BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is an Unreasonable Belief System

My contender lacks a fundamental misunderstanding of what this debate entails. I send you back to his quote " When judging a belief system such as Christianity, one must examine both the good as well as the bad and then determine which outweighs the other " He starts trying to do a comparative debate about whether the harms outweigh the goods, which is not the purpose of this debate. I have to show that its is rational for people to believe in. I gave a good many reasons and gains, as to why people would believe in a God , and why it would be reasonable or logical for them to do so. Citing harms that *may* come from others does not mean that applies across the board objectively. There are reasons people believe in God, and even if he does not exist it is reasonable to believe in him, because of the positive impacts religion can have on people. He spent the entire round trying to gauge the good vs the bad, when that was not the purpose. By showing that it is bad, he is not showing that it is not reasonable. If someone shot my family, it would be reasonable for me to kill them in return. It may not be lawful, and it may not be the right choice. We can logically assert it is reasonable given the consequences. What is reasonable is not always right or wrong, it's what is logical in some situations. If you are starving and you need to steal money, it may be considered wrong but it is reasonable. The same can be applied here. Believing in a God for the gains it gives you, is reasonable. Thus negating the affirmed.
Christianity is an Unreasonable Belief System

"This is not a factor or debate about which harms weigh the most, its a debate about what is reasonable." This sentence doesn't make much sense at all and I wish my adversary would take more time to edit his statements so that what he says is understandable. I think what he is saying is that this is not a debate about what negative aspects of Christianity are the most negative. To this I would say he is right; that isn't what we're are supposed to be debating about... that is why we are not debating about that. Heres a summary of what i said in my last post: Im arguing against Christianity. To support that Christianity is harmful I gave multiple examples of violent acts committed in God's name. That is what that last round was about. It was in no way a non sequitur. I do not think my he took the time to read what I was saying in the last round. I was saying that when judging a religion we must look at the bad and the good. Then I went on to say that there is more bad than good. Millions of people have died as a result of Christianity. For this reason, Christianity is negative. Even when we consider the good that it may bring, the good is almost irrelevant when we compare it to the bad. This sounds like a pretty valid argument to me. I started my last post by first refuting some of the points my adversary made, then I went on to make some points of my own. These points are the ones I have mentioned above. "its a debate about what is reasonable." You are right. We are assessing whether or not it is a reasonable religion. In all my arguments I have done just that. In my post that you called a "non sequitur" I stated that because Christianity has in fact been the cause of death and violence, it is an "unreasonable" religion. I think that my adversary's misunderstanding should not be penalized in any way (if it even can be) because the round the he has wasted should be penalty enough.
Christianity is an Unreasonable Belief System

When judging a belief system such as Christianity, one must examine both the good as well as the bad and then determine which outweighs the other. My adversary claims that one of the benefits of Christianity is the community, and the friendship the church helps to facilitate. While I agree that Churches advocate friendship and unity among other people of faith, they tend to secularize themselves from people who do not share the same faith. For example, a pious Christian who meets an atheist, might have quite a hard time treating him with much kindness and respect. So essentially, what is happening here, is that religion is uniting those who are religious and distancing those who aren't. There isn't much benefit here in my opinion. I agree that good can indeed come from the belief in God. For example, religion provides emotional relief when the thought of death arises, or when one is feeling lonely, however these benefits are insignificant when we consider the negative effect of Christianity. For centuries Christians have used God not as a reason to better the world but have used him as an excuse to slaughter thousands of people. We can see this countless times throughout history, during the crusades, Europe's reformation, and many wars. While these examples of violence happened much more frequently in the past, countless wars are still being fought because of religion. The violence that is a result of religion, is not going away. One of the many examples of Christianity being the foundation of violent acts is Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny, was the belief that it was the American settlers' destiny to conquer America, and kill thousands of Native Americans in doing so. The primary motivation for this violence was God. It was the belief that it was what God wanted them to do. Imagine how it would sound if American settlers said "Hey, lets kill a bunch of Natives and then take their land." It probably wouldn't fly. They instead said something more along the lines of "God said that killing Native American's and taking their land is our destiny" In this case, most people (being that most were of the Christian faith) went right along. So overall, what I am saying is that people have, for centuries used God to justify what they want to do in the first place, wether it be good or bad. If we can agree that God is not real, and God is not guiding people, saying that God wants me to rob a grocery store must mean that I actually want to rob a grocery store. On the contrary, those who claim that God wants them to give money to charity, actually wanted to give money to charity from the beginning and they would be just as willing to do so if they were not religious. Ultimately, their faith is not what drives them to do good deeds, it is their own "DESIRE" to do good deeds. This desire is not subject to a belief in God it is subject to the individual. God simply gives them the needed justification when an action is negative. To conclude, for the reasons stated above, the presence of Christianity and many other religions for that mater, is harmful; as the bad outweighs the good.
Christianity is an Unreasonable Belief System

