BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US should continue to support Israel

The Con has failed to address the most pressing arguments originally made including: Palestinian antisemitism Palestinian aggression against Israel as a state, As well as terrorist groups supported by Palestinian government US economic support of Israel is of mutual benefit Israeli agenda and morality aligns with US morality/public opinion I would also argue that by supporting Con's statement that ". . . One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. And who is Pro, To decide which is which? " that Con is supporting Palestinian agenda to exterminate all Jews. There can be many facets to wars, But to pretend that both sides of this conflict are equal is to disregard practical morality as a whole. Furthermore, It isn't just me claiming Israel is a legitimate state with supportable morals/political agenda. (Con-"Israel was recognized only by those with a vested interest") Literally, The whole world (all the democratic and countries with the highest protection of human rights, Contrasted by Middle Eastern nations) is in support of Israel (https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/File:CountriesRecognizingIsrael2018. Svg). Link goes to map. The issue isn't money, It's morality. The Jewish people need their ancestral homeland protected by the international community, And especially by the US. Con has a total disregard of evidence and has made weak claims made with strawman fallacies ("And the worship of the Billion Dollar God exceeds all rationality. "-- That's not a good argument, And its not clear what your point it. Capitalism is bad? US foreign policy is bad? What's up with that jumble of words? ) Next time source your arguments.
The US should continue to support Israel

I move that the the crux of this debate should focus primarily on support for either the Israeli or Palestinian movements. I argue that US foreign policy to support the state of Israel, However necessary, Is good and should not change. I first argue that that Israel, As a recognized legitimate state and ally, Ought to be supported by the US government and its people. The US was one of first countries to recognize Israel as a state in 1948, And has continued to be a staunch supporter of Israel in many aspects- especially economically and militarily. "The U. S. -Israel bilateral relationship is strong, Anchored by over $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing annually" (https://www. State. Gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3581. Htm) This is not arguing that either the US or Israel is perfect by any means. It is true that Israel has had its share of foul play, Attacks, And unnecessary conflict. However, I believe that if we're nitpicking and weighing overall wrongdoings, Palestinian actions have been far worse. Not only has Palestine been the perpetrator of the majority of attacks in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, It's media actively encourages violence and antisemitism. Those that are perpetrators of attacks from Palestine are rarely tried and punished by their government, While perpetrators of violence based in Israel ARE. The greatest example of this is that one of the main military opposition to Israel is the terrorist group Hamas. They're bad news, Real bad news. This is the kind of group that straight up believes in the complete ethnic cleansing of all Jews. They would make dangerous Nazi ideals somewhat palatable in comparison. In contrast, The over-arching goal of Israel is NOT to exterminate all Muslims, But to defend their UN sanctioned state and protect their citizens. Movements such as the Free Palestine Movement make a few dangerous suggestions. (http://www. Freepalestinemovement. Org/about. Html) Here's another good place to start (https://www. Huffingtonpost. Com/ali-a-rizvi/picking-a-side-in-israel-palestine_b_5602701. Html) I'm open to debate.
Vaccinations are harmful to human health

Definitions [Oxford Dictionaries] Vaccine - a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease: Vaccines are a miracle of modern medicine. The bubonic plague - Erradicated by vaccination Polio - Erradicated in North America by vaccination [and close to being erradicated worldwide]Small pox - Erradicated by vaccination So basically, vaccination has saved billions of lives. They are proven to work if created properly. And the world before vaccination was always worse off, compared to now.
Vaccinations are harmful to human health

So. my opponent fails to provide any sources. They don't understand that saying "because God wants it like that" isn't sufficient evidence. My opponent provided no counter to the examples of diseases eradicated by vaccines that I put in my argument for round 1. "God made our immune system for a reason," Is what my opponent said. I'd like to point out, that if god is an all powerful being, why did he give us immune systems that aren't immune to diseases such as polio, the bubonic plague, and small pox? "Vaccines cause autism" There haven't been a sufficient amount of studies to prove that vaccines cause autism. "And they consist of mercury," No, they do not. Vaccines contain thimerosal. Which is a mercury-containing organic compound which has been used for decades in the USA, and other countries around the world. Unlike Mercury, it is not found in nature. Thimerosal actually prevents the growth of dangerous microbes. Source: . http://www.cdc.gov... For the next round, I encourage my opponent to provide facts.
September 11 was an inside job. (my first debate)

