BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Ragdoll is the best breed of cat.

Ave!Con ArgumentP1: In order for the Ragdoll to be the best breed of cat, there must be an objective standard of what is and isn't a good cat.P2: There is no reason to believe that such a standard exists.C: The Ragdoll cannot be the best cat.Logical Formulation: For X to be true, there must be a Y. There is no Y, therefore x is not true.Response to ProPro lists the following traits of the Ragdoll to show it is the best breed: companionship, compatability with other pets, need for attention, and attractiveness. Even if I granted him all of these, there is no reason to think that these traits makes the Ragdoll the best cat. What if I said the best cat was unfriendly, incompatible with other pets, doesn't want attention, and is very ugly? There's no way for that to be disproven, because ideas of what the best cat is are only subjective. Vale!
The Ragdoll is the best breed of cat.

Mind you, this is my first ever debate.-Companionship-The Ragdoll cat is, perhaps, the most affectionate cat breed available. The dog is known as man's best friend, yes, but this cat is known as man's best companion. This has even earned them the title of "puppy cat". They love being around people and they care for their owners. When hurt, the cat will not leave its owner's side for anything other than food and water. This comes from personal experience, as I have owned a ragdoll cat that did this for my mother many times. These cats are considered some of the best cats when it comes to small children, next to the Manx and Birman. It does not play too entirely rough and will stop when the child appears in pain, surprisingly enough. This, though, could be from their trait of not being fighters. These cats are lovers. They are known forretrieving toys, loyalty to its owner(s), following its owner(s) around everywhere, attention to what its owner(s) are doing all the time and being very devoted to its owner(s).-Compatability with other pets-The Ragdoll, being the lover that it is, loves to be around other pets such as dogs, cats, lizards (larger ones such as monitors since this cat can be up to 3 times the size of other ordinary housecats.), and birds. It will, sometimes, test the limits of these animals, however. Not too much, though, as not to ruin a possible companionship. Just simply to play.-Need for attention-Despite their need for human attention, it isn't exactly too much. You can simply play with them here and there and still have plenty of time for yourself. Ragdolls,as kittens, are much more easily entertained and will play with just about anything they see that may sparkle, dangle, or fly around the house than adults. (Despite adults being easily entertained, just with fewer things) They require little to no grooming and when they do require it, the grooming session can take less than 20 minutes since their fur tends to be soft and fine.-Attractiveness-When I say this, I mean the fur, ears, eyes, etc.Their sizes vary from small as an American shorthair to 3 times bigger than that. Their eyes are a deep blue that are a simple oval shape, as opposed to the almond or circular shape of other breeds of cats, which I don't find go too well with a cat. Their fur is soft and is often conpared with that of a rabbit. Their legs, face, ears, and tail are all darker than the rest of the body, which is commonly thought of as cute by cat owners.-Personality-Now, this cat is one of the calmest cats you can ever own. They, as I stated above, enjoy being around humans 98% of the time. They enjoy all types of affection from the youngest of people, to the oldest. They enjoy being held like babies and they tend to go limp when being held as that they can let themselves get into a more comfortable position while being held.
The Trinity is biblical

The reason that God is referred to as plural in the bible is because the bible is polytheistic in origin [1] not because it is referring to the trinity. My opponent"s entire argument was that since God is referred to as plural, then that refers to the trinity, but as I have explained, it does not. My opponent must give an example of the trinity being mentioned in the bible, not just polytheism in the bible. [1] http://www.debate.org...
The Trinity is biblical

My opponent used these quotes in attempt to prove that Jesus was God: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God" John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." My opponent is basically arguing that since the word is God and that the word is Jesus, then that means Jesus is God. But since my opponent is arguing for the trinity, he can"t rely on the transitive property. The trinity states that the son is God, the father is God, but the son is not the father (violating the transitive property). If this is logically possible then it is also possible that the word is Jesus, and the word is God, but Jesus is not God. Thus my opponent has not proven that Jesus is God, unless he relies on the transitive property which contradicts the claim he is arguing for. Since Jesus being God is required for the trinity to be true, and since my opponent failed to prove that the Bible states Jesus is God, my opponent failed to prove that the trinity is biblical.
The Trinity is biblical