Christianity itself is a reasonable system. We can see in his first round that my adversary is referring to the belief in a deity is a bad thing, I think there are net benefits for believing in a God. He's just stating that because that religion is false believing in it is bad. Which is not necessarily true Believing in God does quite a bit of good for the world. 1) Community first church acts as a community for people who share similar beliefs. A place where you can go to gather and have fellowship with other members, is a great outreach tool for meeting new friends and networking. 2) It acts a crutch A majority of times people have it tough in life. Religion is something for them to fall back on and trust in. Even though it is not true, they think it is true. Them having faith that a God can kill them, actually invokes miracles sometimes. Have you ever heard the saying you can will things into existence. If you are sick , and your health relies on your mental function believing in a God and believing you can get better often has positive effects on health. 3) Good in the world It also does a great deal of good in the world. Such as charity and out reach programs that help people learn and foster. Donating food, toys, and money the sick is something you also see from Christians. =conclusion= While my adversary asserts that believing it is irrational because God does not exist, and devoting your life to it is a bad thing, I tend to disagree. People that believe in God often do great deeds in his name. There are positive benefits that make it rational to believe in, and make it acceptable for people to believe whether God is false or not.
Anarcho Capitalism is the only effective way to have a stateless society

Hello, pro, and thanks for the debate opportunity! Claim of pro: The only way to effectively organize and distribute goods and services in absence of the state is to have as capitalist society. True capitalism actually requires there to be no state intervention. Furthermore, anarcho-communist or socialist philosophies ignore human nature. Claim 1: The only way to equally distribute goods to citizens is through the absence of the state and currency. Claim 2: There is no such thing as a free market. Claim 3: "Anarcho"-capitalism is not an actual form of anarchism, because not only does it tolerate, but it embraces an unnecessary hierarchy. Final Claim: Capitalism is contradictory to parts of human nature, not communism. Now I shall define terms not for an argument, but for clarity. Anarchism - "Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion." Anarcho-Communism/Socialism - "Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favour of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs" "Anarcho"-Capitalism - "A market-based society with no government. Instead of government, all goods and services would be provided by private businesses." State - "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." For further clarification, it is a country with a hierarchical government and borders. If you disagree with any of these definitions pro, inform me in the comments and we can change them. Good luck!
I will not contradict myself

1. Have you ever betrayed a friend?Yes I have. 2. Do you enjoy betraying friends?No I do not. 3. Can someone who likes to betray friends be trusted?I think they can, but they have toove themselves again. 4. Is George Washington alive?I'm sure a George Washington is live somewhere, but not the former president. 5. Do you support everything the Bible says?Yes I do. 6. Are you insane?I don't believe I am. 7. Have you contradicted yourself yet?I do not believe so. 8. Are you a Christian?Yes I am a Christian. 9. Do you currently believe that all of the information on your debate.org profile is correct?Yes I do. 10. Do you like all humans?Unfortunately I do not like all humans, but I try.
I will not contradict myself

Interesting, *Begins to interrogate.* 1. Have you ever betrayed a friend? 2. Do you enjoy betraying friends? 3. Can someone who likes to betray friends be trusted? 4. Is George Washington alive? 5. Do you support everything the Bible says? 6. Are you insane? 7. Have you contradicted yourself yet? 8. Are you a Christian? 9. Do you currently believe that all of the information on your debate.org profile is correct? 10. Do you like all humans? Thanks.
I will not contradict myself

1. Did you stop beating your wife?I don't have a wife.2. Do you like to sing?Yes I do like to sing.3. Have you ever sung?Yes I have sung before.4. Does everyone have life after death in some possible way?Yes they do.5. Can you be trusted?Yes I can.6. Are you the instigator of this debate?Yes I am the instigator of this debate. 7. Have you ever mooted?I don't think I've been mooted.8. Is the answer to this question, "No"?It could be no, it could be yes. I'm not sure of the question.9. Is this statement false?No, saying "Is this statement false?" is not a false statement.10. Do you support slavery?I do not support slavery at all.
I will not contradict myself

