BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pennington is NOT a genuine believer & Story book jebus was an eternal Jew!

Con claims - " I am Christian and simply follow Biblical principles. I will defend that I am Christian and follow Christian doctrine. I will also rebuttal the claim that Jesus is a 'eternal Jew.' "Con: I am Christian and simply follow Biblical principles.Pro: I earlier asked Con to provide his preferred Story book version, but he failed to even do that; so at this stage any old common or garden bible Story book version should suffice for his claims!In accordance with Con's claim that he believes his as yet unnamed Story book version, Pro requires legitimate proofs (according to e.g. 1 Thess. 5:21, 2 Tim. 4:5 & 1 Pet. 3:15) that Con, by claiming to be a genuine believer & has ' followed the basic biblical principles ' as any genuine believer is commanded to do has in fact done so? -i.e. Proofs from Con req'd e.g. - 1. That Con no longer sins?2. That Con has ' sold everything he had and given the proceeds to the poor? '.2a) I would be pleased to receive therefore legitimate copies of written and independently witnessed signatures in a Statutory Declaration confirming you have strictly obeyed Matt. 19:21? (List of assets, property, Bank statements etc all reading zero? and your only assets are some cloths and some food and a Statement that you are absolutely ' content ' with that?3. IF you & your imaginary friend are what they claim to be & fulfill the promises made in bible Story book land, then I want a paraplegic friend of mine to be immediately cured physically and restored to full physical health.3a) Further details are NOT required as Con's 'all knowing Story book god ' obviously already has and knows all his details. (allegedly?)4. A further legal statement also signed by Con (Real Name & details) & also legitimate unbiased/non-religious believing witnesses Or also by those also claiming to be a genuine believer (or such as your soon to be ex-pastor), that your fundamental desire is not for personal divine Story book offered coercive bribes/rewards for e.g. eternal life or immortality; but rather it is a noble willingness on your part to do as Atheists have done on the various Battle-fields throughout history, by them selflessly sacrificing themselves and literally ' laying down their literal physical life; for both believers & non-believers with absolutely NO expectations of divine rewards? (Said documents would make me subject to Legal action should I ever divulge your personal details openly, which I would never do without your written consent & authority!).Over to you & your imaginary friend!Con: " I will defend that I am Christian and follow Christian doctrine. "Pro: By all means I have challenged you to legitimately and unambiguously do so and I have given you every opportunity of doing so by legitimately fulfilling the above!Con: I will also rebuttal the claim that Jesus is a 'eternal Jew.'Pro: My evidence will primarily be contained according to your answer to the following: " Do you Con, deny that the Story book biblical jesus was born a Jew?Over to you Con & your imaginary friend!
Pennington is NOT a genuine believer & Story book jebus was an eternal Jew!

The Biblical text that we will use is the King James Version. My opponent is left with the BOP of proving the resolution to be true. The resolution is: 'Pennington is NOT a genuine believer & Story book jebus was an eternal Jew!' I am Christian and simply follow Biblical principles. I will defend that I am Christian and follow Christian doctrine. I will also rebuttal the claim that Jesus is a 'eternal Jew.' I await my opponents opening argument.
Pennington is NOT a genuine believer & Story book jebus was an eternal Jew!

Your Profile I checked you make the claim of being a xtian? This is easily also proven spurious should you - 1. I wish to Start a Debate where I can examine some of your fundamental claims such as your claim you are a genuine jebus' believer, compared against the Story book bible version of your choice? 2. Story book biblical jebus was an ' eternal Jew ' so are you a wanna-be an eternal Jew or remain a Johnny Come Lately pretend & fraudulent believer? I will use whatever Story book bible version you prefer once you have identified it?
Pennington is NOT a genuine believer & Story book jebus was an eternal Jew!

