BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Man is the master of everything and decides everything

Ok, to be clear I am taking the role of Con and have no burden to prove the resolution true, that burden rests on Pro, I shall take the stance of arguing that man is not the master of everything and verily does not decide everything. First I would like to give some definitions as my opponent never bothered to provide any. Definition of Man an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman http://dictionary.reference.com... Definition of Master 3. One who has control over or ownership of something: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Definition of everything : all that exists http://www.merriam-webster.com... Note; I do not need to show that God is the master of everything to win this debate, All I need to do as Con, is show that man is not the master, which is defined in this debate as someone who has control or ownership over everything. If the resolution is negated then I win. As the first round is used for definitions and acceptance only, I will let my opponent proceed with his first argument. Good Luck.
Jesus- Son of God or Light among Men

Here is a quote from Wikipedia, "And if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain-" attributed to the Apostle Paul. The part of this that shows is the idea of inerrancy of the Bible. If things happened just as they are said to have in the Bible, then one cannot argue against it, one cannot argue against Jesus, and on cannot argue against Christianity. However, if Jesus is a man--one can argue against him if he was wrong. Now, it is not likely he lied about something so important as his own Godhood and still be considered honest. But, we well know (in at least less dramatic examples) one can lie and not be a liar--such as telling your girlfriend who has put on some weight that she is not fat. In the case of Jesus, he might have had some reason us less developed humans wouldn't understand. Matthew 5:16 "Le your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in Heaven." http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com... This quote is directed towards followers of Christ during the Sermon on the Mount. It hints that he is the Father of them all and they are all equal Sons and Daughters of the Lord. But, here is a way one could lie about the resurrection, with a possible purpose in mind that is greater than oneself. He knew his spirit would rise from the dead because his followers would live his example, which he thought was good and expressed God. Thus he is the Son of God sheparding in all of His other followers.
Jesus- Son of God or Light among Men

Thanks to my opponent for taking the time to offer his thoughts. As I stated in my opening round, we both agree Jesus was a good person, so I won't spend any time defending that part of the issue. REBUTTALS Last round, my opponent said: "For the second part what I argue will be twofold. First, if he was not the Son of God he would not be perfect. Thus he could lie about one thing and not another. Maybe he found claiming to be the Son of God as not as important as all those other things he did." MY RESPONSE: As I pointed out earlier, if Jesus lied, I win the debate. But don't take my words for it. Read Pro's first round argument again. He clearly states he will be arguing against the idea that Jesus was a liar. So, if Jesus lied, I win. Con went on to say: "The second is maybe he did see himself as the Son of God, not because he is special, but because we are all Sons and Daughters of God, perfect just as He created each one of us. He often refers to God as his Father, but God is the Father of us all. Jesus also refers to Himself as Lord and Master. " MY RESPONSE: As you can see from last round, I quoted Jesus saying He was THE son of God, not A son of God. So He wasn't comparing Himself to all of us, but rather singling Himself out as THE one and only Son of God. Then Con said: "Now, this is harder to explain, but could be due to being seen as the "Host of Man," the man sent by God to usher in a new Christian era. Thus he would not be the Son of God in the sense that he was more Godly than any one of us, but only in the sense that the purpose that sort of God sent him for was to play that role as leader of a new order on Earth." MY RESPONSE: Con offers no evidence to support his claim, and as such, his claim should be rejected as baseless.
Jesus- Son of God or Light among Men

Thank you for having this debate. The approach I will attempt is one not towards dissuasion, but merely to show this argument does not constitute a proof. First I will show Jesus to be a good person, irregardless of his statements of Godhood. To do so I will ask you to consider three things he has said and the ways in which he lived up to those statements. First, he asks us to love thy neighbor. He lives up to this time when on several occasions he was kind to strangers, for instance taking in a feeding hungry people. He tells us to not judge lest ye be judged and we can find his actions meet his words when he helps prostitutes who are in danger. He said love thy enemy and was so courageous that he even forgave the Romans who executed him. This shows without a doubt he was a good person. For the second part what I argue will be twofold. First, if he was not the Son of God he would not be perfect. Thus he could lie about one thing and not another. Maybe he found claiming to be the Son of God as not as important as all those other things he did. The second is maybe he did see himself as the Son of God, not because he is special, but because we are all Sons and Daughters of God, perfect just as He created each one of us. He often refers to God as his Father, but God is the Father of us all. Jesus also refers to Himself as Lord and Master. Now, this is harder to explain, but could be due to being seen as the "Host of Man," the man sent by God to usher in a new Christian era. Thus he would not be the Son of God in the sense that he was more Godly than any one of us, but only in the sense that the purpose that sort of God sent him for was to play that role as leader of a new order on Earth.
Jesus- Son of God or Light among Men