"My link shows what I quoted on my computer. Maybe it doesn"t show on mobile devices or something, but anyways, this shows the same thing" Con was not specific at all in his/her claim. Con cites wikipedia, but give absolutely no argument to support his/her position. The Greek word "agapētos" is the word for beloved (1). "How does that possibly imply anything about Jesus when it doesn"t mention Jesus." The identity of Jesus is found in the passage as i will demonstrate: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God" John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:17 "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." This proves that Jesus is God. God's spirit is God himself as it can do things that only God can such create (Gen. 1:2). His spirit is also equated with God's presence (Ps. 139:7"8). Once again, Con does not present an argument for monogenes having alternative interpretations. Jewish views also have the Messiah as God's first born (2). Conclusion: There is tons of evidence for the Trinity that Con has failed to refute. Linguistically, the text points to only three persons as one being. Sources: 1. http://www.blueletterbible.org... 2. Midrash Rabbah Shemot 19
The Trinity is biblical

My link shows what I quoted on my computer. Maybe it doesn"t show on mobile devices or something, but anyways, this shows the same thing: [2] "During Jesus baptism (Matthew 3:16-17 16), Psalm 2 is quoted and according to the NIV study Bible, the Greek tense of the verb "beloved" is unaffected by time. Therefore, it implies that Jesus is eternal." That does not even mention the word "beloved" as my opponent states. ""1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [pros] God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." Pros in Greek was a term meaning "to or towards (2). This implies that Jesus was a separate and eternal being distinct from God the father while being God at once." How does that possibly imply anything about Jesus when it doesn"t mention Jesus. My opponent keeps making the argument the father and son are distinct entities. That conclusion does not at all imply the trinity. You have to give evidence that Jesus, the father, and the Holy Spirit are all a god and that they are all the same god for it to support the trinity. Of course Jesus and the father are separate entities; that is agreed upon. But the bible doesn"t support the trinity unless you can show that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God. There is disagreement whether monogenes means one and only God. [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Trinity is biblical

1) Con's source leads us absolutely no where. All i see are several sites on the Google search engine. Con commits the fallacy of repetition (1). While Con tells us that there are similarities, experts tells us that those similarities do not imply that Elohim is pagan in origin or that the Hebrews borrowed everything from other myths. Con gives specifically no linguistic proof by any source demonstrating that Elohim was originally a pagan concept. I've already cited scholars who pointed out there is no relation between Hebrew theology and other myths. More evidence the Trinity is supported: During Jesus baptism (Matthew 3:16-17 16), Psalm 2 is quoted and according to the NIV study Bible, the Greek tense of the verb "beloved" is unaffected by time. Therefore, it implies that Jesus is eternal. This is also the very 1st time we see the father, the son, and holy ghost work as one. In the O.T, kings were anointed by oil but Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isa. 61:1). Matthew 22:41-46 "41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?" They said to Him, "The Son of David." 43 He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call Him "Lord," saying: 44 "The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool""? 45 If David then calls Him "Lord," how is He his Son?" 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore." This is clearly an indication that Jesus is an eternal being as distinct from the father. Luke 10:13-15 13 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades." 16 He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." Another example of the relationship between the father and the son. John 1:1 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [pros] God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." Pros in Greek was a term meaning "to or towards (2). This implies that Jesus was a separate and eternal being distinct from God the father while being God at once. John 1:14 "14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten [monogenes] of the Father, full of grace and truth." "Monogenes" means "one and only" (3). Sources: 1. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com.... 2. http://biblehub.com... 3. http://biblehub.com...
The Trinity is biblical

My opponent states "First Con does not present evidence for Elohim being polytheistic in origin, but cites an old debate" even though my opponent previously stated in round 2, "The Hebrew "Elohim" is plural based on the plural verb "asah" prefixed by the nun (1). This is also observed with pagan gods (2). " "Hebrew Elohim in English translations of the Bible is generally rendered as gods when occurring with a plural verb or referring to pagan deities, and as God when occurring with a singular verb or referring to the God of Israel." [1] And yes the bible did originate from polytheism as most people who reads the debate I sited would understand. Again my opponent has failed to demonstrate the bible mentioning the trinity. [1] http://lmgtfy.com...
Education for children is necessary

