BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus is Harry Potter

Ah, but you forget. Harry had the entire army, Dumbledore's Army. He had Ron, Hermione, Neville, Fred, George, Percy, Ginny, the Order of the Pheonix, Luna. Harry had followers too. And dealing with the Jesus was without sin part, good point. Jesus had no sin and Jesus spoke out against withcraft, but you also have to realize this point. They both are just characters in books. Jesus is in the Bible and Harry Potter is in, well, Harry Potter. Which makes the point of this debate really stupid because we're arguing over people who don't exsist. (and if you bring up that Jesus was a real person, that has never been truely proved. can you show me his bones? can you show me a birth record? can you show me any proof, other than the bible and the odd ways it fits into history that Jesus really exsisted?)
Jesus is Harry Potter

Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents. By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date. Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . . " E. M. Blaiklock Professor of Classics Auckland University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- if the new testment is true the so is jesus! although I think that this is proof that jesus did, I mean does,exsist, feel free to visit my source. http://www.leaderu.com...
goerge w bush was a great president

The partial tally of what this nation lost under President Bush so far: • The World Trade Center• A piece of the Pentagon• Five or six trillion dollars--again, so far• A doubled national debt• Over six-thousand dead American soldiers and over forty-seven-thousand wounded (not to mention billions of dollars in weapons, supplies, and equipment blown up, wasted, or stolen)• Untold numbers of Iraqis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis dead and wounded, and thousands of refugees• The sympathy and the cooperation of almost every nation on the planet• A big chunk of New Orleans• The housing market• Every amendment in the Bill Of Rights except the second• A valuable CIA agent specializing in nuclear counter-proliferation• Safe airline travel• Safe food• Safe water• Safe, regulated exploration for and extraction of coal, oil, and gas• Impartial climate science• The integrity of the Justice and Interior departments• Years of government research on climate change• Eight years of stem cell research• The nation's moral standing on war crimes and torture• Two million jobs• Fair elections• The integrity of the private property system• Trillions of dollars swindled from Americans by banks you refused to regulate• The Kyoto Treaty• Three-thousand points off the Dow (I would list the American automobile industry but President Obama mitigated that one…) You two--entrusted with all of the might and with the unalloyed support of the most powerful nation on earth--failed to send enough troops into Afghanistan to kill Osama bin Laden in December of 2001 which has allowed death and destruction to metastasize throughout that region in a war that has yet to end ten years later. You have caused those brave men and women to be re-deployed again and again, leaving them and their families strained under the weight of duty.
goerge w bush was a great president

Goerge w bush was a great president He 1. he reformed medicare with prescription drugs 2. He passed the bush tax cuts which led to the largest economic boom in history 3. He balanced the budget 4. he won the war on terror 5. he resotred dignity and honor to the white hosue 6. he reformed education with no child left behind 7. he saved the banking system 8. he banned partial birth abortion 9. he took advantage of our energy resources 10. he tried to reform social sercutiy with private accounts 11.he tried to reform immigration 12. he appointed great justices 13 he didn't over regulate the enivorment 14. he built up our image in the world
In Lincoln-Douglas Debate, It is not necessary to have a case with a value and value-criterion

As I stated before, I will define some of the words in the resolution:Lincoln-Douglas Debate: A form of one-on-one debate. Necessary: Impossible to function withoutNot necessary: Capable of functioning withoutValue/Value Criterion - A metric a case can utilize that provides a way for a judge to weigh how the case interacts with the resolution and contention-level offense. So all I must do is prove that a case in Lincoln-Douglas debate can function outside of having a value/criterion. My opponent must prove that a case cannot interract with the resolution without having a value/criterion (I will abbreviate from this point on as V/C). At this point, I will concede that there are certain benefits that having a V/C in a case brings that other forms of weighing do not provide. It is an easier metric of weighing to teach to newer debaters, and it is one of the most common forms of cases ran (called by debaters as a 'stock case'). But just because there are benefits, this does not mean a case cannot function without one. That would be flat out ridiculous. Burden systems are also a good way of weighing how a case interacts with a resolution. If your contention level offense fulfills your burdens (i. e. proves your burden to be true), then you have sufficiently fulfilled the resolution. Also, cases can function and fulfill the resolution through linking into the other person's case and disproving their claim. Disadvantages, kritiks, plans, counterplans, and word picks are all examples of this. There are also forms of cases that function pre-fiat to the resolution, or before the resolution, that analyze the debate itself and why one person ought to win or lose over the other person. Theory and topicality are both examples of this. All of these are clear capable cases to run that do not function with a V/C. Thus, a V/C is not necessary to form a coherent case in Lincoln-Douglas debate. My opponent may try to stand up and say that because Lincoln-Douglas debate is a values debate, we must have a value. But this doesn't mean we must always use a V/C. There are other ways of saying what we ought and ought not do or what is ethically and morally better than something else without having to always rely on using a V/C. Thus, I must stand in affirmation of the resolution. I await my opponent's response.
In Lincoln-Douglas Debate, It is not necessary to have a case with a value and value-criterion

