BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is Peaceful.

Your first statement about Christians not following the OT is true and false at the same time. Christians today don't follow anything of the OT. This is not what Jesus told us to do though, in fact Jesus tells us the opposite. Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17) The law he is referring to is the Torah. On top of that, you still believe it's the word of God and so therefore these events still happened even if the OT doesn't apply to you. Matthew 28:19 was added later and is a corruption. That's according to Eusebius. The Bible is definitely sexist. women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 34-35) Or When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets (Deuteronomy 25:11) Or "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9) Or "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14) You're basically claiming that the only way the Jews of Israel could establish "Spiritual purity" is by committing genocide and mass murder? Well that's definitely no surprise with what we see from the Israeli side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. People should also apparently be killed because they are sinners, so what the Israelites do is destroy an entire city, kill the inhabitants of that city and slaughter the cattle with the sword. Read Deuteronomy 13. The narration of the sword is repeated in Luke, but in a more gruesome manner. 49 I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. (Luke 12:49-51) There is no peace, he says that he came to bring fire on earth and not peace. So whatever you may call it, it's not peace. Now you can make your apologist claims saying that sword actually means peace by whatever, even though he explicitly said that he didn't come with peace. It doesn't change the "(biblical) fact" that Jesus didn't come with peace. I am not saying that Jesus is a criminal or a bad man. I am speaking as if I'm an agnostic directly using the Bible to come to a conclusion.
The Bible is Peaceful.

Hello, and thanks for accepting. Bible - the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. Now, let's examine the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the central figure of the Bible. Jesus was a prime example of peace and love throughout his life. He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, healed the deaf, and gave food to the poor. Is this not peace? Consider this group of verses: Romans 12:17-21 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God"s wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. This tells anyone to not seek to enact vengeance on their rivals, but to show them love, warmth, and kindness. Do not succumb to temptation, but use your faith in God to overcome temptation. Next, let's examine this short story of Jesus feeding the Five Thousand: John 6:1-14New International Version (NIV) Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand 6 Some time after this, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias), 2 and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the signs he had performed by healing the sick. 3 Then Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down with his disciples. 4 The Jewish Passover Festival was near. 5 When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" 6 He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do. 7 Philip answered him, "It would take more than half a year"s wages[a] to buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!" 8 Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter"s brother, spoke up, 9 "Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?" 10 Jesus said, "Have the people sit down." There was plenty of grass in that place, and they sat down (about five thousand men were there). 11 Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish. 12 When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, "Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted." 13 So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten. 14 After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world." I this not peaceful? I would argue that the central rigure of the Bible, Jesus, and his life, is a valid reason why the Bible promotes peace. Thanks, and God bless.
Chicken nuggets are better than Chicken tenders

The luxury that one has the option to consume the nuggets with a fork is highly invalid, because of the well-known fact that no sane homo sapien would ever eat nuggets, as well as tenders, with silverware. It's just not right. Tenders are much more real and authentic. As nuggets are much more highly processed as they originate from "pink slime." As I do recognize that this "slime" is still made from chicken, it also includes the trimmings that usually aren't eaten. It may depend on who is producing these nuggets to determine in what exactly is going into these nuggets but with tenders, they are consistently made from the same, better parts of chickens. (Yes, I know that hot dogs are also made from a similar "slime," but this is a whole different food.
Chicken nuggets are better than Chicken tenders

If making a mess of the crumb thingies is your concern, due to the nuggets smaller stature, you have the option to eat chicken nuggets with a fork (if you're into that), an action that minimizes crumbs. This is a luxury that is not available for tenders, due to their awkward, oblong shape. Also, the fact that you quite often have to nibble on the tender (consuming sauce-less chicken in the process), in order to achieve an optimal dipping shape speaks volumes on how inefficient the chicken tender is. Yet another advantage to nuggets is the sense of fullness they give you, through the grabbing process you previously described. The constant action tricks your brain into thinking it has ate more than you truly have, leading to the feeling of a satisfied appetite.
Chicken nuggets are better than Chicken tenders

