BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
As per the Hebrew Bible, the nations are speaking in Isaiah 53:1

First, I would like to explain why I requested this debate. Paul, in Romans 10, claimed that the Jewish people are speaking in Isaiah 53:1 (But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message? ) To understand if Jesus really fulfilled Isaiah 53, it is important to know who is speaking in Isaiah 53:1. Are the Jewish leader speaking? Is there clues in the Book of Isaiah? Should we accept Paul claims? I am not trying to have a debate on the whole Isaiah 53, but only on the first verse. So let us start with the book of Isaiah. In context, Isaiah 53:1 has not happened yet. The righteous servant, whoever it is, has never been exalted and extolled, and never was very high (Isaiah 52:13). So Isaiah 53:1 will happen in the future. The speaker(s) of Isaiah 53:1 ask(s) an important question: "to whom has the arm of the L-rd revealed? " Somebody, or a group of people will ask this question. Looking back in the previous chapter, we see that the arm of the L-rd was revealed to the nations: The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. Isaiah 52:10 Furthermore, the verse prior to Isaiah 53:1 say "So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. " So, we see the the Servant of the L-rd will be revealed and all the kings, who have seen the arm of the L-rd, will have nothing to say. After some silence, they will speak "Who has believed our report. .. " Finally, all instanced that the arm of the L-rd was revealed was as a Judgement against the nations. First, G-d takes Israel out of Egypt with his mighty arm and judges Egypt: Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, H2220 and with great judgments: Exodus 6:6 With a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm: H2220 for his mercy endureth for ever. Psalm 136:12 Second, the arm of the L-rd was on Babylona and teh Chaldeans. All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm H2220 shall be on the Chaldeans Isaiah 48:14 Again the people are judge. My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms H2220 shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm H2220 shall they trust. Here G-d redeemed Israel, his people, Psalm 77:15 Thou hast with thine arm H2220 redeemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah. So each time the "arm of the L-rd" is mentioned, it is for protecting Israel and judge the nations. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the Jews would be speaking in Isaiah 53:1, in the context, only the kings of the nations would fit the description and the context of the verse.
Aethism Does More Good Than Harm

"He is blind, ignorant, and is just plain stupid on almost all issues." When voting please note this in the conduct section. "I would like some proof that these 'Religious Texts" are real." By real do you mean existence or authenticity? "Also, why the so called "Lord" who makes us waste 4 hours every week making us listen to bull crap that we foret about in 20 minutes?" The so called "bull crap" makes people have better souls, and if you are atheist I'm assuming you have never gone to church, therefore you cannot assume we forget it. "you may think im crude, but unfortunately, there is no way to explain this truth." My opponent has just stated he cannot explain his side, therefore con wins. "Most of the wars we have started are because religious practices, people disagreeing whose right, whose wrong." Please state evidence that "Most" of the wars were about religion, the most deadly wars, WWI and WWII were not caused by religion. "f we were free of hells grip (religion), imagine all the advancements we could make in the sciences, find out more about EVOLUTION." Scientists can still work with religion, they are being obstructed. And evolution had been disproved many times, evolution is a flawed theory. "The reason why Galileo was imprisoned was because of RELIGION! Many Scientific documents from the past have been destroyed because of religion. Think of this, we would have our world, advancing, learning, faster then ever before! Good and Bad can be defined in the way its supposed to mean, not differing from culture to culture." I am seeing your point, but how would atheism have solved this, how do you know that another label wouldn't have arisen and jailed Galileo. "So think of this, if you don't vote for me, AT ALL,your a mindless bastard that wants no progress and wants to live in fixed ideas that don't work. If you do vote for me, you vote for progress, you vote for vast knowledge." Please note the conduct again. ---Conclusion--- My opponent has repeatedly insulted the voters and me to try to support his case, clearly trying to cover up the major holes in his case. He has not provided evidence what Atheism would, could, or has solved, therefore CON WINS.
Aethism Does More Good Than Harm

Friends, Families, Stalkers and Douche bags, here we witness. .. the redneck. He is blind, ignorant, and is just plain stupid on almost all issues. 1. I would like some proof that these 'Religious Texts" are real. 2. Also, why the so called "Lord" who makes us waste 4 hours every week making us listen to bull crap that we foret about in 20 minutes? ---------------------------------------------------- You may think im crude, but unfortunately, there is no way to explain this truth. Atheism, no religion, zip-zip-Nada. Most of the wars we have started are because religious practices, people disagreeing whose right, whose wrong. If we were free of hells grip (religion), imagine all the advancements we could make in the sciences, find out more about EVOLUTION. The reason why Galileo was imprisoned was because of RELIGION! Many Scientific documents from the past have been destroyed because of religion. Think of this, we would have our world, advancing, learning, faster then ever before! Good and Bad can be defined in the way its supposed to mean, not differing from culture to culture. So think of this, if you don't vote for me, AT ALL,your a mindless bastard that wants no progress and wants to live in fixed ideas that don't work. If you do vote for me, you vote for progress, you vote for vast knowledge.
Aethism Does More Good Than Harm

