BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Does Not Endorse or Condone Pedophilia

Hello once again, stephannoi. I declined your challenge because it was too unspecific and too broad and I feel it glossed over Christianity which is what I addressed in my comment/vote that sparked this debate Full Resolution and Clarifications Christianity as Defined in the Bible Does not Condone or Endorse Pedophilia The Bible- the holy book of Christianity Christianity- the belief in salvation through Jesus Christ Pedophilia- the sexual attraction to young children or young teens. I will be arguing that Christianity as outlined in the Bible condemns pedophilia. Rules and Outlines This debate shall be conducted in this format. R1- Acceptance/reason for acceptance R2- Arguments only, no rebuttals R3- Rebuttals and refutations ONLY R4- Conclusions, no new arguments Rules- You may only use evidence from the scriptures of the Bible. Using other sources such as papal bulls that are not from scripture directly is forbidden as they have no scriptural basis. Only New Testament scriptures are permitted. Actions of Christians as an argument is forbidden. To summarize, only New Testament scripture is allowed and nothing else. This ensures we don't create straw mans. No ad hominim attacks, no attacks in the comments BoP is squarely on Con, as he was the original instigator of the debate before I declined to make a more detailed and better outlined debate. No attacks on Christians, as this just congests the debate Style of voting is Select Winner Good luck to my opponent.
The Bible Does Not Endorse or Condone Pedophilia

My claim was that in modern secular civilization, child marriage, which is not the main focus of the debate, is banned. The argument used by my opponent has no source. He also argues a banned point about actions by Christians of the Middle Ages instead of New Testament Times. My opponent even argued FOR the lowering of age of consent laws for those who have hit puberty http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... His arguments are both unsupported by past votes, comments, and debates, violate the rules, and have no sources backing them up. Consider my arguments extended.
The Bible Does Not Endorse or Condone Pedophilia

You said children cannot get married in christian society,that's absolutely not true.Here are evidence which apparently show that most abrahamic religion uphold pedophile and child marriage Christianity : Historically ,Since the medieval times,religious leader uphold the belief that girls should hit puberty first before they enter marriage union. Within the catholic church prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law ,the minimum age for dissoluble betrothal was 7 years in the contractees.The 1917 Code of Canon Law mandate minimum age of marriage for boys age 16 and girls age 14. The statue of westminister 1275 stated that it should be okay for girl under 12 to get married. -There is no age of consent during Holy Roman Empire and the European Colony. That's mean pedophile can get away easily with abusing girls without facing legal consequence.
Plasma is better overall for TV watching than LCD

< > However you fail to realize that people aren't often at your so-called "average distance". My opponent says that plasma is better because of picture quality. This is true if you're looking at EXACTLY the right angle at EXACTLY the right distance with the EXACT amount of light. If all that is true then you're fine. However, this is not true for the "average" consumer. LCD is better because it has the best overall picture quality. It is not affected by light nearly as much as the plasma, has a good picture quality of its own, can be seen clearly at any angle, and can be seen clearly at any distance.
Plasma is better overall for TV watching than LCD

My argument is that for people interested in a great all round TV, for normal TV viewing, mixing in things such as Bluray watching, DVD watching, Pay TV etc that Plasma is the better choice than LCD. This is assuming that the watcher is Mr & Mrs Average. This means that it's an average sized room, with average light levels, with an average budget. They are a normal "Mum & Dad" consumer. They has a wide range of viewing from sports and movies for him, and the comedies and romance movies for her. They are after a nice big screen TV, 42" and above. I believe plasma is better for a number of reasons. The benefits of plasma technology are based around the picture quality. Better blacks on the screen leads to a wide range of accurate colours on the screen, something that's important at the viewing distances an average distance back. I also believe that LCDs benefits are largely irrelevant in today's situation, based around power usage and burn-in, which for normal people are usually not very important. I'll go into more depth responding to the against response.
Do you think AAP is capable of building one solid government for Delhi, India.

