BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus Existed

Nobody with a score under 2500 ELO may vote. There is a lot of bias voting in religious debates and hopefully that will minimize that factor.Me and my opponent are going to be arguing which theory fits the evidence better. My theory is that The New Testament of the bible was inspired by a historical Jesus. My opponent will argue that Jesus never existed. Me and my opponent are both atheists and arguing similar things. I'm arguing that Jesus was a real man and my opponent is arguing he never existedThere are to be no semantics. The debate is strictly to dive into as much detail about the history of Jesus (or lack of it) as possible.Any lawyering or semantics should result in a 7 point forfeit for either side that engages in it.Just a reminder of where the BOP lays. The burden of proof is equal in this debate. This is strictly about which theory fits the evidence better. If my theory fits the evidence better vote for me. If Envisages theory fits the evidence better vote for him. My opponent is free to argue in the first round and pass on the last or just accept in the first round and let me argue first. Jesus will be defined as the guy who became the inspiration for the New Testament and as the guy who Paul wrote about in Epistles.
Penal labor in the United States violates international human trafficking laws

Resolution: The use of penal labor in the United States, as it is currently practiced, violates international law with respect to trafficking in persons. Penal labor is the practice of employing prisoners for various types of labor which they are required to perform. Trafficking in persons "shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs" as defined in Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons [1]. The structure of this argument will be as follows: Round 1: Acceptance only Round 2: Opening statements and no rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals to round 2 Round 4: Rebuttals to round 3 and closing statements 1. https://www.unodc.org...
The 9mm round is more suitable for everyday carry and for military use.

The 9mm round's lower recoil make it suitable for a larger variety of shooters. Because of this, it is much more suitable for the military, where are large number of users were unable to effectively shoot the 1911, and where a firearm must be suitable for users with varying skill levels. The power of the 9mm is lower than the .45, but its larger magazine capacity makes results in more firepower, and for less skilled users, helps ensure that at least one bullet is on target. The 9mm can also deliver superior power in the form of the +p+ round, which delivers more force than the majority of .45 bullets, giving it a ballistic advantage. Additionally, the 9mm round is also used by NATO, which allows military units to exchange a common ammunition. For civilians, the 9mm can be fired at a much cheaper cost and can be concealed in a much easier fashion than the .45, as seen in guns such as the Ruger LC9.
Old Spongebob (PRO 1999-2005) is better than New Spongebob (CON 2006-now)

My opponent has forfeited 2 rounds so far. I must point out that Con cannot post another rebuttal or a new argument because: a) I can't make a rebuttal to counter it, so it's unfair b) The rules state that Round 5 has to represent conclusions, not arguments or rebuttals. Pro has come up with a case, has refuted Con's one attempt to make a rebuttal, and hasn't forfeited any of the rounds. Con, on the other hand, has come up with a weak rebuttal, does not provide a strong case, (if it can be considered a case) and has forfeited 2 rounds.
Old Spongebob (PRO 1999-2005) is better than New Spongebob (CON 2006-now)

Thank you for replying. Rebuttals: "The animation quality has gone up" I have given you Season 6, which is known to have the worst animation of any Spongebob season. Take for example: Patrick's belly drum scene. The animation constantly loops, which makes it look jarring. My opponent has mentioned 5 episodes that he or she thinks are good. However, my opponent has not provided any reasonable arguments to back up why those episodes are of good quality. Gone was only an episode featuring Spongebob creepily bonding with a boat, and involves characters leaving for one day, thus, being unlikable in every single way. Toy Store of Doom was very cheesy and annoying, especially with the main characters being afraid of a wind-up robot. Shell Shocked was weak on humor, making the quality really light. My opponent also mentions episodes from Season 5 that he or she believes is good. It suffers from the same problems as the last claim. This is simply a claim without reasoning. Why do you like these episodes? Listing episodes without sharing reasoning is a the equivalent of sharing an opinion of yours. I can't refute your non-existent reasoning, so I will not bother. My opponent states that he or she doesn't remember a lot of gross-out humor in New Spongebob. Read my previous argument, there are quite a few of them. A Pal For Gary involves a gross monster trying to eat Gary, The Splinter involves... well, a splinter. It's grotesquely animated to the point where it can make the audience cringe. Yes, Old Spongebob uses jokes referring to every day events. I must say that jokes you can relate to are what make a show succeed. If I can relate to a joke, I may laugh because I know exactly what they're talking about. New Spongebob doesn't do that as much. The characters act mentally disabled and stupid for a large portion of screen time. I have already used Face Freeze as an example. Boating Buddies is another episode that can be summed up as, "Spongebob is annoying, stupid, and is a creep that stalks Squidward". Major events may excite the audience, although it means nothing if it's executed horribly. Clash of Triton had a lot of action, but it's still a horrible episode because of the conflict being between a jerk and a jerk, and because of the terrible comedy, which involves a close-up of Spongebob's ugly face. Oh hey, another gross-out. What about Squidward getting his toenail ripped off in House Fancy? The argument that fans only support Old Spongebob because of nostalgia is poor. This is only an assumption. I could argue that it's been cause of criticism and knowledge, and that fans critik New Spongebob for its poor execution. If that was the case, my whole argument would have been "I loved Old Spongebob as a kid." I used to like New Spongebob more as a kid, but I then realized that what I was watching was garbage. I started analyzing episodes and pinpointing the reasoning for why Old Spongebob was better. This puts your "nostalgia" theory to rest.
Old Spongebob (PRO 1999-2005) is better than New Spongebob (CON 2006-now)