Thank you for responding. You stated that we should disregard conspiracy. Well if we do disregard "conspiracy" then you lose the round. You have to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, and by disregarding conspiracy you cant proove this. Hence my first reason why I win in the round. Through your entire rebuttal you ask how did this truly occur. why did building 7 collapse without a plane hitting, and how can the twin towers even fall. Starting with building 7.Building 7 had a huge chunk taken out of it made by falling debris from the Twin Towers collapsing.When the twin towers we collapsing falling debris took a huge chunk out of building 7, causing it too collapse. (Somewhat worded like SPQR). You give this quote from the structural engineer about this net type thing. Showing how if a plane was to hit it, it would not collapse. Planes dont fly into buildings everyday, this is an unusual occurence. How can this engineer truly test this net theory. ( without simply crashing a plane into it!) Through your argument you say that the steel structure cannot have been melted, and how its simply impossible. Well the steel technically did not have to melt. When the steel structure is heated to an extent it begins to distort and become disfigured. When the steel structure was distorted to such a degree, the building simply collapsed. You still make an ambigous arguement about Henry Kissinger. I feel there is no point to refute it because of its ambiguity. Finally you mention how can I be a fiscal conservative and support the war on terror. Well to that peacebone I say how can you be a republican or even american to not support this war. We must fight the global war on muslim extremism! I do care a lot about our economy, but how can we have an economy when muslim extremists attempt to bomb our cities or fly into building and etc! Here are some reasons why I am winning the round: 1. My opponent states we should disregard conspiracy. By doing so he automatically loses the round. 2. I prove that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. Thank you for the debate.
September 11 was an inside job. (my first debate)

The weight of those planes could not be enough to collapse those buildings the way they fell. Lee Robertson was the structural engineer who designed the towers. he explained that those buildings were designed to resist multiple crashes from jets and still stand. "The world trade centers steel framing is kind of like the mosquito netting on a screen door. A plane flying into the building is no more significant than a pencil puncturing that netting. it really does nothing to the screen door" the concept of kerosene melting steel is just impossible. i dare you to go out and buy some kerosene and pour it all over a steel beam and see if it melts, haha. the most important and obvious question i'd like you to answer: explain building 7. how did this steel structure collapse without any plane hitting it? it collapsed in just a few seconds. disregard the concept of a "conspiracy", and look at the blunt physics and logics of the events on 9/11. they just do not make sense. these were extremely intricately designed steel structures. airplanes get held up on the ground by a relatively tiny amount of steel connecting their wheels to the plane. there are so many people who were involved with the building of the wtc's who say "no way". In regards to Henry Kissinger, here is a quote (http://www.thenation.com...) "His obsession with preventing all government leaks, except those of his creation, is well documented in the Nixon tapes. And this is the man who publicly lied about everything from the bombing of Cambodia to the cover-up of the Watergate break-in of Democratic Party headquarters to the overthrow and death of the democratically elected leader of Chile." i'm out of breath! but i must ask, how can you be a "fiscal conservative" and support this ridiculous "war on terror" that has cost trillions of dollars all of which are borrowed from either china or the Federal Reserve Bank. People are getting pretty damn rich from these wars!
September 11 was an inside job. (my first debate)

Lets Start. You state that Henry Kissinger has a history of coverups. You give no evidence supporting you claim. I will hope you shall elaborate in the next round so i may refute it. Otherwise this argument has no impact in the round. How am i suppose to compare this to other building collapses? Planes don't fly in buildings everyday. You ask "how can two 110 story buildings collapse in 9-10 seconds?" The answer is simple a plane flew into the building.Causing it to collapse. I disagree that Sept. 11 is a ridiculously over-used pretext to any neo-con agenda war, veto, or policy since that tragic date. By certain conservatives yes, but not them in general. Of course Rudy ridiculously over-uses it, but not many others do. You are just stereotyping the republican party. Truly, this argument of the over-used pretext has no impact in the round. It doesnt prove how 9/11 was an inside job. I feel I am winning the debate round because i simply proove how 9/11 was NOT an inside job. Thank You.
September 11 was an inside job. (my first debate)

The US government spent more money investigating Bill Clintonn and Monica Lewinski than it did 9/11. The 9/11 Commission report took about a year to complete and originally, Henry Kissinger was assigned to write the file. (Look into HK's history...a history of cover-ups). Explain the collapse of Building 7. Please find any comparison of a steel building collapse to compare to that of Sept 11. Logically, how can two 110 story buildings collapse in 9-10 seconds? Also, do you not agree,that September 11th has been a ridiculously over-used pretext to any neo-con agenda war, veto, or policy since that tragic date? I think it's a horrible thing, but just like the gulf of tonkin, and hitler burning the reichstag, governments have a history of setting up their pretext. September 11 has become a pretext to a war that had nothing to do with 911, the Iraq war. Lies, Lies, Lies. Can you justify this?
September 11 was an inside job. (my first debate)

