BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Judeo-Christian God is Immoral

I will be contending that the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh is immoral.I do not believe in God, however this will not be used to contend that you must first prove God exists; for the sake of this debate I will be satisfied by arguing that the 'character' of God is immoral. I will argue that you are more moral than your God.I anticipate this debate degenerating into a definition-slinging contest (by both of us) but I sincerely hope we can avoid that and define quickly in order to focus on the issue. Of course, we will probably disagree over subjective vs. objective morality, etc, but hopefully we can quickly get to the issue.I will accept your use of scripture, as I intend to do the same, in making arguments about what the bible says about morality, but I will otherwise profusely object to your use of the scripture to attempt, for example, to make factual historical proofs, etc. We are debating whether or not the character of the Abrahamic God is moral. As there are a number of translations and version, I will simply cite (e.g. King James) after each quotation. For this debate, with the exception of other external sources, I think in-line referencing of the text will be neater than footnoting. 3 rounds, 72 hours, 5k characters, 10 day voting period.I'd like to add that given the obviously sensitive nature of this topic, I will endeavour to the absolute best of my temperament to keep the discussion civil, respectful and on topic.
The Judeo-Christian God is Immoral

We are still at odds over the definition of morality, and since this is the central point of the debate, it is necessary to clear it up before we move on. Since your definition of morality is relative to society, you cannot judge God"s actions 5,000 years ago by today"s western standards. Right and wrong are words with absolute meaning, and if morality is subjective, the words right and wrong cannot be used. "Currently approved of" is more correct. However, we understand that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Since God is the source of everything, he is also the source of absolute morality. You had a valid point about the woman who was forced to marry the man who raped her. However, a parallel passage, Exodus 22:16-17, further expounds on the situation. It explains that the father can refuse to give his daughter to the man and demand the bride price as payment. You implied that it was a given that since God foreknew man"s sin, he caused them to sin. Yet knowing something is going to happen is not the same as causing it to happen. God created us perfect, wanting us to choose to love him. In this, he also had to give us the option of disobedience; without this option, our forced obedience would be worthless. He wanted to have a parent-child relationship, not one of a master-slave. And although we chose disobedience and separation from God, he still wanted the father-child relationship. The only way for this to work was for us to be restored to our our perfect state, which is impossible without the sacrifice of Jesus. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV). Your point that criminals should be brought to justice is exactly right"they should. No one has loved God or their neighbor as they should; all men have turned away and disobeyed God. No one should be allowed eternal life with a perfect God. Jesus, however, is the epitome of God"s justice and grace combined. If a normal man were to be killed for another man, the sacrifice would not be sufficient, which you pointed out in your example of the nephew dying for the uncle. However, this is the eternal perfect Son of God dying for all mankind. "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." Ephesians 1:7 (NIV) You have been trying to prove that God is not moral, yet the example of Jesus shows that he is not only moral, he is also overflowing with love and kindness.
Iron man is better than any other superhero and i can give you a good reason why.

Screw you. Peter Parker holds the richest personality of all the heroes. Any refusal to discuss him is only proof you agree. He isn't an overpowered winner with an army at his disposal. He is a quasi-normal person, who is bound by responsibility to protect others at the expense of his personal life. He uses his wit rather than his strength to win fights without the support of others. He is the most relatable hero, whereas Tony may as well be any Robert Downey Junior character, since they are all geniuses with witty comments. See you next round.
MEDIA SCOOP- CRIME REPORTING IS FOR SENSATIONALIZATION

My opponent may have a plausible excuse for his absense, as unfortunate as that may be, he has not refuted my aformentioned point. Since my opponent has declined his chance to refute my arguments, I ask for you to only evaluate what occurred during the first round and vote. Hopefully you will see that I outwiegh my opponent on presicion and substance, amongst many other things. Thank you for your time and consideration, - Protagoras of Abdera
MEDIA SCOOP- CRIME REPORTING IS FOR SENSATIONALIZATION