Hi, I'm sorry about forfeiting earlier, I was sick and didnt have time to respond. While I will admit that Old Spongebob DOES have some awesome episodes, I have to say that New Spongebob has a lot better episodes, plus the animation quality has gone up. Episodes like Sand Castles in the Sand, Toy Store of Doom, Gone, House Fancy, and Shell Shocked are some of my All-Time favorite episodes, are those are only from Season 6, a season that you claim is awful. I am also greatful for you giving me Season 5, which premiered in 2007, a season that gave us such great episodes as Friend or Foe, The Original Fry Cook, Sing a Song of Patrick, The Donut of Shame, The Battle of Bikini Bottom, The Two Faces of Squidward, and Spongehenge. I won't waste all your time listing episodes, but your claim that New Spongebob has a smaller amount of good episodes must be refutted in some way. You say that the basis of New Spongebob is gross-out humor, but I seem to remember only a few episodes containing it. The Old Spongebob episodes are typically based off of every day events, turned wacky by the characters reactions, while New Spongebob's episodes are usually based off of major events happening, and have a much bigger scale. The jokes are very similiar between them and I believe the reason that the old episodes are so well recieved is primarily because of nostalgia. If you wish to restart the debate, with me as con, I am no longer sick and I will be able to respond on time, if not, I hope to recieve your response soon.
Global Warming alarmists...Haha!

Sorry I did not respond the first time. I am in the process of moving, and my internet is down. I'm using my girlfriends computer. So I would like to point out some interesting comments you made in the first post, and then briefly address the second one. You say anyone who believes in the science of climate change, known as Global Warming who drives a car, uses a computer, heats their home, ect., they are hipocrites. Well, unfortantly "living green" as it's called, is very expensive. I cannot afford a solar powered home, or a hybrid,ect. So if I have no other options when it comes to living how does this make me a hipocrite? Not a very fair argument... Now I have noticed the main thrust of your argument is targeting the talking heads of Global Warming. In my opinion it doesn't matter if Al Gore himself even believes sincerly in the science, or that he is just in it for the money as you put it. That doesn't change what enviromental scienctists have said. If global warming is true, according to the scientists, it doesn't matter how much money Al Gore was getting payed. Money doesn't change the science. You see we have basically 2 options, and 2 factors. First scenario, we'll say gloal warming does not exist and we spend the money and pass the laws and change our behavior drastically. Since it does not exist everyone will be upset right because we spent money for nothing. Second scenario, lets say global warming doesn't exist and we don't do anything. Ok, everyone is happy. But now Global Warming exists and we do something abut it. Everyone remains neutral. Some mad that we payed for it all and others happy we still have a planet. The last scenario, Global warming is a threat and we do nothing. Nobody will be happy nor sad. Everyone will be dead. So you say that Global Warming is only trying to make certain people richer. Why are non-profit organizations begging congress to take action? What money will they make? Sorry I'm in a rush to post this. I have to leave. Sorry I wasn't as prepared to comment.
National Heatlhcare is good.