The United States government identified 19 hijackers as being responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, and linked the attacks to Osama bin Laden. The FBI investigation into the September 11, 2001 attacks, code named operation PENTTBOM, was the largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI, involving over 7,000 special agents. Within 72 hours of the attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to identify the 19 deceased hijackers. Al-Qaeda's spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, said in a video sent to al Jazeera and broadcast in October 2001 the following: The Americans should know that the storm of plane attacks will not abate, with God's permission. There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live. Truly you never make an arguement to debate. But anyways i await your rebuttal. (source:9/11 Commission Report Executive Summary, p2, p6, p8)
TRolls should be Relocated

First, try to at least understand the troll. Is he bored, going through depression, or just idiotic? Also don't feed them. I actually tested someone, and they did very well. http://www.debate.org... As you can see, they had logic, and didn't feed the troll, (me) and went on with the argument. Basically, this website is so we can voice our opinion, it's not just a debate website, so no, trolls shouldn't be relocated. A is the troll, B is the 'regular', C is troll 2 If a post is AB then hopefully we get to see B's opinion. If post is AC then let it be. Yes, they can be very annoying, but I don't think that we need to go through the trouble of removing them. There will always be trolls.
TRolls should be Relocated

Trolls on Debate.org should be identified through an assessment and transferred as a community, without being informed that they have been placed in a community entirely consisting of such Troll. This forum should be entirely similar to debate.org however demonstrating none of the material serious members are discussing and trying to assess. It would be a fast, simple solution to debates being overlooked, bumped, harassed (wrongfully accepted), and would make it easier to progress as a communitya nd even use our knowledge gained here for academic purposes. If Debate.org was renowned for a high level of Formal activity, this site could technically double as post-secondary education, and the troll community impairs it's reputation and validity as a professional atmosphere. There are rules to debates. 1.) you cannot use lack of knowledge as a debate argument. Your ignorance does not support your own case. and holy cow. I can write a book on it.
TRolls should be Relocated

I just think Trolls need a penalty box. & there should be a button to isolate a Troll during a debate, to postpone the validity of the debate until after it is confirmed or not that your thread has been hijacked, so that a real competitor can present himself. The census can be provided by members that do not have a confirmed troll record. Or who provide comments to explain their vote which are not then through census found to be Trolling.
TRolls should be Relocated

This Guy Bob, seems to think "Not feeding trolls," is the solution. BUt what if they highjack thread? What if they spam nonsense? What if they refuse to acknowledge debate arguments? What if they do not contend with the Person presenting an argument, and babble to themselves? What fi they refuse to consider their opponent, and actually contribute logic or reason to the debate? Should those people not be relocated? How is it logical to Harbour these trolls? WHy would we be so ruled by their insolence? Because they want to express their belligerence in the middle of a conversation you cannot eject them from? Being attacked and humiliated by Idiots is one thing ~ but to have to respect their behaviour as not being SPam Of incompetent, intrusive idiocy and harassment of someone's liberal attempts to share in a serious, productive conversation is another.
More skill is needed in CS:GO than Fortnite

You seem to be very mistaken, CS:GO is more competitive as it involves less RNG. In Fortnite there are many factors that is completely RNG-based like what weapons you will get and where the circle is going to land, this is why Fortnite will never be played at such a competitive level. Whether the game is unique or not doesn't come into how much skill is needed to play whatsoever. There is far more mechanical skill involved in CS:GO such as reflexes, cross hair placement, flicks, quick aim, listening to footsteps, managing your economy, movement, how to peek, timing, nades , spray patterns, communication with team and more. Fortnite has just communication and aim and even those nearly on the same level as what you see in CS:GO. Remember, we are talking game-play not the community. Hacking has nothing to do with this.
The A&E TV show "Beyond Scared Straight" and all similar programs should be banned by the government

I would like for any potential voters to ignore this debate as I was only polling for an opponent when I created this debate. This is obvious by the fact that I said "express interest in the comments section". my opponent willfully ignored this and as a result has forced me into a debate in which I am not prepared to partake. I beg each individals who came here to vote, not to, and instead to find another debate to vote on. And to my opponent, I'm sorry I can't debate at the moment, but you just so you know you have been very rude in ignoring the first section of this debate and deciding to force the debate. In debate culture this is considered a Dick move.
The New World Translation Equates Jesus With Jehovah

