BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Virgin Mary (Catholic VS Protestant View)

Thank you again for allowing me to debate this with you and I'd like to start off with a quick post about Blessed Mary being the Mother of God. In a way you are correct that she did bear God, but in my opinion it would make much more sense if we were to say that Mary was the Blessed Mother of The Lord or God the Son. This way it really clarifies that we're not talking about the Triune God. I will admit that I didn't really know about some of those quotes by the Early Church Fathers and it was a great source of information. The title of this debate is Catholic vs Protestant Mary...... Hm well the one tricky thing about this is that the majority of Protestant Founders believed in Perpetual Viginity, Sinless Conception, and even considered her the Mother of God. Even a vast majority of Protestant Churches such as the Anglican and Lutheran hold many of these beliefs to this day. With this said it may seem hard to differntiat the Catholic and Protestant Mary. I'm going to have to also point out that the Conversion of Constantine, as far as I know, was not a deathbed conversion. He was in a battle where he supposedly saw a vison of the Cross where he was able to win the battle. After that he spent quite a bit of time as emperor building a new "Christian" Church. Strange thing is that the Christians of the time saw Constantine as a greater threat than the Roman persecutions. Now I'd like to, Lord Willing, bring up my arguments on the Perpetual Virginity. Why does the Catholic Church defend this doctrine so much? Well actually this doctrine goes hand in hand with the Immacualte Conception. The Catholic Church used to believe that Sex was actually a sin, but a necessary one to commit. That may be primarily why the defend the Blessed Mothers' Virginity. But then we started to realize that Sex isn't a sin at all in the boundaries of a lawful marriage. Therefore in my opinion her Virginity doesn't affect her Sinlessness( If it's True). Catholic teaching states that Virginity is the intact conservation of the hymen in which it would have naturally been lost at Jesus birth. To say otherwise would be a forced interpretation of the text. Now let's look at the word till in Mathew 1:25. The Greek Heos hou doesn't guarantee that it means afterward, but on the other hand it always seems to mean after in the majority of places in the rest of the New Testament. We also need to remember that Mathews Book was written between 40-70 AD in which he could of, if he wanted to, taken out te word till and made it clear that she was ever Virgin, but he didn't which leaves quite a bit of room for doubt. It also says that Jesus was Mary's First Born Son. Firstborn comes from protos and tikito which means to beget. Also, a chapter before it says John was Elizabeth's son while Jesus was firstborn, not meaning most important or preeminent like in other verses, but begotten. I'll turn it back over to you
The Virgin Mary (Catholic VS Protestant View)

Let me, Lord willing, start off with one of my personal thoughts as to why Roman Catholics should not call Mary the Mother of God. The simple answer to this is that the Early Christians, besides a few heretical groups, never considered her as such. It wasn't until the time of Constantine when people incorporated it into Christianity in order to convert many pagans who held high esteemes for a Mother godess and a god child. If these traditions started in paganism than why should we disgrace both The Lord Jesus and his Mother by doing this? My second reason why I don't agree with the Catholic stance regarding Mary is that it only confuses non Christians. Many Muslims, Atheists, and pagans know that Christians believe in one Almighty God in 3 distinct persons that we call the Trinity. They hear the title Mother of God and they put 2 and 2 together that Mary is Mother of Father, Son, and Spirit! !! Even in the Quran Muhammed said he thought Mary was a Christian godess considering how much they bowed and prayed to her. This led even more precious Muslims from Christianity. My third reason is that we have no idea if "Full of Grace" means Sinless. Those words themselves are not in the majority of manuscripts and they instead say "Highly Favored. " But lets assume for a second that it should mean Full of Grace. Well Stephen is said to have been Full of Grace when he was about to be stoned and saw Jesus Christ at the right hand of Almighty God. Did Stephen experience the same sinless conception? Now for the big question of was Mary a sinner. The Bible says All have sinned and most certainly Mary is in that all. She also offered 2 doves for a sin offering after Jesus was born and said "My Soul rejoiceth in God my Savior. " Mary knew she needed her Blessed Son Jesus Christ to save her! Was Mary forever a Virgin? Well Scritpure says Joseph didn't have sex with her UNTIL Jesus was born. It's right there to read in Mathew 1:25. Did she have Children? Yes the Bible also says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Many Catholics say the Greek word could mean cousins, but this is highly unlikely considering cousins has it's own special word. And we also have the story where Mary and Joseph lost Jesus at the Temple. I believe they were traveling for 2 whole days before they realized! So did Mary sin by not caring for Jesus, or were there other Children, Jesus was 2 at this time I believe, who she was caring for. Let me tell you kids get lost in those big families. Thanks for listening to me and I'll turn it over to you.
Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.