This has become an annoying factor to most LD debates I do on here. I run a case that functions on something other than a value/criterion pair, and I will always hit this argument:"LD is, over all, a value debate. Since my opponent doesn't have a value, he cannot win."I find this claim to be of absolute lunacy, and I challenge those who hold this belief to debate me on this. First round is acceptance only. I will accept the burden of proof for this debate. All definitions will come in the next round from me.1. Do not run semantical arguments. We all know exactly what the resolution entails.2. If at any point a person forfeits a round, it should count as an automatic loss and all points go to the other debater.
Children's Movies and TV Shows of the of the Recent Decades have become Less Meaningful

Thank you, and I agree with the definitions provided. Modern films and television shows catered to people under the age of 18 seem to lack in quality. Please allow me to define "quality" for the sake of further debate. Quality: The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something: "quality of life". Synonyms:grade - kind - merit - property - class - attribute The "degree of excellence" of children's movies and television shows today have fallen if compared to the quality of movies before 2000-2012. In these terms, excellence is defined by the messages and purposes of such kinds of entertainment. For example, a television show from the 90's, let's use Spongebob Squarepants for example, though may use cartoon humor for the sake of entertaining children, still maintained lessons based on societal concerns such as not ceding to peer pressure and the importance of being oneself as shown in the episode, "Ripped Pants" (1999). Whereas, a modern episode of Spongebob Squarepants from the 2007-2012 era utilizes dull story plots and disturbing animation for the sake of mundane entertainment for children. The Spongebob episode, "House Fancy" (2008), is an example of this, where the lesson is unclear, and unsettling graphics (most notably a detailed depiction of a character's toenail and skin being scraped off by the leg of a sofa) were used to seemingly gain a response from its audience. Since children are the target audience, I find it difficult to understand why disturbing graphics seems to be a trend amongst modern cartoon TV shows supposedly meant for kids, which only furthers my argument that children's entertainment of today is more hindering than beneficial, and lacks a lesson or purpose. In the respect of children's movies, I believe that there is still an effort to push out a sort of message to kids, however, I do not believe these messages run as deep as the messages of children's movies from earlier decades. An example being Mulan (1998), which tells a tale about a girl who joins a militia opened only for men. Like children's movies today, the story does indeed teach a lesson of courage and bravery, however, there seems to be a dual lesson that runs into the more mature areas of social concerns such as sexism and discrimination. Religion and familial strains are also involved in the movie, and a question of societal correctness is tested overall throughout the film. I feel that such deeper lessons are not typically found in modern children's films, where the brightness of animation has been heightened, and and the level of lesson and or purpose are lowered for the sake of political correctness. Sources: 1. www.dictionary.com 2. "Spongebob Squarepants" show; www.spongebob.nick.com; "House Fancy";"Ripped Pants" 3. www.imdb.com/Mulan
Children's Movies and TV Shows of the of the Recent Decades have become Less Meaningful

However, I have noticed a lack of definitions. Therefore, I would like to offer forth some definitions to guide this debate. Children's movies: motion pictures featured in theatres designed ( or rated) for people under the age of 18 Children's TV Shows: a program broadcrasted by television designed for people under the age of 18 Recent Decades: Movies and TV shows released and running during 2000 - 2012 Meaningful: full of meaning, significance, purpose or value I look forward to my opponent's arguments! Sources: 1. www. dictionary. com
Children's Movies and TV Shows of the of the Recent Decades have become Less Meaningful