Let's start by analyzing what my opponent has conceded. 1. National Healthcare stunts medicine development. By not aguing against it, my opponent has agreed with it. 2. National Healthcare kills people. Same here. 4. National Healthcare will add a large tax burden to america. Same here. Now to my opponent's claims: "National health care should be given to the part of the country that cannot get insurance. This is because everyone needs to be able to be treated. If you really believe nobody dies from not having insurance please look at the following link: http://www.wsws.org...; My opponent has conceded that National Healthcare kills people, too. People die either way. However, more people will die under a National Healthcare system than in the current system. According to my opponent's source, more than 18,000 Americans lose their lives evey year because of a lack of health insurance. However, according to my statistic, "Of the almost 37,000 people who died in hospital, just over a quarter received some form of palliative care, and the majority of these were terminally ill patients." - http://secure.cihi.ca... , (see last argument), 3 quarters of Canadians who died in a hospitol did not even recieve palliative care. To be generous to my opponent, this is 27,000 patients that arent treated under the Canadian Healthcare system. THis may seem abot the same until we project it onto a U.S. population. Canada's poputlation is about 38 million. http://www.sustreport.org... The United States' population is about 300 million. http://www.census.gov... And so, projected onto the U. S. population, the National Healthcare related deaths would total over a quarter of a million. Therefore, the notion that National Healthcare will increase treatment, as I have already argued, is false. Another claim was: "Of course you could still buy it and some jobs may offer different insurance, you could have options, but for those that don't have insurance they could get it. " Why would anyone want to buy something they're already paying for? After many people drop out of their healthcare insurance, the companies will crash and they will cease to exist. Why would a job offer health insurance to someone who can get it "free" from the government? No business has enough of a surpluss to give this to each of their employers. Those 'options' are gone. In addition to costing more lives, my opponent has agreed that it will also cost jobs and increase taxes from every-day americans. This increase on taxes will take from the people who barely make it by without losing their house and going hungry. These are the people without health insurance. To give it to them would cost them and they obviously don' have the money. Also, my opponent has agreed that National Healthcare slows down the development of new medicine. The lack of this medicine will cost even more lives indirectly than the current projection of a quarter million deaths per year. And, that is why National Healthcare is a bad thing.
National Heatlhcare is good.

National health care should be given to the part of the country that cannot get insurance. This is because everyone needs to be able to be treated. If you really believe nobody dies from not having insurance please look at the following link: http://www.wsws.org... Even if only 1/17 people died from not having insurance, that is too many people. I understand my opponent's point about people loosing jobs, but that is not necessary, only those that don't have insurance would receive the benefits. Of course you could still buy it and some jobs may offer different insurance, you could have options, but for those that don't have insurance they could get it. That is why NH is a good thing.
National Heatlhcare is good.

I have never debated a topic like this before, so I hope I do good. I will rebut my opponet's points: "For National Healthcare to be considerred good, it must give more benefit to society than damage. " Of course it does it gives people who otherwise couldn't afford to LIVE to keep their life. Think, if you were too poor to have health insurence, and your work did not offer it, and you had to go into surgery or something, then you would not be able to afford it. You can't go into surgery and you die because of it, I am pretty sure that would help. Not very much of the US is insured, so this scenario could happen to any one of those people, and thus making it benificial to society. Now I make my own points: ============================================================================ I believe National Health Care is good, because it benefits society. It allows our people to be healthier, and thus happier. Many people die only because they do not have insurence. Besides every other devoloped nation has public health care. Thus they limit the profit drug companies can make. Thus medication costs the most in the US. It is true they drug companies need the money, but the US shouldn't pay it ALL. ============================================================================ I now await my opponent's responce.
the golden rule in application is unclear

I do agree with you on a lot but that doesn't change the fact that from a societal standpoint there are no grey zones. There can't be otherwise there is no basis for basic morality. As with rob and bob. Love the names they have a ring to it. Society demands that he intervenes for the simple fact that drugs are illegal and he could possibly be a threat to others whether directly or indirectly. But it was the individual that was faced with the choice not society. There are a lot of rules etched in rock that are very clear and distinct. But it is up to the individual to apply them in the best moral context they can. Simply trying to twist my words to say your right doesn't prove your right. I have argued and continue to argue the original statement made which is the golden rule in application is unclear. Granted you realized your mistake but that doesn't take away from the fact that the original statement is what we are arguing. Since my opponent took the pro stance she was required to defend her claim in the full. She failed to do this by one. Right off the bat said that it was only true in circumstance. And two isn't truly agreeing with me by arguing that societal application is unclear and must be due to the individual factor. But the societal factor must be clear otherwise the golden rule wouldn't exist. I have provided sufficient logical evidence to why the statement being debated is untrue and my opponent has simply debated why I agree with them on some points which they believe is a default win. They have not provided sufficient evidence to refute my reasoning but instead agree with me by saying our positions are the same. Which in retrospect proves the original statement wrong and therefore I believe I have provided the better argument.
the golden rule in application is unclear