Let's sum this debate up so far. (1. Pro says I must be without any sin. ) I have addressed the meaning here already but I will say it again. We can look at the words used in this verse: "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. " (1 John 3:6) KJV Abideth means- 1 : to wait for : await, 2 : to endure without yielding : withstand, b : to bear patiently : tolerate , 3 : to accept without objection. [1] So, while a Christian abides with Christ we are sinless because He has washed our sins away. If do not abide in Christ then are sins are not washed away. This doesn't mean that Christians do not commit acts of sin, it means they are already forgiven for them, therefore blameless. When a Christian ask for forgiveness of sin, it is not because the sin hasn't already been forgiven. It is because we must humble ourselves before God and know that we are sinful. This verse never suggest 'to be perfect. ' (I do not have to be sinless, instead blameless) (2. Luke 12:33, Luke 14:33) "Sell that ye have" This has been determined to refer to the rich, they give all they have. This is a example by Jesus showing that the rich has a harder time finding God then the poor. My opponent offers us his interpretation and I offered Biblical commentaries. "whoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple. " Pro must show that Con has things that forsake God. He must show that I hold any pocession higher than God. If he can not then this argument fails. Even if I did, I am not a apostle(who this is referred to) and I am only required to path tithes, 10%. (I do not have to give all my possession because I am not a prophet or apostle. I do not hold anything I have higher than God. ) (Story book jebus is an eternal Jew! )My opponent succeeded in showing that Jesus was born a Jew. Correct. He has not shown that after His death and resurrection that He remained a Jew. Since Jesus is still alive today and started Christianity and left Judaism, He can not be Jewish today. Jesus was not born in Jerusalem which is just a city. The name of Gods people is Israel, not Jews. Therefore Jesus is a eternal Israelite, not a Jew. Jew is for Jerusalem and Judaism, Christ is neither. (Jesus is not a eternal Jew. ) CONCLUSION: My opponent as Pro has all the BOP. His case is extremely weak. The only topic he has hope in is Jesus being a eternal Jew but unfortunately that has nothing to do with me. Pro needs to provide actual sources that we can go research on and put more input in his argument. His resolution has been negated! Over to Pro! SOURCES:[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Pennington is NOT a genuine believer & Story book jebus was an eternal Jew!

Re: Sin, Con wrote: " . . . . and so do I and therefore I do not have to be sinless. ". Composer(Pro) responds: IF Pennington(Con) even had a credible knowledge of the content of Cons alleged preferred KJV Story book, Con wouldn't make such a proven inept & fallacious remark - Oops!This is what the KJV states in this regard unambiguously FATAL to Cons claim - Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. (1 John 3:6) KJV Story bookFurther more, Cons own preferred KJV Story book goes on to negatively identify Con further -He (e.g. Con) that committeth sin (See Cons admission above " so do I ") is of the devil; . . . . (1 John 3:8) KJV Story book So according to Cons own chosen propaganda, it unambiguously refutes Cons claim & exposes Con as - i) A person that DOES NOT ABIDE in jebus & ii) Cons admitted ' malignant sinning ' also exposes Con as a ' jebus' rejected fraud ', that ' hath not seen jebus ' NOR legitimately ' known him ' as opposed to Cons dishonest & proven fallacious ' claim ' that he(Con) has! & iii) As a supposed believer of ' the KJV bible Story book ' devil ', ' Con is also exposed as one of the devil's agents!Con then wrote: " I do not need to sell all I have to be a Christian and follow it principles. "Oops!Again Cons own Story book propaganda refutes Cons claim - Sell that ye have, and give alms; . . . . (Luke 12:33) KJV Story book . . . . whoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:33) KJV Story book Strong's Concordance:forsaketh = renounce: = give up (Wordweb)Bottom line: Con's arguments and credibility have entirely failed especially even according to Cons own preferred KJV Story book version! Obviously also now that Con has been unambiguously exposed by his own chosen KJV Story book, exposing Con as a jebus' fraud & reject & agent of Cons devil; again my poor paraplegic friend can't count on Con either getting his proven imaginary friend to help!　 Over to Con!
partial birth abortion

I see that, but if they aren't ready then they could use condoms, spermacide, and even birth control. They could have prevented the baby they were just stupid and didnt think about the consequence of their actions, just like little kids! If an adult gets pregnant they need to be mature and at least give it up for adotption. There are many mothers that want a baby but cant have one, and there are mothers who are whores and can have them but are to lazy to fill out the paper work to give it up for adoption, so they just kill the baby! Its stupid, there is no excuse for abortion. I believe there is a special place in hell for people who abort their babies!
partial birth abortion

Partial Birth Abortion, I have been wanting to get in on this argument for a while now, this is one thing that I sincerely believe needs to be illegal. Partial Birth Abortion is murder. Murder is murder, I don't care if its someone shooting some, some stabbing someone, or if its someone burning someone. Murder is NOT okay. If a mom murders her 1 month old baby, she goes to jail, if a "mom" murders a 3 second old baby she gets away with it, THERE IS NOT DIFFERENCE! So why keep it legal? They say it is "unconstitutional" to make Partial Birth Abortion illegal, I say if they don't they are just letting everyone see how big of a hypocrite they really are.
yahoo is better than gmail...