At the age of 16 you can leave home without your parents consent. If you're no longer dependent upon your parents, then you're an adult [1]. Children are between the ages of 4 to 13 or 14. At 15, 16, and 17 you're classed as a young adult. At 18 you're an adult, definitely not a child Pro must prove why school education's important to become a doctor etc despite being able to take G.C.S.E's much later in life. sources: [1 ]https://www.childline.org.uk...
There is no such thing as viruses

Rebuttal(s):The flu is not caused by bad diets of sugar, grains,etc. The flu caused that:http://www.vesselmedical.com.... Question for my opponent:if what you gave is true on the causes of flu like your bad diet,how did the first person identify the cause of it when the person didnt know how to get a flu? And when he/she went to the doctor, how accurate were the doctors claims when you said and I quote,"Note - The doctor doesn't really care how the person got sick. The doctor needs sick people to make a living. Thus, they need to keep the real cause of their sickness a secret. They need to give the patient false information about diseases being caused by viruses and germs. Thus, the patient will never get wise about what the cause of their problem is and they will continue to get sick regardless of how much medication and other useless remedies the doctor gives them." So how accurate are your findngs that somehow you get the flu by what was that? Problems in the digestive system? Final argument:Yes many of you at this point may agree with my opponent but note that in my previous argument I mentioned about the zika virus and my opponent hasnt done a rebuttal on it probrably because our genius here who thinks a flu is caused by problems in the digestive system didnt have anything to say? So although we may disagree on the fact that viruses like SARS or H1N1 may be false but there is no evudence that zika does not exist. I believe this says it all that viruses like zika do exist(or most of it): https://www.cdc.gov...(what we know about the virus) https://images.google.com.sg...(The sad effects of zika in reality) With the following points of mine,I hoped that Ive managed to convince everyone here that viruses do exist.
There is no such thing as viruses

1. The flu is not a bug that goes around. The flu only affects those people that eat bad diets which contain lots of sugar, grain, fat and dairy products. Any person who eats little or none of these products will not get the flu. Germs can enter the blood stream though. This occurs due to a condition called "leaky gut syndrome" which allows gut bacteria to enter the blood stream making people feel sick. Grain causes an allergic reaction in the gut which causes inflammation. Thus, germ get into the blood stream from the gut only. Note - The germs do not come from exterior sources as the medical system implies. 2. The so called 'blood tests' which show the existence of a virus are bogus tests. The blood is put into a spinning test tube which separates the blood from the water and other material. The results are then put through a filter. Any particles of a certain size are said to be 'viruses'. lol They will then count the weight of the particles and give you a viral loading number. This procedure is a complete joke and doesn't really tell you anything. They are just assuming that particles of a certain size are in fact viruses, but they really haven't got a clue what these particles are. I would say that these particles are just broken pieces of cells which were damaged by their violent treatment and shaking. Note - In order test that a germ is the right one, you must replicate the germ in a petri dish and then reinfect another person to see if the germ is the cause. Note - This procedure has never been successfully carried out in 200 years of testing. Question for my opponent - How did the first person identify the first virus when that person didn't know where to look and also didn't know what a virus looked like? Thus, we can plainly see that the existence of a virus is a logical impossibility. Viruses are said to be both living and non-living entities. This is also a logical impossibility. Something is either alive or dead. There is no in between organisms which are dead first and then come to life when you add a nutrient. Organisms can only go from living to dead. Not the other way round. This is just plain crazy. http://neue-medizin.com...
There is no such thing as viruses

Doctors ain't as clever as they think they are. When somebody presents with a fever; the doctor will use a flow chart to determine what type of problem. They use symptoms to determine what type of disease. That's the problem! They ONLY use symptoms to determine the problem. They never, ever do a blood test to see a virus. That's because there is no such thing as a virus. Did the doctor ask the person what they were eating? Answer - Never. Did the doctor ask the patient how much sleep they were getting? Answer - Never. Thus, the doctor doesn't know what the cause of the problem is. Note - The doctor doesn't really care how the person got sick. The doctor needs sick people to make a living. Thus, they need to keep the real cause of their sickness a secret. They need to give the patient false information about diseases being caused by viruses and germs. Thus, the patient will never get wise about what the cause of their problem is and they will continue to get sick regardless of how much medication and other useless remedies the doctor gives them. Note - The flu is caused by a bad diet of grain, sugar and dairy and has nothing to do with viruses. Grain causes a condition known as leaky gut syndrome which allows gut bacteria to enter the blood stream. This is what causes illness. The germs come from interior sources and not exterior sources as the medical system would imply.
There is no such thing as viruses