The topic asserts that crime reporting is FOR sensationalization, as if sensationalization is the most important, or ONLY, intention behind crime reporting. For example, if I say that computers are FOR playing solitaire, that would be an inaccurate statement because computers were not made for only playing solitaire, and though it may be a fun game, solitaire is not the most important aspect of a computer. Thus, my obligation is solely to prove that there is more than one reason, or that there is a more important intent, for as to why people report crimes. _________________________ With that said, I offer you the following definitions. Sensationalization: To cast and present in a manner intended to arouse strong interest, especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details. Lurid: gruesome; horrible 1) http://dictionary.reference.com... 2) http://dictionary.reference.com... __________________________ I argue that the intention behind crime reporting is not simply to arouse interest in gruesome details, but instead to inform the populace of the crime activity that occurs within there vicinity. The main intentions of crime reporting is to warn and inform, not ONLY to scare people senseless, as my opponent argues. This is supported by the definition of crime reporting, which means, an account presented in detail referring to a criminal activity and those engaged in it. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... __________________________ Now for the line-by-line: My opponent argues, "WE TAKE THE CASE OF THAT PRTISIPANT WHO FELL IN COMA STAGE AFTER HEARING THE COMMENTS OF JUDGES IN A REALITY SHOW. THEY MADE IT A BIG SENSATIONAL NEWS." She was probably referring to America's Next Top Model, when contestant, Rebecca, collapses after hearing the judges commentary. You can view the fall at: http://www.youtube.com... Despite whether or not the news made a big deal out of this issue, this issue is not a crime, therefore it has nothing to do with the topic. __________ My opponent then argues, "MEDIAS HAVE TO PRESENT A THING IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT HAVE TO MAKE A AWARENESS NOT TO MAKE US AFRAID" There are numerous articles out there that report crime and other news that are not intended to scare people, sure, some people may fear death hence they would be afraid whenever they hear about a murder, yet, it is the obligation of the news to report such crimes, they must express there freedom of the press and inform the population of the crimes that are being committed. Only in very rare incidences do you receive any gruesome details about the crime, therefore, it is not the intent of the media to scare people. The media informs the public of what is happening in the world, we cannot blame them for doing there job, the world is scary, people die every day, get over it, the news isn't only going to report every little happy thing that occurs in happy town, they are going to tell you the truth, the real issues, that is there job, to warn and inform. __________________________ With that said, I am not in favor of the resolution, - Protagoras of Abdera
MEDIA SCOOP- CRIME REPORTING IS FOR SENSATIONALIZATION

I WILL SAY THAT MEDIA WILL ENLARGE ATHING AND MAKE IT A BIG ISSUE. THE CRIME WILL BE SOMETHING VERY SIMPLE.BUT MEDIAS WILL SHOW THAT CASE AS A BIG AND BIGGEST THING EVER HAPPEND. FOR EXAMPLE WE TAKE THE CASE OF THAT PRTISIPANT WHO FELL IN COMA STAGE AFTER HEARING THE COMMENTS OF JUDGES IN A REALITY SHOW. THEY MADE IT A BIG SENSATIONAL NEWS. AFTER THAT EACH AND EVERY PARENTS OF THE EVERY PARTISIPANTSIN EVERY REALITY SHOW , SHOWED A DELAY TO SEND THERE CHILDRENS.THE HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE ALREDY AFRAID BECOME MORE AND MORE AFRAID BECAUSE OFTHESE SENSATIONAL NEWS.TO MAKE AWARENESS OF SOME THING IS GOOD. BUT THESE MEDIAS ONLY MAKE US AFRAID OF DOING SOMETHING. SO MEDIAS HAVE TO PRESENT A THING IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT HAVE TO MAKE A AWARENESS NOT TO MAKE US AFRAID
The U.S. doesn't exist

This is interesting. Every point you have made so far is possible, but the same possibility goes to every other country,making the world not exist. Therefore, the U.S. would exist, just within an artificial planet or universe. However, if this is not the case, other countries would most likely find out about this fake land. Take North Korea for example, they see their land as a utopia, while the rest of the world sees it as the corrupt brainwashing facility it really is. Also, the U.S. has immigrants, and they couldn't or wouldn't come here if it was a non existent land.
The U.S. doesn't exist

I will try my best to debate how America doesn't exist. This is my first debate, so sorry in advance. The U.S. is considered as one of the most powerful countries in the world. However, the "Land of the Free" may not be as people think it is. You could show evidence as maps, however they could be fake. You could also say that there are more than 300 million witnesses that the U.S. does indeed exist, but for all we know, they could be brainwashed, thinking they are living in a fake land.
Legalized abortion has done more good than harm