The spam filtering + ability to access email from your desktop with outlook/thunderbird is much more useful the advantages you mentioned. My opponent claims that Gmail lacks these features: "The reading pane gets us through email faster. Facility of tabbed messages is provided which helps toggle between your inbox and messages. We can move messages to folders with a flick of a wrist." With gmail moving a messagse to a folder involves selecting them, and then selecting the folder you want to move them to. Googles AJAX[1] is different from Yahoos AJAX. With Gmail messages are loaded beforehand and once you click the message it doesn't load a new webpage - It just switches to the message that loaded earlier. Once you click back to inbox, it doesn't reload the inbox. It just switches to it. This is more effective than Yahoo Mails reading tab. With the reading tab the screen is divided leaving you with little space and when you click on a message you have to wait a second for it to load. My opponent also mentioned searching email in her argument. Gmail is provided by Google. It has searches too. Becausee advantages of Gmail that I mentioned, mainly spam filtering, are more useful than what she mentioned that Gmail doesn't have plus Yahoo lack of POP3 support, vote Con. [1]http://vinhboy.com...
All Matter is Sentient.

That's unfortunate. Conduct point goes to me, but there are still enough rounds to make this a good debate. The BOP is clearly on Pro because it seems as John Searle states that things such as thermostats don't have “enough structure even to be a remote candidate for consciousness” [1]. It's an absurd view prima facie and needs to have some powerful argument to be accepted.I need not present an argument against Panpsychism, but I will. A huge problem with Panpsychism is that it is a poor account of consciousness. William James pointed out how our consciousness doesn't seem it can come into being from smaller individual consciousnesses."Take a sentence of a dozen words, and take twelve men and tell to each one word. Then stand the men in a row or jam them in a bunch, and let each think of his word as intently as he will; nowhere will there be a consciousness of the whole sentence … Where the elemental units are supposed to be feelings, the case is in no wise altered. Take a hundred of them, shuffle them and pack them as close together as you can (whatever that might mean); still each remains the same feeling it always was, shut in its own skin, windowless, ignorant of what the other feelings are and mean. There would be a hundred-and-first feeling there, if, when a group or series of such feeling were set up, a consciousness belonging to the group as such should emerge. And this 101st feeling would be a totally new fact; the 100 original feelings might, by a curious physical law, be a signal for its creation, when they came together; but they would have no substantial identity with it, nor it with them, and one could never deduce the one from the others, or (in any intelligible sense) say that they evolved it" [2]The resolution is negated, since all matter being sentient cannot account for our sentience.Sources[1] Searle, J. (1997). “Consciousness and the Philosophers”, in The New York Review of Books, 44 (4): 43-44).[2] James, Williams. (1895). "The Principles of Psychology" p.160
All Matter is Sentient.

All Matter is Sentient. sen"tient (snshnt, -sh-nt) adj. 1. Having sense perception; conscious: "The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage" (T.E. Lawrence). 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling. [Latin sentins, sentient-, present participle of sentre, to feel; see sent- in Indo-European roots.] sentient"ly adv. The American Heritage" Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright "2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. sentient adj 1. having the power of sense perception or sensation; conscious n 2. a sentient person or thing [C17: from Latin sentiēns feeling, from sentīre to perceive] G2;sentiently adv Collins English Dictionary " Complete and Unabridged " HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 adj. 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 2. characterized by sensation and consciousness. [1595"1605; < Latin sentient-, s. of sentiēns, present participle of sentīre to feel; see -ent] senR42;tient"ly, adv. Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, " 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms Adj.1.sentient - endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousnesssentient - endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness; "the living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage"- T.E.Lawrence animate insensate, insentient - devoid of feeling and consciousness and animation; "insentient (or insensate) stone" 2.sentient - consciously perceiving; "sentient of the intolerable load"; "a boy so sentient of his surroundings"- W.A.White conscious - knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts; "remained conscious during the operation"; "conscious of his faults"; "became conscious that he was being followed" Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. " 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
All Matter is Sentient.

ConclusionPro gave a good case in favor of the resolution. However his arguments fail for these reasons. *They boil down to irrelevant notions. Kebo's main argument was "kebomystic forfeited this round. " while prima facie this supports Panpsychism, when we start digging we find it irrelevant to the debate. * James' combination problem was dropped. Kebo's rebuttal against it was strangely similar to his main argument. * My argument about the clock going back was dropped. Again Kebo made his argument about forfeiting.
"If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late," is a logical expression.

I apologize -- due to unusual timing, I thought that my opponent had forfeited. It is impossible to look at the logic of the scenario without understanding the metaphorical meaning of the expression. My opponent has ignored this meaning. The expression IS logical: it can be used in an orderly cogent fashion. My opponent only says it is illogical because he is misrepresenting the meaning of the phrase. My contention was about whether the statement was applicable for usage in certain situations, a. k. a. "logical". It is a logical statement is many contexts. Conclusion My opponent has argued semantics and misrepresented the meaning of "logical". I have shown that the expression "if you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late" is logical in that it makes sense given deeper definitions and it can be utilized in an orderly cogent fashion.
"If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late," is a logical expression.