My opponnent states that " Not having stats doesn't mean your argument is unsound. " but in this case it does. Were debating changing the prison system of the united states, so for a plan to be valid it must have some proven evidence so we can hypothoseis which out come will be favorable. My case offers a multitude of evidence to prove that valuing rehabilitation will lead to many positive changes. My opponnent has no proof that refutes my claims or proves this. Thus the only logiucal thing to do is to look at the facts and vote pro. In my case i do value both but the main point is to make rehabilitation the primary goal. I prove through facts that doing this will lead to many positive changes, and my opponnent fails to disprove this. My opponent states he can value both, this is true, but he must value retribution over rehabilitation, and in my case i prove that doing this is not as sucessful as valuing rehabilitation over retribution.
Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.

Whelp, this is dissapointing. She's not really making any kind of attempt to engage with the NC other than to say that I never give any kind of stats so I'm wrong and that it's "valued above" so she can do both. I'll respond to both before going back over the NC.Her first response is that I don't give any kind of stats to back up my case, therefore my case is false. First, she doesn't explain why not having stats means I'm wrong, she just bare asserts it.Second, it's entirely fallacious. Not having stats doesn't mean your argument is unsound. Third, you prefer analytics over empirics anyway because analytics are the only reason why empirics have any kind of weight. Analytical arguments are why stats have any kind of impacts for debates. If we say that only stats matter in terms of providing warrants, then it would be impossible to answer the question "Why do we care about statistics" without relying on circular logic. So that response fails. Next move on to her other response of she can value both and so she can still provide for suffering meaning she de-links herself from the harms.First, hold her to her definition of valued, specifically where she said under it "I advocate for a system where rehabilitation is primary," which means she's biting directly into the harms of the NC. Second, by that logic there's no reason why I can't just value both as well and co-opt all of her offense. If she's advancing this argument there's no reason I can't take her offense as well which means a) I have a solid link into her framework whereas she can't have one into mine since my entire advocacy is rejecting the affirmative, and b) this refutes her "I have no stats" argument because if I have access to her contentions then I now have stats. Third, if she isn't advocating for rehab over retribution then she doesn't actually fulfill her cost-benefit analysis framework because she'd be supporting something that she is claiming doesn't work. It's a blatant contradiction on her part. She also makes the claim that I don't respond to any of her studies but the thing is that I don't really have to. My case functions apriori to her case. Recidivism rates and losing money won't matter if we're devaluing what it means to be human. Because my case a) functions apriori to the affirmative case and b) functions as a case turn to the affirmative case, if I'm winning on my case then I win the debate. Extend out all of my offense (Long, Long 2, and Strauss) because they were effectively unresponded to. They prove why suffering is necessary for us to experience in order to understand our own humanity and fatality in our mode of being. Without suffering we lose any kind of value in being human, so any kind of action that reduces the amount of suffering in the world is something we instantly reject. Her arguments for rehabilitation reduce the amount of suffering in the world, therefore we instantly reject the affirmative case.
Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.

Im my opponents case all his evidence comes from people theorizing that suffering is necessary. He does not state any proven facts or statistics. I also stated it my case that " the resolution uses "valued above", that does not mean I have to value just one and disregard the other. I can value some retribution; thus, I advocate for a system where rehabilitation is primary, while retribution is the fallback. " So his entire case over how suffering is necessary is Irrelevant, because I am not advocating for no suffering im advocating for a focus on retribution. He also failed to refute my studies on why rehabilitation is better.
The troop Surge is a viable solution to the situation in Iraq.

The troop surge is justifiable on the basis of fewer casualties. The troop surges in Iraq are not there as an "Offensive" force, but instead as a police force that will HELP stabilize the country, we as the United States are not looking for a "solution" to Iraq, what we are striving for is to set up a system that will let the Iraqi people themselves solve themselves. Advocating a pullout is advocating leaving a hostile, unstable country without support. The surge was necessary, maybe not just, or morally correct, but necessary, and we both know the only viable solution is to let the Iraqis slove themselves, the US involvment is only temparary, i am no advocating a long term commitment at this level, but instead a commitment of just those 2-4 years in which i believe we could stabalize the democracy, continue training the the IM (Insurgents are not going to take any part of US involvment, they're are to headstrong in this battle)and set them on their own track to peace. The Voters on this are going to be: 1. They only need time, not decades, but years 2. The IM is on its way to a state at which it can acieve its own goals 3. That even with political solutions, they are no use without a military to back them, and that with a society that is so based on violence, military action is the only solution 4. Democratic Soluitions only work with governments that are in control. no matter how badly you try, a government without any power can't make decisions, we need the troops to enforce the rulings. 5.advocating a Stop to the violence through a weak government is unpractical, you must have power in order to use it.. In this Debate, you see that the surge is the only way to reach the peace, and that we dont need to sustain this for decades, only for a few more years. The IM is going to work. In our Revolutionary War we would have lost if not through the generous help of other countries, we are those generous countries and this is Iraq's revolion, This is the only way to help the problem YOU MUST VOTE IN FAVOR
The troop Surge is a viable solution to the situation in Iraq.

