BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Factory farming causes Christianity.

Thank you for your response.Burden of Proof Remember, for Pro to fulfill his burden, he must show that factory farming gives rise or gives affect to Christianity. Defense In my opening arguments, I showed that factory farming cannot be a cause of Christianity because Christianity far outdates factory farming. Pro writes:"As for Christianity being around before factory farming, that is easily refuted by there can be more than one cause of Christianity. Just as there are many causes for cancer there are many causes for Christianity."We are specifically talking about factory farming, thus any other causes are irrelavent. My opponent's example of health and money also fails because he did not actually prove a correlation between the two. All what he did was make an assertion and failed to provide proof of his claims. "The same is true of Christianity and factory farming. Christianity causes factory farming and factory farming causes Christianity"Once again, this is a fallacy of correlation and causation. This would be like me saying that the rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise. The two, while they might be correlated, the rooster's crowing certainly does not cause the sun to rise. "Christians put a low value on animals which causes factory farming. Factory farming in term causes Christians to have more time and money to spread their religion."This is a baseless assertion. Do Christians put a low value on animals? This has not been proven. According to Christianity Today:"Proverbs 12:10, "A righteous man cares about his animal's health." And, seeing an end to animal cruelty is certainly a worthy goal, particuarly if Christian believers in our churches gain such a passion." http://bit.ly...;ConclusionPro has failed to prove that factory farming causes Christianity. The resolution is negated.
Factory farming causes Christianity.

I've already shown how factory farming gives Christians more time to proliferate their religion. I will add by reduced costs of food allows for more money for building of more churches and sending more missionaries. As for Christianity being around before factory farming, that is easily refuted by there can be more than one cause of Christianity. Just as there are many causes for cancer there are many causes for Christianity. [5] Therefore, my opponent argument amount Christianity existing before factory farming is a red herring. This is the equivalent of stating smoking of tobacco doesn't cause cancer because heterocyclic amines do. I contend that I have met my burden of proof. Furthermore, my opponent mentions reverse causality. "If anything, Christianity causes factory farming, not vice versa. " ThinkBigI will defend my argument by claiming two way causality. An example of two way causality would be health and money. Being healthier causes you to earn more money which causes you to spend more on better health care. Having less health causes you to earn less money which causes you to spend less money on health care. Another example is Co2 and temperature. Higher temperatures causes water to release Co2 into the atmosphere and higher Co2 in the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise. The same is true of Christianity and factory farming. Christianity causes factory farming and factory farming causes Christianity. Christians put a low value on animals which causes factory farming. Factory farming in term causes Christians to have more time and money to spread their religion. I have defeated all my opponent's arguments while reinforcing my own. Thanks for the debate. Sources5. http://www.cancer.org...
Factory farming causes Christianity.

DefinitionsThis will hopefully teach my opponent why definitions are important. Christianity - A religion founded by Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century C. E. [1]Causes: A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. [2] Factory farming - A system of rearing livestock using intensive methods, by which poultry, pigs, or cattle are confined indoors under strictly controlled conditions. [3] With that, let's begin. Rebuttals Pro's argument is nothing more than a correlation-causation fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. For pro to meet his burden of proof, he must show that Factory farming causes (gives rise to) the religion of Christianity. Arguments My argument is very simple: Christianity has been around a lot longer than factory farming has, only being on the scene since the 1920s [4]. Therefore, the two do not cause each other. If anything, Christianity causes factory farming, not vice versa. Sources1. . http://bit.ly...;2. . http://bit.ly...;3. . http://bit.ly...;4. . http://www.factory-farming.com...;
America is not a Republican Democracy.

Hey, TurianPrimarch, glad you brought this point up.For the sake of an easier "read and reply" method, I'll just label each of your points with a rebuttal to each of them below your claim. "As the American republic directly (or indirectly, when you take the electoral college into consideration) chooses who is responsible for passing legislature and who is involved in the executive and legislative branch, America is undoubtedly a Republican Democracy."'-I agree with you that the direct representation of people in our government does indeed rule under the term "Democratic Republic", however the issue is more focused on defining the government's system, but rather the value of how the government funtions. For example, a country ruled under a monarcy may have monarchistic rules, however the value of the government may be seen as a type of dictatorship by the people. The purpose of this is to debate wether or not America's Republican Democracy should be considered a variation of Capitalism." America is undoubtedly a Republican Democracy. It is the fault of the Americans themselves if they elect a congressman or president that is greedy and not fit to make laws and/or enforce them."-Are you saying the American people are at fault for who is influenced by big business? Who is supposed to know the complete true motives by each political figure?" A candidate's political platform is presented at the election, and the duty of electing the just and fit candidate is the sole responsibility of the voters."-So do you believe government candidates with own up to the fact that they are being funded by big busniesses during thier campaigns? Like you said, the duty of election the just and fit candidate is the sole responsibility of the voters, howevere who are they to know the coorporations that fund them money?
America is not a Republican Democracy.

As the American republic directly (or indirectly, when you take the electoral college into consideration) chooses who is responsible for passing legislature and who is involved in the executive and legislative branch, America is undoubtedly a Republican Democracy. It is the fault of the Americans themselves if they elect a congressman or president that is greedy and not fit to make laws and/or enforce them. A candidate's political platform is presented at the election, and the duty of electing the just and fit candidate is the sole responsibility of the voters.
The New England Patriots will NOT win the Super Bowl!