I assume my opponent was trying to spell "Atheism" but instead spelled "Aethism", i will go with what he was trying to say. ---Arguments--- 1. Atheists. As stated in many religious texts, people who are true to their religions will be awarded a trip to heaven, people who are not will be sent to hell. Atheists will be sent to hell, therefore atheism is bad, especially for the people who are atheists. 2. Not good. Athiests are not good people, for the reasons that they do not go to church, therefore do not get the right dosage of the LORD's word. People with a lack of this will become mean people, just as people with no happiness in their life would too. I await my opponent's arguments, because he seems very keen to debate this topic. I am eager too. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
Babylon and America Will America FaLL

What are your space man doing in america area 51.Why is your white government so secretive about these issues.This is what l call principalities of darkness.Why is your governments hiding so many secrets. ..And luckily audiences you have pro to guide you all the way to hell! My opponent is so illusioned by cartoons to the point of been so naive! CON; Thanks for been so dumb! When the bible talks about spiritual wickedness in high places.It means spiritual wickedness in your high offices! When people connive with the devil.You think everything is all rosy in the government well think again! Your governments have been so instrumental in murders,in the name of colonization, material wars and so forth! Con tries to deceive ya'll because of votes.But the truth still lies in the fact that the beast and the dragon exist,like in the bible.Refuse or call it what you want...l never wrote the bible!!! So go ahead and deceive yourselves into adultery.Go ahead and deceive yourselves that the devil doesn't exist among us...! lf you want to take the devils side,go ahead! lt's not l selling my soul to the devil.l come here to warn you,and l can't convince you if you're a hard head! Those space man you see everyday which CON assumes are demons, are acutally making secretive deals with your governments to sell your souls! YOU HAPPY HAA?
Everything all beings do is selfish in a cosmic sort of way.

You have a point, but it's not weather you're caring about you're own life or not. It's if you're caring about it at all. I agree that taking a bullet to the arm to save a loved one is a noble thing to do, and would also make you look good (chucles), but you're also thinking of that person's life as valuable to yourself. If you lost that person, would you feel a pain inside of yourself? That is because you took your own intrest to that life. If you do not feel anything when loosing someone close to you, it is not abnormal, nor is it a bad thing. It is simply you not feeling any greif (a form of pain caused by loosing someone/thing close to you) to the loss of that [person/thing]. And with that I leave it to you, my opponent.
Everything all beings do is selfish in a cosmic sort of way.

wow, i cant argue to this. but being selfish is just differant. the way your putting it, yeah, everything we do is selfish i guess. but saving someones life, you wouldnt consider selfish? your not thinking of yourself as you save that person. or if you take a bullet to the arm while jumping in front of your girlfriend, how is that selfish? just the way you make it sound makes it very weird and techniquely right. but, you wouldnt look at someone like "wow, hes selfish for saving his girlfriends life." see what i mean?
Everything all beings do is selfish in a cosmic sort of way.

If you've ever seen a factory billowing smoke about, then you'll think of pollution, something being made for the sake of mankind, or you won't care. If you don't care, you're not being selfish. If you think of it as for the sake of mankind, you're being reasonably selfish. If you think about pollution, you're thinking about someone else being selfish and not caring about the world. Before you say this, saving someone's life is a selfish thing to do. Yelling for help is a selfish thing to do. Not taking any heed is not selfish. There is no such thing as selflessness. If you're thinking the correct way, then you should know that the only thing that is not selfish in this world is the world itsself. If you wish to save someone's life, you think of that life as value and WANT to keep it in existance. That is just like wanting to keep something you like clean. If you yell for help when trapped, about to die, etc. then you simply WANT to remain with your life as a physical form intact. This is just like the feeling you get when SOME, not all, people get when they break their phone, laptop, etc. It is true that the human race is the most selfish, greedy race on this planet.If you belive in selflessness, then just try to make me give in to that. I will make you see my light.
The 'Wage Gap' Will Forever Be a Myth