>AKmath has also moved the goalposts of this debate (though I must admit, I got caught up in it a bit as well), focusing a lot on when life begins and the viability of fetuses rather than the issue at hand - whether legalized abortion has done more good than harm. I think this is very relevant, given how BertrandsTeapot, claims there is no basis for equating abortion to infanticide, which they think is begging the question. However, I was simply pointing out that if abortion was morally equivalent to infanticide, their pros/cons would be roughly equal. I did this by showing how fetuses have moral rights. I could see how "bodily autonomy" might be irrelevant if we're looking at "the most good for the most people." Since BertrandsTeapot seems to be focusing on the easiest points to refute, I will spend some time solidifying my uncontested arguments and then move on to those. Fetal Personhood - Future sentience determines moral value, which is pretty much why it's immoral to kill people in a coma. If Pro is going to start making excuses like, "past sentience also determines moral value," then what about dead people? I'm pretty sure it's not murder if you stab a corpse. I guess I win this point by default since Pro didn't even try to counter me. Bodily Autonomy - Since women (although indirectly) are responsible for fetuses' dependence on them, they are responsible for keeping the fetus alive until they are no longer independent. Basically, since Joe was responsible for protecting his property, he can't open his door in good moral standing no matter the reason. Pro has not differentiated the situations or given a reason that Joe can open his door. I guess that means I win this point by default. Good vs Harm Last two points: Abortion is safe for women. Okay, so is infanticide. >I believe it's from a 2015 study Whoops, 3 years ago. However, the citation said 2014. Even though these points say abortion isn't as horrible as it could be if it put women in danger, it's still basically killing people, which Pro apparently agrees with since they didn't counter either of my points on fetal personhood and bodily autonomy. So my points aren't "changing the argument". Killing people is harm, or at least I would think so, and the topic is "does legalized abortion cause more good than harm". The fact that Pro doesn't think it matters whether or not fetuses are people makes it look like (I assume) they wouldn't care if lots of people were being killed because it's "not relevant" and "shifting the goalposts". I assume Pro would counter that fetuses don't have moral value, but they've done a pretty bad job of defending that by ignoring the point altogether.
Legalized abortion has done more good than harm

**NOTE TO VOTERS**AKMath is currently engaging in this exact same debate with another user (http://www.debate.org...) and copying and pasting the arguments from one to another. He/she is barely using original arguments and is acting with no regard for the sanctity of this forum. Those arguments that are his/her own are generally fallacious and misleading.That said, AKMath has also moved the goal posts of this debate (though I must admit, I got caught up in it a bit as well), focusing a lot on when life begins and the viability of fetuses rather than the issue at hand - whether legalized abortion has done more good than harm. As such, despite AKMath's blatant plagiarism throughout this debate, I will still do the service of going through their arguments on this point."I said 'if abortion is as bad as infanticide, and infanticide results in a net loss, then so will abortion'. Please tell me how that was 'begging the question'."You are assuming that abortion is as bad as infanticide in your argument which is the key premise that your conclusion relies upon. That is practically a textbook definition of begging the question."So they're saving money? Isn't that a good thing?"Yes, they are saving money by not providing a range of services such as foster care, education, welfare, and the adoption of children who have physical and mental disabilities. Isn't that a good thing? I suppose that's up to you or the voters. Perhaps you also think it's wise to save money by not funding research and development into the cure of deadly diseases. Who am I to judge?" And why would they be stay at home mothers? Possibly, because these states have high marriage rates, meaning more stable families. (Utah for example.) [1]"This is so clearly plagiarised as the [1] citation doesn't reference anything. Nor does the [3] earlier in that paragraph."Yes, abortion lowered birth rates. Imagine that."If you are going to be sarcastic, perhaps be sure you are properly reading the quote you are attempting to refute. The statistic stated that the decline in birth rates was among women for whom the health and social consequences of unintended childbearing are the greatest. Even if you already knew this statistic, it's possible voters did not, and that doesn't change the relevance to the topic."I frankly don't see how your last two points are relevant to an argument. You argue that abortion only endangers the lives of 5/1000 women and that it decreased. You also say that Guttmacher Institute considered abortions to be safe 4 years ago. I will happily give you those points. (Although maternal death from giving birth is .0264%, a lower rate than what you provided for abortion complications.) [2]"You don't see how the points are relevant to the argument even though you admit that legalized abortions are now safer than ever? That's a bit strange. Also, where is your statistic coming from here. I believe it's from a 2015 study. Again, you've cited [2], but not told us what that refers to.All arguments notwithstanding, I don't feel that Con deserves or merits votes in this debate due to his sheer disrespect of this community.
Legalized abortion has done more good than harm

Sorry for the long wait Bertrands. I was away in Helsinki for work. Anyway... Exhibit A: Fetal personhood Fetuses are persons because they would become sentient in the future unless interrupted, which is the same reason it is wrong to stab coma patients. The notion that coma patients are persons because they were once sentient in the past and desired future sentience is baseless since someone in a coma who had never thought of the topic specifically would still have personhood in a coma. Exhibit B: Bodily autonomy Bodily autonomy is comparable to control over one's property in their own country. If someone, let's call him Joe, owned his own space station and terrorists rigged a bomb in and said the station that would blow up New York if he opened the door, he would not have the right to do so since it was his responsibility to keep his property safe in the first place. [3] This is more comparable to abortion in cases of rape than agreeing to donate a kidney, because, with abortion and the above situation, the person forfeiting bodily autonomy had bad luck which led to the other person's problem, rather than the other way around. Exhibit C: Harm vs. Good Since infanticide does not cause more good than harm, if the above exhibits are seen as convincing, then abortion should likewise be viewed as a net loss for society. While abortion was arguably responsible for lowing crime in the US, the number of abortions required for this vastly outnumbered the benefit. [2] Many people born in poor situations also came to benefit society (ex: Beethoven). [1] If killing people to benefit society is morally okay, we may as well kill poor people.
PE should be an elective, not a requirement