Burden of Proof: My opponent has not provided a logical burden of proof. The resolution clearly refers to the logic of the expression, so it was not about being applied to a scenario. All I have to do is simple regard the expression as illogical and I have negated the resolution. My opponent did not counteract my argument strictly referring to the expression in itself, which was what the debate was about after all. "However, keep in mind that this debate is solely on whether or not this expression is logical or illogical." I posted this in round one. My opponent has not argued the expression itself, which is what the debate was regarding. The scenarios were off-topic to the resolution. My opponent has set an incorrect Burden of Proof. All I have to do is negate the expression, and I have. My opponent has only applied scenarios which were not warranted by the restrictions in round one. I urge a Con vote.
"If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late," is a logical expression.

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited. Seeing as how the rounds are only five minutes long, I'm not surprised. I am going to reinforce my contention with some sources. This site on how to be punctual (http://www.wikihow.com...). One major gist of it is the idea that you should try to be early in order to be on time. Another reason why being on time is really being late: what if you run into heavy traffic? What if something comes up at the last minute? There are many possible things that can slow you down just long enough to turn just-barely-on-time into late. Resolution once again affirmed.
"If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late," is a logical expression.

I am arguing against the simple logic though. This was not set for scenarios. I made it clear in my first round argument we are just looking at the logic of the expression, not a specific scenario. My opponent has tried to create a scenario when clearly the debate was regarding the logic of the expression, not its specific application to the event. My argument proving the expression illogical still stands. The resolution regards if it is a logical expression, it was never needed to be applied to a situation. My opponent has avoided the direct point and my argument. Resolution negated.
"If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late," is a logical expression.

BURDEN OF PROOF Despite how it may appear, I do not have to prove that this statement is always logical: I only have to prove that it is CAPABLE of being logical. If I show one instance in which it is logical, the vote goes to me. However, I will be proving it for not just one case but for most cases. My opponent is trying to make an unfair semantical argument. The definitions of terms are unnecessary and restricting: "early", "on time" and "late" carry metaphorical meaning that are not adequately represented by definitions. CONTENTION For the sake of convenience, I will use the pronoun "you". You are attending some event. This event almost undoubtedly requires some sort of preparation. And when you get to the event, you will have to spend some time getting settled. It is important for the timeliness of the event that you are prepared and settled by the time the event starts: if you are not, then you'll miss part of the event. So to be settled by the time the event starts, you must be early, hence "if you're early, you're on time"; and if you are on time, you will be late by the time you've gotten settled, hence "if you're on time, you're late. " For example, you are attending a movie. If you are exactly on time and the movie begins as you walk in, you will have to find your seat in the dark while the movie is playing. So even though you were on time, in fact you were late. My opponent's equivocation proof oversimplifies the terms, and should not be accepted. Resolution affirmed.
"If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late," is a logical expression.

I stand in firm negation to the resolution. I would like to begin by defining several key terms: you're- contraction of you are early- before the usual or expected time on time- at the appointed time late- after the usual or expected time logical- capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion In this debate, the phrase, "If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late," refers to the expression commonly used in an attempt to influence a person to get to a certain location at a reasonable time. However, keep in mind that this debate is solely on whether or not this expression is logical or illogical. I believe that the expression, "If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late," is illogical. My contention is as follows: a) According to the first half of the expression, if you're early, you're on time. This means that to be early is to be on time. In other words, early=on time. b) According to the second half of the expression, if you're on time, you're late. This means that to be on time is to be late. In other words, on time=late. c) Since 'early' and 'on time' are being compared as the same, then that means the word 'early' can be replaced with the phrase, 'on time', and vice versa. Likewise, the same method shall be used for 'on time' and 'late.' d) The second half of the expression states "if you're on time, you're late." Since I can replace 'on time' with 'early', the end of the expression will read: "if you're early, you're late." This is simply illogical, because one cannot both be early and late at the same time. It is a paradox and is logically invalid. It does not make sense to be both early and late in reference to arriving at a location. I await my opponent's response. Source for definitions: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Migration

Yes, the U.S definitely should. The reason is actually quite simple: The U.S indirectly funds terrorism. How you may ask? The governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel fund terrorism, such as ISIS. We send support to Saudi Arabia and Israel. Then, Saudi Arabia and Israel use that money to help fund ISIS. We are responsible for the growth of terrorism, because we keep doing this. If we are going to keep indirectly fund terrorism, then we have a responsibility to let people in who are escaping terrorism. Now, for some sources. https://wikileaks.org... (It is stated in this email that Saudi Arabia funds ISIS, among other radical groups). http://us-foreign-aid.insidegov.com... (The U.S sent $1,472,410 alone to Saudi Arabia in 2012). http://www.reuters.com... (The U.S recently sent a 38 billion dollar aid package to Israel). http://www.globalresearch.ca... (Just some more info).