Thank you very much for continuing this debate. For 1, I apologize. This is around, say, my fifth debate on DDO, and all of them until now have been rather informal. You are probably the first person I have had a debate of this type with. (And I very much appreciate you for that!) I confess I cannot prove something will 'forever be a myth', as stated by the resolution. I'm not the most skilled, and I certainly know people will vote con on the point alone. If con wants to, I can make a new debate with the same idea, but with a different resolution that would fit this argument better. For 2, I do in fact want to talk about the existence of a wage gap. You see, when I hear of the wage gap, I always know someone is going to say one thing, and that thing is that the wage gap is very sexist. Perhaps it is because of were I live, places where I go, or some sort of personal factor, but everyone I know says the wage gap is very sexist. My opinion is that the wage gap is sexist, and that is what I am trying to debate. I very much know there is a difference in making money between genders, but I do not believe it to be the 'sexist wage gap' it is all said to be. Very much sorry that I had not pointed this fact out earlier. (Now that I think about it, 'Wage Gap Sexist or Not' would be a better resolution...) For 3, your first bullet confuses me. 'newly trained male physicians in 2008 made $16,819 than newly trained female physicians' do you mean they made 16,819 more money than female physicians? for your second bullet, mothers have to be payed less, not because of 'incompetence' but because they are simply mothers. Again, businesses and companies do not want to give a mother who has children the same amount of money as a male or a father, because males are less likely to not be at work than mothers. There are even bonuses for fathers so they can provide for the family, letting the mother need the money less. for your third bullet, I looked into the source, and all I found was what I had stated before- women had more flexibility, many women found it hard to balance work with family, among other things. I failed to find where you found that the wage gap was reduced when women were making the decisions, however. for your fourth and fifth bullet, I don't see how this helps. We have already said that there is a difference in wage, but you did not show anything that made the wage gap for CEOs or any profession of any importance, or anything unique about that special profession that could specifically affect the wage. The last argument con makes is extremely unstable. If we are talking about biases, values, and cultural identities, then it would be near impossible to pinpoint what a company would do in such situations. http://www.psmag.com... There's even a part of mothers that work that get a bonus for being mothers. (Again, if con wishes, I will gladly instigate another argument with a better resolution.) To you, con!
The 'Wage Gap' Will Forever Be a Myth

Thank you for accepting, Con. As I have said before, the wage gap is something that has been debunked plenty of times before this debate. Anyway, here's something I've heard a lot about: Women get 78 (or 77) cents with every dollar a man gets. If this was true, companies and businesses wouldn't waste their money on hiring men- they would only hire women and save plenty of money. Along with that, women often have jobs that aren't as high-paying as men do, not because they are forced to, but because they simply want to. It is very terrible that people believe that women absolutely have to be forced into jobs that they don't want, simply to even out the numbers. (Looking at you, Affirmative Action.) Now, I'd like to add that men usually choose to have higher paying, but high risk jobs, but women usually choose to work family-friendly, safe places with lower pay. Many women simply choose more flexible jobs due to things such as marriage and children. However, the biggest problem about the wage gap is that it is almost impossible for it to be truly a fact. They are much too many variables in play here, such as part-time and full-time, maternity leave, experience and lots of other factors. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... To you, Con!
The 'Wage Gap' Will Forever Be a Myth

Due to previous argument's problems, (impossible revolution, friend posting inadequate argument) I will have to forfeit this debate. I'm sure that even if I posted a good argument, people would vote con no matter what I do. I am truly sorry for con for this last 'argument', but this one debate has been a stressful item on my shoulders, especially with the embarrasment of my friend doing such a terrible thing on something I owned. But I must say, thank you very much for this debate, con, it was very informative. Hoping very much that this apology will lift some weight off my shoulders.
The Second World War was NOT Germany's fault

I agree with your statement in some point. Treaty of Versailles did made the live of the Germans harder. Nevertheless did the Germans elect Hitler, who was in a Party that already had some fascist ideas, which was known to the people who voted for Hitler's election. And what actually was an act of war, was the fact that Germany attacked Poland and parts of France. You cannot blame another nation for actively attacking another country, than the country that actually attacked. Even if people had a hard time, this is not a justification for attacking other countries and being fascist.
The Second World War was NOT Germany's fault