Thank you, vinayindian.I will form a negative case and rebuttals this round.Negative CaseA1: The AAP have a history of achievementsFrom their website, the AAP have orchestrated in Delhi [1]: a) Removal of red beacons and end of VIP culture b) Electricity rates reduced by 50% for up to 400 units of consumption c) 20,000 litres of free water per month per connection d) 300+ night shelters for the homeless established e) CAG audit of power discoms ordered f) In Delhi Jal Board, 800 employees transferred, 3 suspended for corruption g) Anti-corruption helpline 1031 started h) Nursery admission helpline started i) Awarded Rs. 1 crore to family of police constable who died fighting the liquor mafia j) Inspection of 500+ govt schools by volunteers completed k) 36000 contract jobs were made permanent which benefited around 180,000 peopleAs you can see, these orchestrations differ in a variety of areas within governance. Take particular note of the initiation projects, such as the anti-corruption helpline (corruption is a HUGE problem, in India [2]. For example, police and the judiciary often take birbes, both of which are meant to be impartial). The fact that the AAP is tackling the massive problem of corruption shows that they have a good idea of what they need to do. Also, as a whole, these are solid indications that the AAP is capable of building a solid government.Rebuttals"I do believe that they are inexperienced. They had previously left the opportunity in just 49 days. They are having a great probability of unstable government."The party resigned because the other major parties refused to support a the Jan Lokpal Bill [3] [4]. This means that incompetence or inability were not factors in their leaving. As for the only being in office 49 days, the party still managed to produce a suprising amount of work, as indicated here [5]. At least they have experience in office, even if it was relatively short.To elaborate on this Bill, it was actually designed to curb corruption in Delhi, which as cited before, is a huge problem for not just Delhi, but India. Again, corrution is so bad in India that the police and judiciaries are taking bribes.C: Solid work in a short amount of timeDespite the AAP not being in office for long last time, they managed to target very weak areas of Indian politics and they managed to achieve quite a few positive things. As indicated by my source, and as it is well-known in India, corruption is serious problem, and the AAP seem to be targeting this, even when other parties will not. Therefore, based on these factors, the AAP is capable of building one solid government for Delhi, India.References:[1] http://aamaadmiparty.org... [2] http://www.cfr.org...[3] http://aamaadmiparty.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://aamaadmiparty.org...
Practicing Christians should not be invited to participate in our traditional seasonal festivities

Of course, Christians are entitled to celebrate Christmas, but not on December 25th, rather on 7th January, the original Christmas day. Everybody else should celebrate Yule during the festive period - the traditional mid-winter festival of the sun that the Christians hijacked when they arrived in Northern Europe and tried to replace with Christmas. That's right, during the twelve days surrounding 25th December, everybody should be having fun with laughter, eating, drinking, dancing, sex and exchanging gifts - all in joyful Yuletide abundance - everybody except the Christians that is: the Yule celebrations are not them; they shouldn't be celebrating non-Christian festivals; they should be in church quietly praying or at home solemnly reading the Bible. But don't feel sorry for the Christians: their big day comes on 7th January; the day Jesus Christ was believed to be born on and the day still celebrated by Orthodox Christians. On this day the Christians can celebrate by gorging themselves on traditional Christian dishes such as: Lenten bread; vegetables; mushroom soup and slow-cooked kidney beans with potatoes, garlic and seasoning with nuts and dried fruits for dessert - a nutritious and healthy feast which is also suitable for vegans. Yes, it's time to make it clear to Christians that they are no longer welcome to participate in our seasonal celebrations; they have nothing to do with them or their religion. And we shouldn't feel guilty about excluding them either because, just like the Jews and the Muslims, they have their own festivals which non-adherents of their faiths are not welcome to participate in. So the next time some pious Christian tries to chastise you for not going to church on December 25th, tell them to come back at Christmas (7th January), and tell them where they are not wanted as well - at any of the celebrations that take place over the festive period. Thank you. Sources: ---------- Yuletide: http://www.unhinderedliving.com... Orthodox Chirstmas Day: http://www.timeanddate.com... Winter Solstice: http://www.bbc.co.uk...
As a Whole, The Republican Party is Not Racist

First off, I made this debate because there are those out there who think that the Republican Party is made up of a bunch of racists, bigots and white elitists who favor rich white males only and I made this debate in order to prove the point that the party is nothing like that. Am I confident that I can win? Yes because the GOP is not a racist party but I do not just make debates in order to win. Apparently you thought it was racist or else you wouldn't have taken this challenge. My opponent did not refute any of my points that I made, he made no effort at all to try and disprove me. With that being said:A PieThe resolution was that As a Whole, The Republican Party is Not Racist. You're argument states that there are racists in the Republican party which I already admitted that there probably are. However, your argument does not satisfy the resolution nor does it disprove any points I laid out. If you are baking a strawberry pie and a single blueberry fell in, if one or two blueberries fell in the pie would not be called "A Strawberry-Blueberry" pie but would rather be a strawberry pie with the accidental blueberry added in. Its like when you find the accidental onion ring in your fries at Hardy's, you didn't order Onion Rings-Fries and they don't sell them to you like that because the fries are not meant to have an onion ring in them the same way that the Republican Party is not created or tailored to be racist. As a whole the Republican Party is NOT racist. The party leaders, members and platform does not support racism in anyway and you have failed to prove this wrong. When I said as a whole, I meant that as a single unit the GOP is not racist. And it's not. You will not win this debate on petty schematics. I extend all points made in the previous round and wait for my opponents reply in which he might provide evidence of racism in the Republican party that incriminates the entire group.
As a Whole, The Republican Party is Not Racist