Sorry I did not elaborate. By flowchart I mean something doctors use. For example if you sweat alot, the doctors will go down the chart and continue asking questions if you feel weak. If so the doctor can classify it under a fever. If we talk sbput SARS,in 2003 there were no arrows down the flowchart of syntoms which could classify the virus as something as simple as the common vold. Rebuttal:my opponent mentioned that he/she used to keep getting flus. Isnt the flu a virus? It says right here under the paragraph of what is a flu:https://www.webmd.com.... So if he/she says that viruses, why does he/she keep getting them?
There is no such thing as viruses

Putting myself in pro"s shoes:I saw no evidence on what he mentioned about SARS. There was no evidence that somethig ELSE apart from SARS killing hundereds. Whereas if you look at my point of view there was evidence that the virus did exist. Unique arrows in the flowchart was found when SARS was discovered:https://ecdc.europa.eu.... Yes all these syntoms can be experienced but if you join all of them together it makes no sense. So how can viruses like SARS not exist with these unique paths in the flowchart?
There is no such thing as viruses

Just because the media said it was a SARS virus that caused the death of hundreds of people doesn't mean that a virus was the true cause. I used to get lots of colds and flu symptoms before I found that I could avoid the flu and cold by eating a diet which doesn't contain grain, sugar and dairy. When I stopped eating grain, sugar and dairy I stopped taking thyroid medication for enlarged goitre; had no more headaches; stomach upsets or chest pains. Thus, viruses are not the cause of the flu or any other disease for that matter. The flu and other respiratory diseases are caused by eating grain, sugar and dairy. These products are unnatural for the human digestive system and cause a condition known as leaky gut syndrome which allows gut bacteria to enter the blood stream via the intestine. Thus, the germs are from internal sources and don't come from exterior sources as the medical system falsely implies. The Black Death was a result of volcanic gases which caused massive crop failure and a weakening of the sunlight for a long period. This reduced the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables which caused massive starvation and famine. In those days, people didn't understand the importance of vitamins. There were no satellites which could have alerted them to the volcanic activity which was occurring in the northern hemisphere. https://motherboard.vice.com... https://www.theguardian.com...
There is no such thing as viruses

Apparently you havent exactly read that much. Take SARS as an example. If viruses did not exist why did so many people die becuase of the virus? Or go back to the 1500"s/1600"s(I forgot when was it) when black death occured. That was of sorts a virus and many people suffered from it. So how are viruses according to my opponent a ton of BS? So it was just a coincidence that millions of people died because there is no such thing of the term virus?
There is no such thing as viruses

There are no viruses.There never has been any viruses in the past and there wont be any viruses in the future. That's because viruses don't exist. Viruses are just made up nonsense by the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies so that they can make huge mega-dollars out of gullible people with drugs and vaccines. (Only people with some life experience can apply. That means no 16 year olds thanks.)
Children vs adults

Children make up a lot of the population in our world today. Children are a very important part of our society, for example, they give jobs to teachers and principals. Also, children are the future of this world. Now you may think that these children can only change the world when they are adults, however they can do that now. For example, Malala Yousafzai, and child of the age of 16 recently stood up for what she believed in, and got shot. She made a difference in how we see the world. And guess who shot her? An adult. Another thing that I would like to point out is this, though adults make differences, they wouldn't make those difference without their childhood. They had creativity when they were children, they didn't think about the problems that may face their solutions, but just the solution. Because of this, they didn't hold back, and they made great ideas, unafraid of the problems. Now many lose this creativity when they become adults. But some adults don't, and they make amazing changes to this corrupt world. And without the amazing things they learned and loved as children, this would be practically impossible. Another thing is that children listen- mostly. They hear the important lessons that adults nail into their brains, and they try to remember it, and think about it. They think about how they like it or don't like it, they think if it's right or wrong. But many adults don't listen to children. They can hear that little boy who is making a difference, but they aren't listening. Though some do, for the most part they don't. They don't because instantly this comes to mind, " What does a child know? They are to young to understand anything." And those questions is what makes some adults adults in the first place. They try to make sure they are in power, they edge what they think should be edged into a child's mind. But the children, who are visionaries have no say. Because of adults, they have to wait until they are adults, just so they can share an idea that could of changed the world years ago.