I showed you that it was a prophecy and that it was fulfilled by John the Baptist by quoting you a part of John 1. Biblically, It's obvious that it was a prophecy and was fulfilled by John the Baptist because it says it is right in John 1. John said he was making the way for Jesus in the last sentence, when Isaiah 40 says it is Jehovah. Secondly: Zechariah 9:9 says Jehovah will come to Zion on a Donkey. It says, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem. Look! Your king is coming to you. He is righteous, bringing salvation, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a female donkey." According to this, the King of Zion will come bringing salvation: Making him the King and Redeemer/Savior of Israel. So it is talking about Jehovah, because Isaiah 44:6 says, "This is what Jehovah says, the King of Israel and his Repurchaser (I.e., redeemer), Jehovah of armies: I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me.". So according to these, Jehovah is the King and Savior or Israel, and the King and Savior of Israel will come to Zion riding on a Donkey, and a colt the foal of a Donkey. Therefore, whoever fulfills this prophecy must be Jehovah. Jesus fulfills this in Matthew 21:1-9, thus this translation makes Jesus equal to Jehovah. Thirdly: Zechariah 11:12-13 says Jehovah was prised at thirty pieces of silver. It says, "Then I said to them: "If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, withhold them." And they paid my wages, 30 pieces of silver. Then Jehovah said to me: "Throw it into the treasury"the magnificent value with which they valued me." So I took the 30 pieces of silver and threw it into the treasury at the house of Jehovah." 1. Why this is a prophecy: Matthew 27:3-9 confirms it. 2. Why this was fulfilled when Judas betrayed Jesus: Matthew 26:14-16 and Matthew 27:3-9 confirm it. Since the prophecy is about Jehovah, and Jesus fulfilled it, it makes Jesus, Jehovah. Lastly: No possible one can come before Jehovah, no possible one can come before Jesus. In Isaiah 44:6, Jehovah says, "I am the first and I am the last.". In Revelation 22:13, Jesus says he is the first and the last. Maybe one could say, "Jehovah made Jesus equal to him, but he wasn't always.", but these verses make it impossible. If one is the first and last, no one can possibly come before them, and no one can possibly come after them. Since Jesus is the first and last, he cannot be created, because then Jehovah would have came before him, which contradicts Jesus' claim of being the first. Since Jehovah is eternal and uncreated, this means Jesus is also eternal and uncreated, since they are both the first and the last.
The New World Translation Equates Jesus With Jehovah

Read John 1. It was a prophet, and John the Baptist fulfilled it. "And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ."And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? "John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; he it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe"s latchet I am not worthy to unloose."These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing."
The New World Translation Equates Jesus With Jehovah

Per your request, I will begin this debate in Round 1: REBUTTAL: Pro has failed to put forth any valid reason for thinking that the NWT equates Jesus with Jehovah. Pro cites Isaiah 40:3 but has not showed 1. ) That Isaiah 40 is making a prophecy. 2) That John fulfilled this prophecy. 3. ) That such a prophecy is in reference to Jesus. Until Pro can fulfill all three criteria, Pro cannot use Isaiah 40 as evidence for the NWT equating Jesus with Jehovah. Counter Argument: Pro hasn't really developed an argument for the affirmative so I will be brief in my counter. Firstly, Isaiah 40 is written in present tense to the "heart of Jerusalem" and is referring to events that were taking place during that time period and was encouraging actions. This is not prophecy. It is not making predictions about the future. Secondly, there is nothing that specifically links John the Baptizer to Isaiah. His name is not mentioned in the prophecy nor are his actions tied to Isaiah in any meaningful way. Lastly, Jesus is never mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). And the Tetragrammaton (YHWH or Jehovah) is never used in the Greek Scriptures (New Testament). There is nothing tying these two names together. I look forward to reading Pro's argument.
Latin Still Being Taught in School

You are correct in saying that I want Latin available as an option, not as something mandatory. In Round 2, I agreed with parts of your points because you illustrated that Latin might not be helpful/useful for everyone. Nevertheless, I showed that it is still helpful for some people such as medical students or those with English as their first language. Agreeing with portions of your thought process does not mean conceding defeat by any stretch of the imagination. Isn't is true that any subject that isn't useful for everyone could be taught outside of a school setting for someone who really wanted to learn it? Is that a valid reason to eliminate, say, music programs or science from school curricula because it can be taught at home and isn't useful to history or English majors? I can explicitly state my stance if you are having trouble extracting it: -Latin should be taught in school as an option, not a requirement -Latin is more useful to some people more than others -I could say that a student could reasonably survive in the world if they didn't take a literature or art course, but that doesn't mean it should be removed entirely. -Your arguments seem to be very subjective. The usefulness of Mandarin or Arabic in someone's life are the same as Latin's usefulness if that person wants to be a metal worker, for example. There is no uniform usefulness of a given subject for every student, which is why it should be an option instead of a requirement.