*Takes out a note pad, ties you to the chair, and prepares to interrogate you.*1. Did you stop beating your wife?2. Do you like to sing?3. Have you ever sung?4. Does everyone have life after death in some possible way?5. Can you be trusted?6. Are you the instigator of this debate?7. Have you ever mooted?8. Is the answer to this question, "No"?9. Is this statement false?10. Do you support slavery?
I will not contradict myself

Resolved: I will not contradict myself.Rules:1. CON must post 10 questions, directed at PRO, that could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no' or else CON loses. This does not apply to the final round.2. PRO must respond to all questions posed by CON in some manner or else PRO loses.3. If PRO's response does not give any opinion (e.g. "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"), then CON is entitled to another question next round. This is the only reason CON may post more than 10 questions.4. PRO wins if he is found never to have contradicted himself. Likewise, CON wins if he can prove that PRO has contradicted himself.5. Only statements made by PRO in rounds 2, 3, and 4 of this debate are subject to be examined for contradiction. No outside sources (my profile, previous debates, etc.) are applicable. Statements made by PRO in this debate not in direct response to any question posed by CON are still applicable.6. Round 5 no more questions can be asked, it is for final defense of PRO that in the previous rounds he has not contradicted himself and CON to make his/her finale case that PRO in fact did contradict himself.
I will not contradict myself

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters. The question is "Do you support slavery" if you say yes you support everything in the bible, then you have to support slavery. I didn't ask you if the bible condemned it or not. In fact, the Talmud (oral law) says, "When the messiah comes, all jews will have 1,000 slaves. " Con is right that I didn't make that rule, but you said do you like singing. Singing is saying something in harmony. The slang for singing is showing evidence against some one. IT DOES NOT SAY AGAINST YOUR FRIEND, which is what you asked me. I may like to betray someone, just not my friends. Singing is betrayal or tattle-taping. I asked you if you liked to sing and if you betrayed (sung). .. doesn't matter if it is a friend or not. Contradiction remains. Btw, that contradicts the fact you said that you can be trusted. How do we know if we are truly your friend?
I will not contradict myself

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.Con is right that I didn't make that rule, but you said do you like singing. Singing is saying something in harmony. The slang for singing is showing evidence against some one. IT DOES NOT SAY AGAINST YOUR FRIEND, which is what you asked me. I may like to betray someone, just not my friends.1) Do you like animals?Yes, I do like animals. 2) Do you love Adolf Hitler?No, I do not love Adolf Hitler, but I try to. 3) Do you believe it is appropriate to love Adolf hitler?I do believe it is appropriate, as the Bible says love your enemies. 4) do you support fascism?I do not support facism, as modern day facism is not mentioned in the Bible. 5) Is Obama usually right?I do not know if Obama is usually right or not, but it would appear that he is usually wong. 6) Are you sinning right now?Although I sin a lot in my daily life, I am not sinning at this very moment. 7) Is mooting appropriate?If you are talking about a Mock-Trial, then yes, it helps people undestand how the court system truly works. 8) is instigating a debate in debate.org appropriate!On some occasions I believe it is, but if the topic is obscene or disrespectful, than I think it is not. 9) Should gay marriage be legal?No, gay marriage should not be legal at all. 10) Is the Bible god's perfect word?No, the Bible is God's (with a capital G)prefect word, along side Jesus.As you can see, I have no contradictions.
I will not contradict myself

CONTRADICTIONS Pro slavery Bible ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.ï¿½ If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.ï¿½ But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.ï¿½ And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.ï¿½ If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.ï¿½ If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.ï¿½ (Exodus 21:7) ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.ï¿½ If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.ï¿½ (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) Does my opponent like to betray friends? "We did not state definitions, which means we go with the main definition, which is not betrayal" Where is the rule I need to state definition? One of the Main definitions for sing is to betray. You contradicted yourself and tried to add an unwritten rule. 1) Do you like animals? 2) Do you love Adolf Hitler? 3) Do you believe it is appropriate to love Adolf hitler? 4) do you support fascism? 5) Is Obama usually right? 6) Are you sinning right now? 7) Is mooting appropriate? 8) is instigating a debate in debate.org appropriate! 9) Should gay marriage be legal? 10) Is the Bible god's perfect word?
I will not contradict myself