Now Debate.org we all know that ConservativePolitico is doing this debate for a win. An 18 year old mind is frugal, and fragile, and needs mending by getting debate.org wins so that's how debates like this are created. A pieI just baked a strawberry pie. Now it will remain a strawberry pie until it is altered. If I put a bunch of blueberrys in there it would be a blueberry, and strawberry pie. Yes? Yes. The Republican party is a pie. Everyone in it makes of the contents of the pie. If there is one racist person in the Republican party, which I gurantee there is, then it alters the pie. It doesn't matter if there is just one blueberry in the strawberry pie, it then becomes a strawberry blueberry pie.So if there is one racist Republican in the Republican party pie, then a part of it is racist, which makes it not just a normal pie anymore. Individuals make up the whole. The "whole" (Definition: All of; entire) machine, including every cog needs to be not racist to consider the whole party not racist.
Should students get payed for good grades

C1) Grades do not reflect competence.It is true that grades do not always define or reflect the competence of an individual. That said, a child that is naturally intelligent must have other aspects to push them to do better than an easily earned A. Students that have learning disabilities or have external factors that prevent such success would have an unfair chance at receiving the money being distributed. This would be both discriminatory and unfair. Because of the disparity of inherent intelligence, paying for grades is fallible.C2) Paying for grades raises costs.Paying students for good grades would astronomically raise education costs. This is a problem. [1]Rebuttals:"Encourages them to work harder." This is false. The purpose of school is to teach student how to work hard. Hard work must be taught prior to paying students for work. School work is not the same as the workforce, and should not be paid for by citizens.[1] http://nces.ed.gov...VOTE CON.
God Exists

There are many forms of natural shelter that were used in ancient times, such as caves.I have no caves in my area, and my area is no city!Near Death Experience is a controversial subject, this experience further supports the idea of a God.Why, then, do someponies see Brahma, others see Allah, some see the Buhdda, and others see nothing at all. I would love to see a source on this.Excuse me. The actual percentage is 2.5%.http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
God Exists

I would like to apologize for my forfeit; my internet was down for a few days and I was unable to post. Shelter's easy to obtain? How? I certainly don't know how to make a house! There are many forms of natural shelter that were used in ancient times, such as caves.12% of water is drinkable. 12%. WITH filtration! I would love to see a source on this. Salt water can be filtered; cost is the major issue. You can even hear after being beheaded, so residual senses isn't that far out there! How can we prove this? Nobody who has been beheaded has come back to tell the tale. Conclusion: God exists. The cause of the universe can only be explained by a cause outside of space, matter, and time (God). Evidence of a finely tuned universe are everywhere. While the Near Death Experience is a controversial subject, this experience further supports the idea of a God.
God Exists

When we look at our world and universe, we can see clear evidence of fine tuning. Everything we need for life can be provided here on Earth. Water is extremely abundant, as well as many different ways of obtaining food. The shelter we need is easy to obtain as well. In addition to this, our distance to the Sun is perfect. If we were any farther away, we would freeze. If we were any closer, we would burn. The list could go on and on.12% of water is drinkable. 12%. WITH filtration!Shelter's easy to obtain? How? I certainly don't know how to make a house!We could be 25% closer and not burn. 37% further back and not freeze. That is significant. Furthermore, we know of thousands of planets in the right zone. ______________________________________________________The Big Bang Theory states that the universe came into being as a result of a "singularity", which was a very small ball of infinite density and intense heat. That would lend credence to the idea of a god, but its speculation.Also, we know the universe is expanding, from what? We don't know, but logic would dictate we are expanding from a point.Near Death Experiences are a very controversial subject, to say the least. Experiencers report such instances as traveling down a tunnel of light, meeting with dead relatives, and even catching a glimpse of heaven! Some believe them to be a glimpse of an afterlife, while others believe them to be a creation of the dying brain. When we look at the aspects of these experiences, it becomes clear that these experiences aren't simply hallucinations, but real experiences. Even though people that have these experiences come from a variety of different cultures and regions, their experiences are strikingly similar. If these experiences were a product of the brain, wouldn't the experience be tailored to the person's personal beliefs? Also, in the case of Eben Alexander and others, these experiences occurred after brain function had ceased and the cortex of their brain had actually shut off! When we look at this, it appears that our view of consciousness is not the right view after all.If we assume these are real glimpses of heaven, why does one see Brahma, while someone else sees Yahweh, while others see Horus?Also, we have to take into consideration: what would they see of without there eyes? How would they hear? Simple: Residual brain power. The people could be brought back to life, so their brains had to have been alive!You can even hear after being beheaded, so residual senses isn't that far out there!
God Exists