I will be arguing that physical education classes should be as a requirement, and not solely an elective. The burden of proof in this debate is on Pro; Pro will have to provide definitive evidence and reasoning that PE should be an elective. As long as Con can disprove the contentions laid out by Pro, Con should win this debate. Pro's assertions center around the statement that students should learn about things that are more applicable to their lives and futures. Although lessons on what exactly is taught in PE classes vary, classes generally teach about nutrition, drug management, dealing with bullying and stress management [1], all of which are topics that students will encounter and deal with later in life. PE classes also teach and allows students to practice activities such as swimming, running and dance, exercises which help students take a mental break, maintain recommended weight and have fun in a safe environment. It is obvious that since PE classes teach lessons that deal with crucial topics in a safe, fun environment, PE classes should be a requirement instead of simply an elective. Con strongly urges a ballot in negation of the resolution. Sources: [1] . http://www.pecentral.org...
One World Government

For this debate, I have 2 main points. I will now outline my first main point: The BBC tells us that the number of "modern human beings" (Homo sapiens) on Earth h is over 7.3 billion. However, scientists estimate that Earth could support up to 11 billion people! Despite this, humans are dying. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. 805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat. More than 750 million people lack adequate access to clean drinking water. Diarrhea caused by inadequate drinking water, sanitation, and hand hygiene kills an estimated 842,000 people every year globally, or approximately 2,300 people per day. In 2011, 165 million children under the age 5 were stunted (reduced rate of growth and development) due to chronic malnutrition. 1/4 of all humans live without electricity " approximately 1.6 billion people. (all facts from https://www.dosomething.org...) So why are we dying and suffering in a world with enough for everyone? Because or individual countries putting the needs and desires of their own citizens first. And while this is a completely natural way to behave, it's killing children. The answer? One world government. A government that is responsible for not some, but all humans. A government that will ensure equal distribution of food, water medicine and electricity for all citizens of Earth. Whilst regional and national governments continue to act in the best interests of only their own citizens, needless death through hunger and disease will never end. This is my first reason why we need one world government.
One World Government

I will start my debate. Granted, a one world government would stop a certain type of war-a war between countries, but this may actually increase wars. The only type of war left would be civil war. And since there is only one country, every war would involve the whole world. Think about how many world wars that is! Not to mention the many different cultures, ideas, traditions, and languages. Every country is unique in it's own way, and it would be near impossible to create a law that doesn't offend the traditions and/or laws of a certain country. For example, if country A has a law saying the maximum speed limit is 50 mph, and country B says the minimum speed limit is 60 mph, the world government can't make a law on the speed limit that won't offend another law of another country. I look forward to your argument, and as this is my first debate please afford me some leniency on mistakes. Sources: https://steemit.com... https://www.reddit.com...
Christians are NOT able to determine fairly if Jesus is really the True messiah

I accept the terms of the debate. opening statement: I will be defending the point of view that His Holiness Christ's status as Messiah is in fact legitimate and impossible to challenge. I am not a Christian but I am very religious and a student of Comparative Religions. I hope to learn from this debate as well as share some other interesting insights. I will be going through the following points, at random spots throughout the debate: 1) What is a Messiah? 2) Messianic attributes according to the Bible 3) The Judeo-Christian loop: a) Is Christ qualified? b) If not, then who? c) If none then, should we wait OR look again? 4) False prophets Personally, I believe that it's difficult to address your statement when it's asking "do they look at the O. T. ? and this requires physical evidence that they look" Since there is no way to prove whether the physical action of looking takes place on their part, I will assume that your argument challenges them by saying "can they Scripturally prove whether He is the Messiah or not? ". Note that as a student to Comparative Religion, I have come up with unique terms to describe certain things. They may seem odd and new to you but I will elaborate on them to make my point. So don't worry, you'll get it haha. And second, I have no intention on offending your point of view or your beliefs. If in anyway my arguments sound offensive, then please let me know and I will try to elaborate my point so it can become clearer to you.
Christians are NOT able to determine fairly if Jesus is really the True messiah

Round 1 - Acceptance, Opening Statements, and Questions Only Round 2 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals) Round 3 - Rebuttals Only Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements I will have to prove that Christians are unable to look at the old testament prophecies and kown if Jesus really fulfilled them. Serious debates only