Both of us agree that Jesus was a good person, so we won't be debating that issue. What we will be debating is a two-fold question: 1. Did Jesus claim to be "the Son of God"? 2. If he did make that claim, but wasn't really the Son of God, does that mean he told a lie or was crazy? I would assert the answer to both questions is YES. My opponent claims the answer is NO. EVIDENCE FOR MY CLAIM: John 10:36 records Jesus saying He is the Son of God: "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? " So that takes care of question number 1. Now on to question 2. Since Jesus claimed to be "the Son of God", that leaves us with only three possibilities: 1. He was the Son of God (which means I win the debate). 2. He wasn't the Son of God, and knew that he wasn't. This would make what he said a lie (which means I win the debate). 3. He wasn't the Son of God, but thought he was. This would mean he was crazy (which means that I win the debate). There is no fourth option. Any way you look at it, I have already won this debate. I look forward to reading my opponent's response.
Jesus- Son of God or Light among Men

Was Jesus the Son of God? Pro argues along these lines--Jesus claimed to be such divine spirit, the Son of God. If one accepts this fact and considers Jesus a good person, he must indeed be the Son of God. Otherwise one must consider him to be a liar or a lunatic. I will argue the con, which does not exclude the possibility Jesus of Nazareth could be a heavenly figure and not literally be the Son of God--while still maintaining he is a good person and not a liar nor lunatic. I hope to be creative with my argument and ask my opponent to consider the same approach.
Jesus- Son of God or Light among Men

Con began his last round describing what he claimed was a fourth option (besides the three I described in round one), but then said he wasn't claiming it really happened. So that would imply that what really happened was one of the other three scenarios. .. which means I win. Then Con went on to say: "However, this is not what I am attempting to show, in as many words. He genuinely believed he was THE Son of God, I think. But, I think he was mistaken not in the sense he isn't, but in the sense we all are. " MY RESPONSE: THIS IS A CONCESSION from Con. He just said Jesus is the Son of God. He went on to inexplicably say there can be more than one THE Son of God, but that's irrelevant. The resolution of the debate clearly states that I would be arguing for calling Jesus the Son of God, and Con would be arguing against that. Con then also inexplicably claimed that maybe we can't trust what the Bible says Jesus did, but if you remember, Con has referenced the Bible several times when trying to establish Jesus being a good man. So, since he wanted us to accept it earlier in the debate, it's too late to say it's not trustworthy now. Again, in his final paragraph, Con says Jesus was the Son of God. That's a concession. So I have won the debate.
Jesus- Son of God or Light among Men

I would like to start this round by simply stating there is a fourth possibility--Jesus was a fool, in that he legitimately thought he was the Son of God and had good reason to think so, but was wrong. So this is a fourth option, that he was merely wrong and in such a way no one could fault his reasoning, However, this is not what I am attempting to show, in as many words. He genuinely believed he was THE Son of God, I think. But, I think he was mistaken not in the sense he isn't, but in the sense we all are. There is also good reason for him to think in this way. He is said to have done a great many good things in a world that had a lot of bad things in it. He also had many followers who saw him in a manner that would naturally lead him to believe he was a higher being. This is not to say he was an egomaniac. But rather, he believed in God, believed in such a grand purpose, and believed this purpose was given to him by God--it was just natural for him to think such a thing. Now, this is the turning point of the argument--if Jesus was not inerrant and the Bible is not inerrant, either one of them could be wrong. Maybe the authors of the Bible put words in Jesus's mouth--or maybe Jesus didn't truly understand who he was. I would also like to point out the impact believing these different Christian pillars to be infallible has. For if they are infallible we cannot question them, we can only interpret them, which does a disservice to both us and them. We can and should question the Bible, otherwise we are following blindly or corrupting its meaning with our own. My argument is this, Jesus is not the Son of God any more than any of us are the Sons and Daughters of God. What sets him apart from everyone else is he was the first of his kind, which would make him the Light among Men.
Jesus- Son of God or Light among Men