INTRODUCTION: The quality of children's movies and TV shows has fallen over the previous decade and the unfortunate trend has carried over into this decade as well. The movies once intended for children with deeper and more serious messages have long faded, and now, all what seems to be left is bright, colorful images that depict positive, yet superficial messages of determination and friendship. Though I agree the messages of modern movies such as Madagascar and Cars are good and are meant to send out positivity to young audiences, it is clear that they lack in moral impact in comparison to the dual and more mature lessons of classic children's movies such as Pocahontas, Mulan, Lion King, and even Dumbo. In the aspect of children's television, the majority of modern day cartoons have deteriorated into a single lump of nonsensical entertainment, with little to no attempt to create an actual lesson or purpose. My argument is that children's movies and television shows of today have become more censored or limited in order to maintain what is seen as politically correct diversions for children, but the act is more hindering than beneficial, and has consequently dragged down the overall quality of children's modern entertainment.
Children's Movies and TV Shows of the of the Recent Decades have become Less Meaningful

I accept her definition of quality. I would now like to take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent and bring forth some arguments myself. Still maintained lessons based on societal concerns such as not ceding to peer pressure and the importance of being oneself. Of course, is learning how to laugh, have fun, and just be a kid not an important lesson too also portrayed in almost every SpongeBob episode? Are episodes such as “The Secret Box” (aired in 2001) not important lessons in curiosity, and respect for other’s property? “House Fancy” also taught us important lessons, such as the penalties of jealousy, envy, and the value of help. [1] Clearly, SpongeBob is the living epitome of “excellence. ” Since children are the target audience, I find it difficult to understand why disturbing graphics seems to be a trend amongst modern cartoon TV shows supposedly meant for kids. My opponent has only provided one example of disturbing graphics and I find it hard to believe that shows such as Pokémon or Yugi-oh! Have “disturbing graphics”. I would invite my opponent to show us when such graphics appeared in other shows. TV shows supposedly meant for kids, which only furthers my argument that children’s entertainment of today is more hindering than beneficial, and lacks a lesson or purpose. My opponent is under the delusion that every TV show needs to carry a lesson, or moral. What happened to the times that you watched a cartoon just for the sake of laughter? Is learning to have fun not important? I do not believe that these messages run as deep as the messages of children’s movies from earlier decades. One of the most impactful and meaningful movies ever, Toy Story 3 was released in 2010. It emphasized friendship, the child within, loyalty, and self-value. Woody desperately tries to return to Andy, while Lotso remains adamant that they are all garbage, destined to end up in the trash. Woody refuses to believe that he is “trash” and believes that Lotso’s anger stems from his “replacement” when in reality his owner had accidently lost him and still loved Lotso very much. Is this not a meaningful film? These recent decades have seen the most meaningful films ever. The Harry Potter series – friendship, bravery, courage The Lord of the Rings – friendship and good vs evil Click – the value of our life and our fleeting time here Lilo and Stitch – friendship and loyalty Monsters Inc – love and compassion Shrek – inner beauty How can anyone say that this decade has been lacking in meaningful children’s movies? Clearly, these recent decades have had extremely meaningful television shows and movies. VOTE CON. SOURCES 1. . http://spongebob.wikia.com... 2. . http://gentlyhewstone.com...
Men should be able to abandon their child

I'll just go down the line: -We do not have ANY say in what the money (taxes) is spent on...it is true that we can vote out the representatives that spent it, but the money is long gone by then...moving out of the country does not give you a say in what the taxes you have already paid get spent on... -"according to the law, the choice of the woman to continue the pregnancy or not is the real reason that both adults assume some responsibility. The man has no say in the matter and is, currently, at the whim of the woman's decision."....True...doesn't change the fact that the man is morally responsible for the child.....I said man not because only he is responsible, but because I thought it was a given that the woman is responsible. -"How can you legally bind one person to another? Neither are married. You are suggesting some kind of indentured servitude on the man's part. The law does not recognize an unborn child as a citizen or a human being so it has no status and might as well not exist pertaining to legal matters."...Well, I thought we were talking morality not legality....remember? "If my opponent wishes to take this onto moral grounds then I shall try my best to accommodate."...So, I am morally (and legally, I guess since a man can't abandon the child currently) binding the man to his CHILD, not the woman....she just comes with the kid....As for the law not recognizing the child, again, we are talking morality since you said "should". -Yes the law can change, but right now it is what it is. -There is good and evil....putting aside religion, we can see that it benefits the child to have a father...thats good... -"I ask what my opponents basis is for morality. Is it religion? Law? perhaps a combination of his own personal feelings and thoughts? What is normal and right for one culture could be entirely different for another. The couples of Sparta left their children to die on a mountain side if they did not immediately appear to be in good health. That was perfectly moral to them."....Basis for morality is my common sense and observations I have made over my lifetime....If you talk about this country's laws then you can't talk about the morality of other cultures... -"They are not killing the child, nor are they harming the mother."...the absence of a father harms the child..."after the mother made a decision for him that he could not honor."....HE made the decision when he had sex with her.... -"On the basis of sex, I believe both people are equally responsible for any fetus's formed. If it is consensual, how can the man be more responsible? It baffles me how some people still believe it is the man's fault for a pregnancy."...I never said the man was MORE responsible...morally, he and the mother should both care for the child. I thank you for posing the debate and look forward to arguing over something more defined. Thank you.
Men should be able to abandon their child