Contradictions:We did not state definitions, which means we go with the main definition, which is not betrayalWhere in the Bible does it say that tey support slavery. Show me the passage.QUESTIONS 1) do insane people know they're insane?Some may some may not. I might be insane, but I don't know if I am. 2) do you go to school?Yes I do go to school. 3) Are you guilty of sin?Although I try not to sin, I am guilty of many sins. 4) Am I a figment of your imagination?You are not a figment of my imagination, you are real. 5) Does the Biblical god possess perfect morality?Yes, the Biblical God posses perfect morality. 6) does everything have the right to life.Yes, everything has the right to life (you mean live, right?) 7) is the KJV the best translation?I don't think there is a best translation, all of them are great. 8) will you forfeit this debate?I will not forfeight this debate. 9) Do you have black hair?No, I havebrown hair. 10) have you contradicted yourself?I do not believe so.
I will not contradict myself

Contradictions: DOES MY OPPONENT LIKE TO BETRAY FRIENDS??? In round 1, "Do you like to sing?" to which he answered "yes." In round 2, I asked, "Do you like to betray friends" to which he answered, "No." "Sing" can mean to betray someone [1] so in the first instance he stated that he liked to betray friends. DOES MY OPPONENT SUPPORT SLAVERY? In round 1 I asked if he supported slavery to which he answered,"no." in round 2, I asked if he supported everything in the Bible to which he answered "yes." the bible supports slavery. QUESTIONS 1) do insane people know they're insane? 2) do you go to school? 3) Are you guilty of sin? 4) Am I a figment of your imagination? 5) Does the Biblical god possess perfect morality? 6) does everything have the right to life. 7) is the KJV the best translation? 8) will you forfeit this debate? 9) Do you have black hair? 10) have you contradicted yourself? Reference [1] http://thesaurus.com...
P.C's are better than Macs

Ok, so Pro challenged me to this.Well, Pro doesn't really make much of a case here. He says they are cheaper, but what P.C would be cheaper? The new Surfacebook is more expensive than the Macbook Pro. I think that is really subjective. How is it efficient? Macs are more efficient, because they are less likely to get viruses, so the chance of you losing work time or play time is lessThat really is your opinion, i like OS X betterNot really. A thinkpad t400 with a 3200 rpm hardrive and a intel core 2 duo is slower than my macbook with a 512 SSD and an Intel i7 processor.I only had 1 hour to do this, so that's that.
beauty pagents are very bad for kids 2-7 yrs old

First of all, my opponent never defined beauty pagents. Of course, we know what's she's talking about. She's talking about obviously... I will define the major words. After this, there will be no redefining of the definitions. Definitions: Pagent: I will assume she's talking about "pagans". Pagans are: "Ones who have no religion." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Beauty: I'm assuming she's talking about beautiful. Beautiful is defined by Dictionary.Com as attractive. Bad: "adverse, unlucky, unhappy." http://dictionary.reference.com... Thus being an pagan is very unlucky for Children 2-7. She has two contentions. Her 1st contention is that "can ruin a kids life because there already wearing makeup at such a young age that can ruin there skin". First of all, why would the kid need to wear makeup? And how is that even related to an pagan? I have no idea!!! Pro thinks that kids wearing makeup ruins skin but what does that have to do with anything? As far as I can tell, there is nothing about being an pagan, there is nothing about luck or unluck, there is nothing any of the main subjects. All she has to say is a bunch of unrelated things about a kid's life being ruined because of wearing makeup at such a young age. I have no idea how any of it is related to pagans being unlucky towards kids 2-7. Her 2nd contention talks about "there parents put in there minds that there beautiful or pretty which can leave to low self-esteem when they grow up". I assume she's talking about a kid that's 2-7 having a parent who's an pagan. Well, my opponent is assuming that pagan parents put in their kid's minds that they're beautiful or pretty but that's not backed up by any facts. She's assuming all pagan parents tell their kids they're beautiful or pretty when they usually kick their kids out at 18 years old (Ex: My friend's dad) or are abusive. It's extremely wrong to assume such things. Also the self-esteem thing also goes along. How do you know there is low self-esteem when they grow up without any FACTS? I would also like to say the BOP is on Pro to show that pagans are very bad for kids 2-7. Thus I don't need to prove anything except that my opponent's case is false. Thank you for coming with me. As I've said "This just doesn't line up."