of the thousands of random changes created every day in the DNA of a human cell by heat, metabolic accidents, radiation of various sorts, and exposure to substances in the environment, only a few accumulate as mutations in the DNA sequence. We now know that fewer than one in 1000 accidental base changes in DNA results in a permanent mutation; the rest are eliminated with remarkable efficiency by DNA repair." [1]Impact: 0 What this means is despite the DNA repair system being incredible efficient, the repair system is overwhelmed by constant environmental factors. Therefore, DNA damage happens despite the repair system. Claim 1: Redundant DNA helps organisms survive despite mutations.Warrant 1: "New findings from a Princeton-led team of researchers suggest that repeated instructional regions in the flies' DNA may contribute to normal development under less-than-ideal growth conditions by making sure that genes are turned on and off at the appropriate times. If similar regions are found in humans, they may hold important clues to understanding developmental disorders." [2]Impact 1: Oddly, the redundant DNA provides supporting evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution. What redundant DNA means is the the organism can survive despite detrimental mutations. Therefore, the chances of the mutation being passed onto the next generation is increased. Think about it, without the redundant DNA the organism with the detrimental mutation would be more likely to die and not reproduce. III. ConclusionsDNA repair mechanisms provide supporting evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution. Otherwise, we would have the opposite problem, rampant permanent mutations everywhere. DNA repair mechanisms explain why permanent mutations are so rare. Redundant DNA helps protect the organism with mutations. Allowing the organism to function normally despite permanent mutations and pass their permanent mutations onto their offspring. IV. Sources1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...2. https://www.sciencedaily.com...