1. It will continue working the troop surge has increased the success in Iraq, and we have no reason to believe that it will stop doing so. Proven empiraclly, more troops means more effeciant. 2. We didn't have enough troops in the first place. When we went into Iraq, we didn't have enough troops to begin with, and we kind of screwed ourselves over, we are now paying for that, and we now have troops to effectively patrol Iraq. I doubt we will ever achieve "complete success", but the surge has helped reduce casualties overall, and that is achieving what we need right now, something to hold off the insurgents until the Iraqi Military(IM) can do their job. 3. The IM is currently ineffective The IM is, now, inefficiant and needs the support that the surge gives, and the ability to train the IM(Iraqi Military) to a point where it is able to work independently, the surge provides the troops to do so. Off of my opponents: 1. even though the violence stems from Political reasons, there is no reason to try to help reduce this violence, which the surge does. The police force in the US helps prevent crime in the US and they don't really care where the violence stems from 2.Iraq has become dependant on us, but we can't look at that as a bad thing, for now once we get this straightend out, we will have an ally in the midst of turmoil and hostility. We set the country unstable, and now we have to fix it, or we will loose some of our ally's. We have an obligation to be there now, and the surge has helped us effectively fulfill this obligation. 3. As stated in my offense, we have no reason to believe that it will just stop working. 4. The troop surge is not going against our values, we are doing what is needed for the good of Iraq, Us, and the Region, which is what we are trying to do. the value we are trying to install in the region is peace, and in order for things to get better is for things to first get worse. You now see that the surge is necessary, and effective. The surge has provided a solution for the IM not being effective, you see that we buy time for Iraq to build up a military capable of holding their own against the insurgents. You see that now matter how you look at it, the surge can only be deemed "Bad" by the amount of troops taken from the US, but that is part of war, and that is what these Men and Women signed up for.
The troop Surge is a viable solution to the situation in Iraq.

Though the recent troop surge has shown that violence has been decreased within Iraq, this clearly cannot be a permanent solution for these reasons: 1) that the violence in Iraq stem from Political Issues. 2) that the Iraqi Gov't has grown to rely on the United States, and not enough effort has been made to solve problems- so why should we take their burdens for them 3) the decrease in violence will only be temporary 4) maintaining peace through a troop surge is against the values we are trying to instill within the region.
People who skip school skip for a reason more than being bad

First of all, I'm not too sure about what a moral is but I'll try my best. What I mean by "I believe that people who skip school skip for for a more personal reason", I mean that when kids get punished for skipping, the first thing that the counselor or whatever will think is that the kid is a troublemaker. People nowadays don't really take the time to ever think about a good reason why that kid would be skipping classes. Basically, there is a WAY better excuse than "Because I wasn't thinking."
People who skip school skip for a reason more than being bad

It wasn't meant as an insult. If you're going to use a round contemplating on how I debate instead of what I debate, then that is entirely up to you. If something has happened in a child's life that has perhaps "traumatized" them, would that not affect them? How are we to know how that will affect them. It could affect the physically or morally. If a child isn't brought up right, they won't know right from wrong.
People who skip school skip for a reason more than being bad

You should lose your conduct point for using 'british' as an insult? This is indicating that to be annoying is to be british and that is very prejudiced and hence against the very nature of a formal debate.Your resolution makes no sense. You say "People who skip school skip because something is affecting them to do things like this." This is not at all a proposition or something to debate. It is as if I were to say "People who buy thing because something makes them want to buy it." Where is the debate?...
gay marriag should be allowde ym guy

Marriage is a nonsense. And sexual gratification is a momentary exertion. No matter how you choose to achieve it. Don't be fooled. What your brain is actually telling you to do is reproduce. And then carry on with something else until the next time. Until you are to old to bother anymore. And eventually you will die. And all effort and all exertion will be rendered worthless. So have fun whilst it lasts. And eventually the Earth will be engulfed by the Sun. By which time gay or straight or lesbian or transgender or robot or whatever astronauts my or may not have thrown off the shackles of their earth bound prison.
iPods are taking the magic out of music.