Con said: "Here is a quote from Wikipedia, "And if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain-" attributed to the Apostle Paul. The part of this that shows is the idea of inerrancy of the Bible. If things happened just as they are said to have in the Bible, then one cannot argue against it, one cannot argue against Jesus, and on cannot argue against Christianity. However, if Jesus is a man--one can argue against him if he was wrong." MY RESPONSE: Unless of course He was BOTH God AND man. .. then you still shouldn't argue against Him because He's never wrong ... even though He's a man. MY OPPONENT ADMITS HIS CLAIM IS UNLIKELY: "Now, it is not likely he lied about something so important as his own Godhood and still be considered honest. But, we well know (in at least less dramatic examples) one can lie and not be a liar--such as telling your girlfriend who has put on some weight that she is not fat. In the case of Jesus, he might have had some reason us less developed humans wouldn't understand." MY RESPONSE: If it's not likely Jesus lied, then the opposite IS true. It would be likely He told the truth about being the Son of God. And if that's the case, then I win the debate. Con continues: "Matthew 5:16 "Le your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in Heaven." http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com...... This quote is directed towards followers of Christ during the Sermon on the Mount. It hints that he is the Father of them all and they are all equal Sons and Daughters of the Lord." MY RESPONSE: So here Con claims Jesus is saying we are all equal Sons of God, but earlier we read about Jesus claiming to be THE Son of God. So if that's the case, then Jesus lied. And if He lied about being the Son of God, then I win the debate. MY OPPONENT ADMITS JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD: "But, here is a way one could lie about the resurrection, with a possible purpose in mind that is greater than oneself. He knew his spirit would rise from the dead because his followers would live his example, which he thought was good and expressed God. Thus he is the Son of God sheparding in all of His other followers." MY RESPONSE: Notice the last sentence of the quote above, "Thus he is the Son of God..." I accept my opponent's concession and thank him for an interesting discussion. I have won the debate.
White People Truly Are More Beautiful Compared to Other Races

Sorry bruh, I've been busy on debates and hadn't realised I forfeited : Oh well, I'll respond to your arguments on round 3: "My opponent seemed to be only talking about the desirable Asian female physical characteristics. The title of this debate refers to not just women but both men and women." Touch" In that case, I will name a race with both good looking men and women. One of the most attractive races on earth for both men and women are Brazilians. Their ranked second and third for both men and women, respectively. Though Columbian and British have higher ranks for men and women respectively, they are mutually exclusive. Brazilians, on the other hand, are a good all-rounder (as shown above), which better represents both men and women. http://travel.cnn.com... P.S. If you want Pro, you can do a rubuttal in comments because I forfeited.
White People Truly Are More Beautiful Compared to Other Races

Haha! People probably rolling their eyes reading our arguments :D. Anyway, I'm enjoying it! My opponent seemed to be only talking about the desirable Asian female physical characteristics. The title of this debate refers to not just women but both men and women. These characteristics make Asian women very alluring to White men but it does not make Asian men too attractive to White women. It's probably hard for my opponent to argue how having a slim body or big eyes make an Asian man attractive. In any case, my opponent only talked about Asians. Again, this is not a debate about just White vs Asian. On the subject of women, please consider also that there are many cases of Asian women living in White countries who try so hard to be seen as White but very rarely we hear cases of White women trying to be Asian. White women have a lot of confidence about themselves as opposed to Asian women, which reflects their attractiveness PLUS, confidence makes a person seem even more attractive.
White People Truly Are More Beautiful Compared to Other Races

[WARNING] The following is purely vanity. I will be looking at the more beautiful features of Asians and the lousy ones of white women. If your a white woman, do not get offended. Thank you. Asian's are truly the best. Firstly, face structure. Asians always have a beautiful heart-shaped faces. They also have a natural slim yet big eyes that white women lack. Their body structure is also good, though not perfect. They seem to have a lack of...*cough* boob structure *cough*... Nonetheless, Asians are also normally slim, fairly curvy with beautiful black hair. Asians also have extremely good leg and thigh structure. White women, on the other hand, are mostly butterfaces...or at least they eat a lot of butter (kidding). Asians also have porcelain skin, while white women usually have blotchy skin.
White People Truly Are More Beautiful Compared to Other Races

Thank you for accepting. First of all, I am not white and I feel comfortable discussing this topic because I strongly think that white people tend to have better physical attributes than other ethnicities. On average, they are taller, tend to be more physically built (or physically endowed if you know what I mean), have high nose bridges and symmetrical faces. Yes, you may say that perception of beauty is subjective. While I do agree that sometimes you may find a short person or a dark person attractive (personality is also important), we human beings have a natural tendency to be attracted to qualities which represent strength and sexual vigor. Plus, a fair skin colour is always deemed superior not just in the West but also in other societies like in India, Middle East, Asia etc. Even among people who are tan, having a lighter complexion is a symbol of beauty. In India, people of a higher caste are fairer. In China, being beautiful is having a white almost pale face.
Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs.