Chicken tenders are much bigger than nuggets, meaning there is more motion with nuggets to continuously grab new nuggets over and over and over and over again. Chicken tenders also normally accumulate fewer crumb thingies than nuggets, which is better because who even wants those crumb thingies because they don't even taste good. Sometimes the tender being utilized is a relatively pointy shape giving it maximum aerodynamic boost towards the dipping sauce, and if the tender does not comfortably fit in the dipping sauce then nibble could be given to the tender for it to fit better.
Chicken nuggets are better than Chicken tenders

There's no doubting that nuggets are more processed than tenders, under most circumstances. Along with that, comparatively, the tenders are often not as unhealthy as the nuggets. Personally, I know plenty of people who refuse to eat nuggets because of them going through an excessive amount of manufacturing. Yes, you said that tenders also may go through similar ways of being made, but like I have stated earlier, nuggets are normally produced with trimmings. Also, your thesis of the taste of nuggets being better than the tenders as a "general rule" is not scholarly at all. Furthermore with your experience of excessive breading on tenders is something I have rarely experienced, so I disagree with that statement entirely. Chicken tenders are highly immaculate.
Chicken nuggets are better than Chicken tenders

One grievous travesty laid upon chicken tenders is how inconsistent in quality they are. Some tenders are, admittedly, fine in the taste department. However, the rest either have an overwhelming breading to chicken ratio (a problem nuggets have never experienced). Also, the argument that nuggets are made out of this "pink slime" is highly fallacious. True it may be that some low, arbitrary percentage of nuggets are "manufactured", but that number is inconsequential compared to the true, delicious, real meat nuggets. Besides, some tenders are made of the same "pink slime" as previously stated. Further still, as a general rule, those "false meat" nuggets often taste better than those "false meat" tenders. I rest my case.
Telltale Walking Dead vs. COD (See for more)

Call of duty is superior because every game includes new additions such as zombies, maps and extinction mode while the walking dead only features new terrain and more zombies. It also has little capability for an effective multiplayer mode which call of duty has at a very high level. As an adventure game is meant on exploring and a well planned campaign which call of duty has, COD is a superior game than the Walking Dead.
Telltale Walking Dead vs. COD (See for more)

Full Resolution: The game series 'The Walking Dead', made by Telltale productions is better for gaming as an art/entertainment medium than COD is. By 'better for', I mean keeps gaming relevant and brings more fans to the gaming industry and keep fans happier and more devoted. Sales statistics may be used, but they may not be the only thing used. Sales alone do not determine the good or bad effect a game has on gaming as a whole, and therefore our arguments should not be centered on sales alone. I, Pro, will be saying that The Walking Dead is better for the gaming industry as an art/entertainment medium. Con will be saying that the COD franchise is better for the gaming industry as an art/entertainment medium. If anybody wishes for further clarifications please drop a question in the comments, thanks.
All types of evolution are completely false and without any academic merit.

I will prove that microevolution is true and worth academic merit.Microevolution occurs every day and is uncontroversial, thoroughly-documented, and naturally occurring as it does not conflict with the acounts of creation presented in any books of superstition. It describes the process in which genetic material is rearranged, lost, drifted, or mutated through sexual reproduction or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale changes within a population's (in a singular species) characteristics.In an article entitled The Unfortunate Sex Life of the Banana (2) the cherished fruit is demonstrated to be a product of selective breeding. The banana is a hybrid of two South Asian wild plant species: Musa acuminata (unpalatable) and Musa balbisiana (seedy af), and over the centuries has been selectively bred to embellish the most desirable traits: few small seeds, abundant sweet flesh, and the curved phallus shape. After many generations, the banana has grown much larger, the flesh has become sweeter, and the thick fecundity has improved to its most attractive level yet.Other examples include dog breeds (Chijuajua and English Mastiff) and horse breeds.R1: Are as equally upset with Gravity? It's just a theory... R2: 2nd Law only works in a closed system, earth isn't one. R3: We didn't; we share a common ancestor: Ardipithecus kadabba. R4: It's not very effective without carbon in a specimen. Radiocarbon dating only works until 58,000 to 62,000 years ago. R5: No evidence of god(s). There is evidence of evolution. If you hate that evolution is occuring in your state of New Jersey, you can petition to get it banned like they did in Kansas. (3) (1) www.gotquestions.org/microevolution-macroevolution.html (2) www.damninteresting.com/the-unfortunate-sex-life-of-the-banana/ (3) http://www.theonion.com... Thank you for debating and judging.
All types of evolution are completely false and without any academic merit.