"In terms of money and time, we are all restricted to what we can and cannot do...it's a bad comparison...we don't have a choice in the amount of taxes we pay or what the money is spent on." ---We do indeed have the right to choose, to an extent, what the money is used for, and if we do not like taxes we can simply move out of this country and maybe find some secluded place where there are no taxes. Unpractical? yes, but the option is there. There is no legal binding that states you have to remain where you are and pay these fees. Much unlike how some men are forced into paying for children they do not want, nor intended to conceive. "The sexual act that resulted in the pregnancy was engaged in by two consenting adults, so the responsibility of the child must bear upon both individuals." ---according to the law, the choice of the woman to continue the pregnancy or not is the real reason that both adults assume some responsibility. The man has no say in the matter and is, currently, at the whim of the woman's decision. "Even before the child is born, the father should not be allowed to abandon the mother, and therefore the child." ---How can you legally bind one person to another? Neither are married. You are suggesting some kind of indentured servitude on the man's part. The law does not recognize an unborn child as a citizen or a human being so it has no status and might as well not exist pertaining to legal matters. "Legally: A father can't abandon the child...the mother can before it is born...just the facts" ---The law can change. "Morally: Neither the mother or the father should be able to abandon the baby THEY created....the baby didn't create itself and has every right to live...with the support of both parents." ---Unless you are living in a society controlled by laws, all actions are inherently amoral. When we start attaching stigmas and punishments to certain actions we create good and evil. ========= I ask what my opponents basis is for morality. Is it religion? Law? perhaps a combination of his own personal feelings and thoughts? What is normal and right for one culture could be entirely different for another. The couples of Sparta left their children to die on a mountain side if they did not immediately appear to be in good health. That was perfectly moral to them. What I am proposing is that men should be able to abandon their child. They are not killing the child, nor are they harming the mother. And if a man chooses this path, perhaps he was better off not being a father to the child at all, instead of the imposed position they must adhere to by law. All they are doing is removing themselves from the picture, legally, after the mother made a decision for him that he could not honor. On the basis of sex, I believe both people are equally responsible for any fetus's formed. If it is consensual, how can the man be more responsible? It baffles me how some people still believe it is the man's fault for a pregnancy. I'd like to thank you for accepting my debate, its my first one and very fun. perhaps we can argue over something more defined next time around.
Men should be able to abandon their child

"it is undeniable that nobody should be restricted to what they can and can't do to their bodies. But what about in terms of money and time?"-- In terms of money and time, we are all restricted to what we can and cannot do...it's a bad comparison...we don't have a choice in the amount of taxes we pay or what the money is spent on. The sexual act that resulted in the pregnancy was engaged in by two consenting adults, so the responsibility of the child must bear upon both individuals. Even before the child is born, the father should not be allowed to abandon the mother, and therefore the child. The father has a moral obligation to take care of his child, and since it is being carried by the mother, he has to take care of her to do so. To clarify: Legally: A father can't abandon the child...the mother can before it is born...just the facts Morally: Neither the mother or the father should be able to abandon the baby THEY created....the baby didn't create itself and has every right to live...with the support of both parents.
Men should be able to abandon their child

If my opponent wishes to take this onto moral grounds then I shall try my best to accommodate. My opponent stated that "in the case of abortion, the liberal argument that it is morally wrong for a woman to be forced to carry her baby to term has won out" and it is undeniable that nobody should be restricted to what they can and can't do to their bodies. But what about in terms of money and time? For example: the women has made her choice pertaining to her body. The sexual act which resulted in her pregnancy was performed by two consenting individuals. Since the man has no say in what the woman does, is it not by common sense he should be able to relinquish his own connection to her? By legal terms no baby exists yet. Being able to make the choice to formally renounce the woman and her child should be an option on the table if both parties do not see eye to eye on the issue.