I agree that it was down to their own free will, but like I said the German people were desperate. No one expected France to be as harsh as they were, and no-one expected America's economy to crash as this is what was keep them afloat. Hitler rose up at the right time promising Germany the world, promising to make them great again, he mentioned nothing of war or of what was to come so how where they to know? Hitler's main foreign policy aim was to reverse the Treaty of Versailles. In doing so he did make Germany great again, in a way that frightened the Allies, that's what it was about pure fear. To conclude, due to the unfair treatment of Germany after WWI by the French in the Treaty of Versailles, caused a young new generation to rise up from the chaos, promising Germany the world, telling them exactly what they wanted to hear, this combined with Hitler's public speaking skills made the election a complete, wash out. The German people were desperate after the wall street crash, and had no where else to turn to. How where the people supposed to know what was to happen? Germany built up it's army again and conscription increased dramatically, and this scared the Allies, so much that they tried to go through the UN, the fact that this didn't break German morale was hardly a act of war was it?
The Second World War was NOT Germany's fault

WW1 actually has crippled the pride of Germans back then, and as you said, the treaty gave the Germans some hard conditions. The thing is that WW1 was actually too, something that Germany is partly to blame for. And the French could not let Germany get away with no punishment, because maybe then, France would have been viewed as week, for not punishing the Germans. That too, could lead to propaganda, that would lead to expansion and conquering of other countries and the feeling of superiority for the Germans. Despite this, every human being has option to think about the ideas that one has. Germans after 1918 could have considered that, and still came to the conclusion that a war was the "right" answer. So if not fully, the Germans have to be blamed at least partly, for it was their own will that led to Hitler and the World War.
The Second World War was NOT Germany's fault

Germany was not to blame for WWII, as the unequal and unrealistic treaties that ended the war cripled and humiliated an already hurting Germany. The Germans experienced the worse of the Great Depression following these unequal treaties, and therefore reacted the most radically and desperatly. A charismatic and well spoken politician stood up durning these dark times and promised Germany the world. After what the people had just been through, (being unjustly punished for the actions of few), they were willing to take a chance on the world.WWII was caused by the unwillingness of the Allies to create lasting peace by giving Germany a chance. Without the harsh conditions placed on Germany by the French in the Treaty of Versailles, there would have been no need for Hitler to rise up.
The Second World War was NOT Germany's fault

The Second World War is Germany's fault. I am German myself and you can back my point up with truckloads of evidence. 1933 as Hitler was elected as the leader of Germany, most propaganda in Germany says that the "Aryan Race" is superior to other races and therefore has to extend it's territory. Many Germans believed, that because of that superiority, they could take over regions of other countries, because of self entitled superiority. In addition to that racism spread more and more and Hitler turned Germans into a pit of mindless followers with total faith/believe in the total war.
The Second World War was NOT Germany's fault

For clarification, I will be arguing that WWII was NOT Germany's fault, and my opponent will argue that it was. 1) No racism or hatred towards any country mentioned. 2) Keep it clean no swearing or insults. 3) For the first round please accept, with any other rules you see fit. Rounds 2 and 3 will be for our main points plus any rebuttal, and finally round 4 will be for conclusion. Voters please be honest and unbiased. Good luck to all. Please feel free to comment, I'd love to hear everyone's arguments and reply to them all :)
Ladybugs are helpful to us and deserve respect

Here is a sad story: My friend who we shall call Bette saw a harmless little ladybug in her room. One helpless little ladybug who was just trying to find a warm place to sleep and maybe survive until the rest of his/her 15 day life cycle[1] was up. He/she was only going to live 15 days max but bette decided to cut their little life short so that she could continue living her +70 yr life span. This little lady bug was minding its own business when suddenly, out of the blue, a hand comes down and picks up the little ladybug who was silently screaming for help. The bug was further taken outside for a slow, painful death because of the frigid temperatures. My friend Bette also played a part in helping these poor creatures to become extinct (so kind). In the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture imported the Asian multicolored ladybug as a pest control measure. It may have been too effective as native ladybug numbers are now dangerously low, with some species being nearly nonexistent. It would be a shame if they became extinct because lady bugs are very helpful members to the ecosystem. Lady bugs "are tremendous carnivores that can eat lots of significant agricultural pests," said Doug Taron, curator of biology at the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum in Chicago. "They are nature"s own "pest" controllers and are more effective than poisonous chemicals." says www.designweneed.com. Also, when Californias Citrus trees were being destroyed at a rapid rate because of pests, ladybugs were brought from Australia in an attempt to save the trees that are beneficial in their own ways too. The lady bugs were successful if saving the trees too. In conclusion, ladybugs are very beneficial to the environment and deserve to be treated kindly and not thrown out like trash on Friday morning. [1] http://www.lostladybug.org......