i dont think it's fair to say i think the golden is always unclear, but yes i should have said it often is unclear in appliation. "But you fail to take into account that there is no grey area in societies basic overall application of any rule." go back to the hypothetical of bob and john. it is unclear to bob using our own social values, whether or not he should intervene. i can't really follow how con is now trying to back out with agreeing with me. he says it's unclear in application, then says social rules are clear in application? i don't understand how that follows. social rules just add more layers to the individuals decision making. i think con just basically agreed with me, then went on to try to unsucessfully reason himself into saying how he doesn't. i say, let's go back to the statement from con that basically reiterated my resolution, thus him conceding and me winning. "Personal application of a golden rule can never be clear and varies from person to person."
the golden rule in application is unclear

And as I stated before we pretty much are on the same terms. But also notice that I said in societal application it is very clear what the golden rule is. Your for a statement which simply implies that no matter what circumstance the golden rule in application will always be unclear. And in the end we are arguing the original statement not a circumstance to your statement. What I mean by societal application is take western societal values.. treat others how you wish to be treated. There is no grey area there its pretty straight forward. One of the ten commandments is thou shall not kill. There is no grey area there. You can not kill period. But we all know there are circumstances such as self defence where it is grey. So your original statement before you had your opening statement is wrong. And in a way you've already answered yourself. But you fail to take into account that there is no grey area in societies basic overall application of any rule. That is why they are there. It only becomes uncertain when you break a law down into individual circumstances. So I argue that you are right but for the purpose of debate and the heading at the top of the screen the statement is wrong.
the golden rule in application is unclear

so con is basically is drawing issue with how i use the word 'unclear'. aside from that though, con basically agrees with me: "Personal application of a golden rule can never be clear and varies from person to person." "There are multiple ways any rule can be applied [....] for an infinite number of variables such as religion, society,personal values,family background,situation, etc." notice he even said personal *application* just as i did in the resolution.
the golden rule in application is unclear

Alright so I'll start off by saying that I agree with you on many points, but your question was is the golden rule unclear? Unclear in what instance? There are multiple ways any rule can be applied and you are using it as a blanket statement for an infinite number of variables such as religion, society,personal values,family background,situation, etc. So the question is unclear and in a way undebateable due to the lack of a situation to focus on. which allows you to run circles around anything I might say because you have an infinite amount of circumstances to pull from; but I'll end my argument with this, societies application of a golden rule is quite clear as it follows laws and cultural conduct. Personal application of a golden rule can never be clear and varies from person to person.
Mixed Women should not present the face of Black women. They are not the same

Ok InkyBunny. You"re making the argument that identity and culture are different for mulattos and blacks. Since I"m an old white dude you are arguing from experience and I am arguing from general speculation. I can"t compete with that. But the real killer is that you didn"t deliver your argument in a way that came across as angry, just "This is the way it is for me". Given what you said in your last argument, I think it would be wise for me to concede instead of trying to twist this around on you somehow just for the sake of winning. Well done.
Mixed Women should not present the face of Black women. They are not the same

I sort of get what you"re saying, and don"t altogether disagree, but this is a debate, so" You"re saying that Black is what Black looks like. I say that Black is what Black is. Meaning, someone with skin lighter than yours can be just as Black as you, in culture, in values, or anything else that you would you would agree defines what it means to be Black. If your argument is correct, anyone claiming to be Black would have to pass a skin color test. This sounds a bit harsh, eh? But let"s be fair. Your argument is a bit more subtle. You seem to be arguing more against commercial representation than against any single person. Ok, if Halle Berry is on the cover of Ebony, does she pass your test? Her skin is the color of cocoa, but I don"t think anyone would call her "not black". Check this story out: http://www.cosmopolitan.com...
Mixed Women should not present the face of Black women. They are not the same

The face of the cover is what represents the majority. If nobody cared about the majority they wouldn't cater to them but they do. Most of media seems to cater to what people like. By 99% I mean the many black women in the united states. How they look like. Not 99% Black but the common look of Black and mixed isn't it. It doesn't have to be the cover of ebony but even when you open the magazine a lot of the times can you even find a women who doesn't look mixed. When I see a company trying to cater to black women the common thing you see is most of the women barely look black. There's always that only one Black women. As if to show diversity instead of to show what is real. To pretend mixed women or men are black is to pretend a chipoodle is a Chihuahua.