Apologies accepted, but no, formal debates are hard for me, which is why I accept so few. We can continue in the forums if you wish. [some churches are not charitable, seems to be Pro's main argument] Not in the conventional sense, no. However, a social club "may not hold itself out as providing goods and services to the general public" (my first source), thus, it is not a charity, ever. Further, social clubs require membership, as opposed to churches which ask for donations. We have separated these with private organizations. We have made it so that we do not tax charities affiliated with private clubs, and give deductions to the non-profit clubs so that if they are charitable, they may not have to pay taxes at all. Why can we not do the same with religious organizations? How can you expect an organization to pay property taxes if there is no revenue? It's not like they can increase tithing? Conversely, since social clubs "must be supported by membership fees, dues, and assessments", they can raise the necessary money, or go under. Lastly, churches have limits and restrictions on how they lobby, while social clubs do not. These differences categorically make the institutions unequal, and since they are unequal, similar tax treatment is not required. "Maybe we shouldn't tax non-profit clubs. I see rife abuse with that potential path, but maybe there is some merit that me, with my limited mortality and comprehension, cannot see. My arguments are based off of equality. The only difference between a church and a non-profit club is that one prays and the other might pray. And yet one gets massive exemptions, while the other must struggle to do massive charity projects if they wish to pay no taxes, or do rigorous hoop jumping to get qualified under tax-exempt status." I would argue the biggest difference between a church and a social club is that you have to pay to benefit from the club, where you are not assessed a fee to pray. Also, I am not sure what Pro is arguing about exemptions and what his source has to do with anything regarding tax treatment of these groups. Pro's source has to do with limitation to the amount given, not what is done with that money. In both cases, regardless of how the money is spent, the revenue is not taxed.
Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs.

Since my opponent forfeited, I"ll be brief. The reason they should be taxed differently is because, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable. This is evident in the requirements for their respective classifications. Whether you agree with the benefits derived from the charity the church makes (missions, absolution, peace of mind, counseling, soup kitchens, etc.), they still have a mission to improve the world, in their eyes. Social clubs do not have that pre-requisite, therefore, they are not the same, and should not be compelled to be treated equally. http://www.irs.gov... www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations
Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs.

So, I will let Pro start. I am offering the following definitions: "Private non-profit clubs" - will be known as social clubs, and subject to 501 (c) (7) categorization. Churches will be categorized as a 501 (c) (3). Con stipulates that laws vary from state to state, which means that in some states, a church may or may not be treated differently. For the purposes of this debate, we shall assume there is indeed different tax implications for each category. As such, we will focus on the federal (IRS) definitions of these non-profits for this debate, since if the IRS says they are tax-exempt, they are for state purposes as well (whatever that entails). The debate is over whether social clubs ought to be treated equally to churches for ALL tax purposes. Good luck to Pro. If Pro does not agree to these terms, say so in the next round, and we will quickly end the debate in a tie, thus allowing Pro to issue a new challenge without revealing his hand.
Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs.

1. By churches, I mean any religious building or organization. It can be a Christian church, but in the context of this debate, it shall apply to Mosques, Synagogues, or anything of like quality that is relevant. 2. The only difference between how non-profit clubs and churches is property taxes. Non-profit clubs pay these taxes, but churches do not. 3. This position would include tax deductions. If a church did enough charitable actions, they may end up paying no taxes at all. 4. I am not calling for the destruction of religion. I am an atheist, but whether or not any religion is true shall not be the topic being argued. For the sake of debate, we will assume that none of these religions or true, or that we cannot determine whether one is true. 5. This debate is not a debate about taxes in general. This is a debate over whether churches, which are largely exempt from taxes (some counties tax them and some don't., but most do not) should pay them. Namely the tax being discussed is property taxes, which most non-profit clubs (not charities. Charities are usually taxed the same as churches) must pay. (Again this differs as property taxes are handled at a more local level.)
I'm Pro and you are Noob

And: conjunction 1. (used to connect grammatically coordinate words,phrases, or clauses) along or together with; aswell as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover:http://www.dictionary.com...There is no way Pro can win this debate without proving that you are not Noob and I'm sorry to tell you that you, the audience, are not Noob. You are not contenders in this debate.
Students who drop out of high school should be forced to work in factories

I have shown conceivable instances where pro's plan would either fail to solve the problem or aggravate it further. The debate seemed to focus on decreasing prison populations; however, I have shown that poor people would still go to prison and that kids forced into labor would conceivably be socially isolated, negating any decrease in the prison population. Pro failed to dispute this. Pro never distinguished how his plan would actually be distinct from what occurs today: dropouts are already vulnerable to low-wage jobs and imprisonment. His plan is essentially to enforce what already occurs, and he never demonstrated how we would keep dropouts in the factories. Pro never explained how his plan would create tax revenue. Dropouts would be cheap labor; therefore, they would pay very little in taxes because they would not make enough to pay a significant amount in taxes. (Not that I support prison labor, but prisons also produce extremely cheap labor).