Whether the iPod is good or not directly correlates to whether it takes value away from music. And the iPod devalues music because it makes it easier to listen to? TURN: People value music higher when it is easier to access. Personally, back in the CD era, I would want to ear a song, dig through my CD's, then stop half-way through because it was too much work for one song. The iPod solves that, thus adding value. And to attack his "painting" example: are you making the songs you listen to? No. So that example CANNOT be cross-applied because it uses a different sort of logic. And yes, it has "taken away the rarity of music." That's a good thing. Now I can actually hear WHAT I WANT TO HEAR! That certainly seems like no bad thing. Why do you try to convince me that hearing what I want is a bad thing? Also, extend my argument that those around DON'T want to hear music. Extend that people don't want to wok for music. Extend that I bought CD's last night. You have to vote Negative.
iPods are taking the magic out of music.

First of all. My opponent seems to be pulling this debate in the direction of whether iPods are good or not. And that is not what the debate is about at all. I personally love my iPod. I think easy listening it great. But that is not what this debate is about. It is about whether or not the iPod takes value out of the time spent listening. I would say that it does simply because it makes it easier. Would you value a painting more if you had to paint it yourself? Yes. Would you value money more if you had to earn it yourself? Yes. And would you value the time you spend listening to music if you had to do more than just press a few buttons. I think yes. My point here is that as easy as the iPod has made listening to music, it has also devalued it in our own eyes. It had taken away the rarity of music and thus has taken away a bit of the magic. Thank you---
iPods are taking the magic out of music.

I accept my opponent's definition. Let it be noted that it says "the time you spend listening to music." This excludes the work you had to do for it, only including the actual listening itself. Also, people don't want to have to work for music. Why is that any fun thing? It's not. I have stacks and drawers of CD's, and I hate going through them to find what I want. Also, I listen to much different music than my family, and they DON'T want to hear my music. When I'm jogging, neighbors don't want to hear Slipknot at 3 in the morning. And radio stations went out of business in the CD-player era, so this is non-unique. And what major artist isn't putting out physical copies of songs anymore? I personally have an iPod touch, and I still buy CD's. I actually bought three last night at a concert I went to. Also, note my opponent's use of the phrase "easy listening iPod and others provide." EXACTLY! I want it to be easy for me to listen to music. You ignore all the advantages I claim. Negate.
iPods are taking the magic out of music.

first off I would like to better define "magic", by magic I mean the value you give to the time you spend listening to music. When you can play any one of thousands of songs in just a click of a button, it devalues the time spent listening to that song because you don't have to actually work for it. You don't have to look through stacks of albums or wait for the radio to play the song you want. Also, the iPod has made listening to music a non-social event. You see people all the time with those white buds stuck in their ears; dousn't this get rid of the joy of listening to the music with friends and family? My oponnent also stated that if you wanted to listen to the radio and alternative ways of listening to music, you still can. But I would argue that this option will not be around for long.Already radio stations are being put out of business and artists are no longer offering tangable albums or CD's because of the easy listening iPod and others provide.
iPods are taking the magic out of music.

I must negate the implied resolution "iPods take the magic out of music. " Let it be known that I am not limiting this debate to the iPod, but I will refer to that as a representative of the MP3 player. My opponent starts off by talking about how special hearing your favorite song/artist was when you were required to use a CD player. However, why should iPods diminish this "specialty? " If you were so pressed to keep this so-called "magic" you would limit yourself to how many times you listened to a certain song. You are not bound by any means to listen to a song just because it's on your iPod. Also, if you wanted to go back to the days of when radio was popular, you would simply listen to the radio. I find that obvious. TURN: The iPod gives more magic to music. This is because I can listen to it whenever I want. Also, of course a song won't be the same as it first was after you've heard it multiple times.
iPods are taking the magic out of music.

Do you remember when to listen to music you had to actually but a CD in a Cd player? Remember how it was a special treat to listen to your favorite song or artist? How you had to listen to the radio for hours to get to that one song you wanted to hear? Well that isn't the case today, because companies like Apple are mass producing affordable portable music players. The best example of this is the iPod. You can store over 40,000 songs on today's iPod. Don't you think that having so many songs at your fingertips kinda takes a bit of the magic out off listening to music? For instance; once upon a time you used to just sit and listen to music. Now you listen to it while jogging, while eating, while reading the paper, while doing homework. To be honost with you, I am listening to Belle of the Boulevard by Dashboard Confessional on my iPod as I write this. And sure enough, this song hasn't given me shivers like it did when I first heard it on the radio ever since it went on my iPod.