Very clever! :) I look forward to debating this topic. While I myself am a Christian, I will be arguing from a logical, not religious, standpoint. I will be using a few main arguments. First, I will show that the universe seems to be finely tuned to support our existence. Second, I will show that the big bang theory isn't the true explanation for the origin of our universe. 3rd, I will look at the near death experience. When we look at our world and universe, we can see clear evidence of fine tuning. Everything we need for life can be provided here on Earth. Water is extremely abundant, as well as many different ways of obtaining food. The shelter we need is easy to obtain as well. In addition to this, our distance to the Sun is perfect. If we were any farther away, we would freeze. If we were any closer, we would burn. The list could go on and on. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe came into being as a result of a "singularity", which was a very small ball of infinite density and intense heat. The problem with this is that density and heat didn't exist before the creation of the universe! This theory tries to state that something came from nothing, which goes directly goes against the Law of Conservation of Mass. Matter can't create itself, as matter, time, and energy came into existence with the universe. Therefore, we can presume that the Big Bang Theory actually is incorrect, and that the universe was actually caused by something outside of space, matter, and time. This would point to the existence of a God. Near Death Experiences are a very controversial subject, to say the least. Experiencers report such instances as traveling down a tunnel of light, meeting with dead relatives, and even catching a glimpse of heaven! Some believe them to be a glimpse of an afterlife, while others believe them to be a creation of the dying brain. When we look at the aspects of these experiences, it becomes clear that these experiences aren't simply hallucinations, but real experiences. Even though people that have these experiences come from a variety of different cultures and regions, their experiences are strikingly similar. If these experiences were a product of the brain, wouldn't the experience be tailored to the person's personal beliefs? Also, in the case of Eben Alexander and others, these experiences occurred after brain function had ceased and the cortex of their brain had actually shut off! When we look at this, it appears that our view of consciousness is not the right view after all. I look forward to hearing your arguments on this topic.
Waterboarding is An Acceptable Means of Intelligence Gathering

I have taken an extended hiatus from serious debate for some time now, primarily due to scheduling constraints, but also due to the lack of quality debate. Despite this, I see a lot of potential in this debate and with my opponent, and have opted to take it. I will make a concerted effort to post my argument on time. I'd like to focus the bulk of my argument on two main ideas that refute the need of waterboardng. They are as follows. 1. Effectiveness: How effective is waterboarding as interrogative tool? Does it actually extract useful information most of the time, or is it prone to disinformation (saying anything, even a lie, to make the terror go away)? 2. Ethical argument: Even supposing waterboarding is effective, does it lead its practitioners down a slippery slope of increasing the scope of torture, and if so, what are the potential ramifications of its usage on the conscience of a nation that says it believes in one thing, yet practices another? Since PRO initiated the debate, PRO thusly has the burden of proof. My role in the debate is to simply establish reasonable doubt. I will therefore turn over to PRO for opening arguments.
There is still too much injustice in this world-we have to lower it

Hm, well honestly it's just life. Right now even though there are wars and violence and corruption in some parts of the world in my opinion the world right now is great. It's not at its greatest that it can but how perfect can the world get? When there is good there will be evil and when there is evil there will be good. Its not only you that has realized how injustice the world is but a lot of people too! We have all worked on that and crime rates and violence have gone down. Sometimes you might not be able to see it because of what the news portray but what does the news portray? To catch people's attention the news most of the times presents bad events. Good things do happen in the world but sometimes you just got to look harder to see it. People can be bad and horrible but they can also be good and sincere. There are people who can be optimistic but there are also people who can be pessimistic. In the end it all comes down to opinion and how you see it. For me, I think that most of us are doing all that we can and I'm happy.