I apologize for the misunderstanding; I meant that the theories of evolutionary biology are false.1. Evolution is just a theory.I and most Americans don't want to change our beliefs about the origins of life because of something thant's only a theory.2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Disorder increases with time, why isn't there any disorder with the earth and universe? Because science is made up of lies and hateful ignorance. How did species evolve if this is a scientific principle? They didn't. Allah created them.3. If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn't exist today. Why aren't babies born as monkeys and apes today, if that's what we evolved from? This is just a 4. Carbon dating isn't accurate in measuring the age of fossils.The scientists don't even know the age of the fossils, because carbon dating isn't accurate at measuring fossil age. This just further proves the guesswork involved in evolutionary biology.5. Evolution is stupid and requires more faith than religion. Look at my point above, and it is clearly easy to see that it takes a greater leap of faith to believe this pseudo-science than to believe Allah created it. Thank you
All types of evolution are completely false and without any academic merit.

Observation 1: For the purposes of this debate I only have to prove that one specific type of evolution is partially true and deserving of academic merit. Observation 2: You have opened the types of evolution up so wide that I could argue that the there are truths from the evolution of whales to the evolution of dance. For the purposes of today's debate I provide the following definitions. All of which are from merriam-webster's dictionary. -All: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of (1)-types: groupings of particular kind, class, or group (2)-evolution: a process of change in a certain direction (3)-completely false: all elements being not genuine (4,5)-any: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind (6)-academic merit: the praiseworthy quality of, relating to, or associated with material in an academy or school (7,8)(1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(3) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(4) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(5)http://www.merriam-webster.com...(6)http://www.merriam-webster.com...(7)http://www.merriam-webster.com...(8)http://www.merriam-webster.com...Good luck to you in the coming round. I wish I had more than 2,000 characters to use for the next round.
Abortion should be legal

Earlier when you said the fetus isn't classified as a person why did you say before that that the fetus is given pain medication what's the point of giving it medication if its not classified as a person? When is it okay in your mind to abort a baby? a) Two weeks we start forming our own Dna b) Within sixteen days we start forming our neural plate (foundation for our brain and spinal cord) c) Six to seven weeks we start forming our forebrain,midbrain and hindbrain All well before 24 weeks.
Abortion should be legal

Actually, the fetus being aborted isn't classified as a person. It doesn't have a brain, nervous system, immune system, et cetera. If you DID have the power to ask it, it wouldn't answer because it doesn't understand the question; it doesn't have a brain. It isn't a person. The person that does have power over the nonliving fetus should be able to make the choice, because there is no one else to make the choice. After all, isn't it the parent's responsibility to make decision for their kids??
Abortion should be legal

First of I just want to make things clear so you don't post lies it is NOT your body. Your body does not have two blood types,two hearts two brains. You do not have four arms,legs or eyes. This is not your choice you can't just kill a baby because its convenient to you. It is not a human right because that human baby has no rights. you can't just kill because you decide that your convenience is more important than an actual human life.
Abortion should be legal

People carrying babies should definitely have the option to abort. Their decision isn't hurting anyone, since the fetus being aborted is given pain medication, along with the person carrying the fetus. In some cases, it would be better to abort the child than have it live in bad conditions, or have its life risked during birth. If you don't agree with abortion, then you can choose not to abort your baby. Abortion is a good option in some cases, and everyone should have the right to their body!!!
Smoking all-out ban

It is still my opinion that a total smoking ban would be beneficial for our lifestyle. It is however a long-term target to achieve a change of attitude towards the population and to prepare the authorities for this radical change. A public smoking ban is definitely a positive direction for improving the environment for the secondhand smoke. Several countries in Europe have already implemented a total smoking ban in public areas. Since the 15 of August 2007 a legislation has been valid in Denmark concerning smoking where people who move among and stay indoors on workplaces schools, universities, public institutions and restaurants have a legal claim on not to become exposed to secondhand smoke. Although this legislation has caused some criticism it has also resulted in a positive development. In fact nine out of ten private companies in Denmark have as a result banned the employees to smoke indoor. "Think about the benefits of this public smoking ban. We can continue to tax people for cigarettes, which is a helluva lot of money, might I just add. Back in 2010, we received twenty-five billion dollars in federal collections and ten billion in state collections. If we ban smoking in public, I can't say these won't go down, but federal and state collections will still see a large chunk of change in their wallets." It seems morally incorrect that the state and federal collections' budget are dependent on the income of the cigarette sale. It seems wrong that the state should own money from a product, which makes people addicted and that harm themselves and the surroundings. If money were considered so important for the society and moral less meaningful than a legalization of drugs would be beneficial for the budget as well. Since the income from the sale of cigarettes is a part of todays budget than it is clear that we are talking about a long-term project to achieve a total smoking ban. On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, a saving will also appear as employees will be able to stay on their workplace together with the hospital service, which also would save money. " Disrespect for the law. " Decrease in respect for religion. " Permanent Corruption of Law Enforcement. " Overburdened police, courts, and penal systems. " Changed our country's drinking habits for the worse. " Prohibition was phenomenally expensive. It is unclear to me how a total smoking ban would result in a decrease in respect for religion. I think that it is wrong not to take action against a project which would benefit the whole society due to fear of what might happen (reference to above bullet points) instead of facing the consequences as a challenge which can be defeated.
Smoking all-out ban

Seen from my point of view it seems wrong to prevent the prohibition of smoking, which would cause a positive and healthy development in many peoples lifestyle, due to a possible increase of criminality. A smoking ban will of course result in difficulties but these difficulties should be coped with and solved. Fortunately history will help us to anticipate the possible issues, which are likely to develop and in that way we will be more prepared. At least 250 of 7000 chemicals, which have been identified in secondhand smoke, are harmful. Approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have because of exposure of secondhand smoke died due to of health problems since 1964. These are innocent lives, which could have been spared with a smoking ban. The steep decline of cigarette smoking you mentioned is indeed positive and this is a obvious reason why we should continue in fighting for a even greater decline. Campaigns on how to achieve a better and a healthier lifestyle would be helpful in order to carry out a smoking ban. Think of all the secondary complications, which could be spared resulting in people to stay on the labour market for a longer period and the hospital service would also save money. Narcotics are also illegal and of course it causes some degree of criminality but it can not in any remote way be compared to all the lives that this prohibition have saved. A smoking ban would be a tough change and it will take time for people to become accustomed to the radical changes but it will be worth it. http://www.cancer.gov... http://www.cdc.gov...
Smoking all-out ban

Smoking should be banned not only in public places but simply everywhere. The issue concerning smoking is that not only does it damage your own health but it also harms your surroundings - both other individuals who are exposed to secondhand smoke and the environment. The liberty to choose whether or not to smoke is in theory a reasonable idea but in reality rather irresponsible. Nonsmokers are in many cases not in a position of liberty to choose whether they wish to be exposed to secondhand smoke or not. In fact the effects of secondhand smoke are considered relatively the same as smoking, which causes lung cancer, heart disease, pneumonia, bronchitis and severe asthma. These consequences should be lit up and not by lighting a cigarette!
GTA San Andreas is a more educational video game than any video game labeled as educational.

Before attacking my opponent's case I have one question that will establish a case of my own. Is it educational for children to learn how to kill innocent people (the game makes it very graphic too), how to enlist the services of a prostitute, or carjack individuals? I'd much rather have a society full of dumb people than smart criminals. ==On to My Opponent's Case== "A) GTA San Andreas teaches kids the value of a good diet and exercise." Unfortunately, its a video game and video games are one of the leading causes of child obesity in the United States. And, it really doesn't matter if children know what is healthy or not (most children I know do not know how to cook) because it their parents who will have to ultimately make the decision what they teach their children in regards to nutrition. "B) Grand theft auto San Andreas shows the value of a good nights sleep." Unfortunately, actually going to sleep would be a lot more beneficial than playing a video game that "teaches" you how to sleep. "C) GTA San Andreas illustrates that drugs are bad in a way that children may describe as cool." The game also says that the drug industry in San Andreas is perhaps a multimillion dollar industry. Kids want to be rich when they grow up, this game teachers kids that one way to get rich is to sell crack. "D) Teaches geometry with pool." Then why not go out and buy a pool game? It'd be just like GTA minus all the whores and drugs and killing and stuff... "E) It teaches children map skills." Google Maps also teachers children map skills, without the drugs and whores and killing and stuff...