You said: "Football is a game of emotion and if you go into a game underestimating your opponent or overestimating yourself (especially in the playoffs) you would be very lucky to come away with a win." Your argument basically boils down to the schedule that the Patriots have had to face in the last part of the season - since they're not facing teams that play at the level of the teams they will face at the playoffs, they will not be prepared to face those teams when the playoffs, and the Superbowl, do come. I maintain that the New England Patriots, and every professional football team, know more about the game than either of us, and are well aware that the teams they are currently playing are sub-par. Unless you can prove that it's impossible for a team to play effectively against a good team after playing against several bad teams, I don't accept your argument. I don't think the Patriots will go into the playoffs underestimating opponents or overestimating themselves - don't you think that the Pats' coaches are players are afraid of that phenomenon and are preparing it? Your argument, I think, is really treating the team like they're in middle school. You also said: "They have played sub-par teams for the last 6 games and I predict they will not me mentally or physically ready to handle a healthy Colts or Chargers team." I've already addressed the mental aspect, but again, these guys are professional athletes, and pretty good ones at that. I don't have any doubt that at any given point in the season, given that all of the players are healthy, they're physically ready to play effectively against any team in the league. It's not like they don't condition in a week leading up to playing a sub-par team.
The New England Patriots will NOT win the Super Bowl!

Well, of corse I can not predict if there will be a crucial call made in favor of the Patriots at the end of one of their playoff games, but I can reasonably assume that they got very very lucky before and that will not happen again. Last year the Indianapolis Colts came back from an 18 point deficit to beat the New England Patriots in New England to advance to the Super Bowl. After that win there was no doubt than the Colts were going to win the Super Bowl. Why? Because they had proved themselves against a very good team. They had come from behind on the road against a team they haven't beat in the playoffs before. The reason this is important to my argument is because I feel the exact opposite is happening for the Patriots. They have played sub-par teams for the last 6 games and I predict they will not me mentally or physically ready to handle a healthy Colts or Chargers team. Football is a game of emotion and if you go into a game underestimating your opponent or overestimating yourself (especially in the playoffs) you would be very lucky to come away with a win.
The New England Patriots will NOT win the Super Bowl!

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not the biggest football fan in the world, but I find fault with the logic of your argument. You said: "Firstly, and I think most importantly, they (hopefully) will not receive as much help from the referees as they did in the games against the Baltimore Ravens and the New York Jets." If you think they received help from the refs in past games, on what grounds do you assume they wouldn't receive help in the Superbowl? Isn't that something that isn't able to be predicted? The rest of your argument assumes that since the Patriots won't have played a high-caliber team by the time the time they have to face one agai, that they won't be able to beat these teams. Given the amount of time an NFL team spends practicing, and the level of natural ability any given NFL player has, I don't think it's fair to assume that the Patriots will play any differently against a good team in the Superbowl than they did at the beginning of the season. Why should we accept that assumption? I'd like to also point out that I don't necessarily think the Patriots will win the Superbowl - I just think that you won't be able to prove they won't.
The New England Patriots will NOT win the Super Bowl!

In my opinion, the New England Patriots will not win the Super Bowl! Over the past few weeks of NFL action I have come to this conclusion for a few reasons. Firstly, and I think most importantly, they (hopefully) will not receive as much help from the referees as they did in the games against the Baltimore Ravens and the New York Jets. Secondly, they haven't played a very good team in the last 4 weeks except Pittsburgh who is now in a downward spiral. Also, they finish the season with Miami and the NY Giants. Miami is the worst team in the league and the NY Giants at their best are average. Then they get their first round bye. I don't believe they will be ready to play these higher caliber teams in the playoffs with no help from refs and teams with actual talent.
Nintendo is awesome!

The topic of this debate is "Nintendo is awesome! " not "Nintendo is the best system! " I never said that it was better than the 360 or PS3. They are all awesome in their own way. Well if you want to know why Nintendo is awesome, here it goes. Nintendo is the oldest still running video game company, and all of their consoles and handhelds have are well known. With each new system they come out with comes better games and a better gaming experience. Now i will list all of the Nintendo systems, and say what they brought to a players gaming experience. First, the consoles: NES- The Original Nintendo, it introduced gaming. SNES- A super version of the NES, the games are better and the graphics are slightly better as well. N64- 3D Graphics are introduced. GC- The Graphics from the N64 are perfected providing a better feel for the games with the better graphics. WII- The Wii has graphics better than all of the systems listed above. The Wii brings a whole new style of video gaming to a gamer's experience; Motion. Motion in video games is amazing. To swing a sword, you swing the controller. To aim a gun, you aim at the screen. To jump, you can literally jump (in some games). I think you get my point. Wii sounds like 'we', which emphasizes that the console is for everyone. Wii can easily be remembered by people around the world, no matter what language they speak. No confusion. No need to abbreviate. Just Wii. The Wii also allows players to play over the Internet, and even browse it. With the Wii's "channels" players can use the internet in many interesting ways. Such as: Voting around the world, "Mii" contests, Buying old game with the Wii Shop Channel, viewing the weather, and even seeing the news. Now for the handhelds: Gameboy- The first handheld by Nintendo. This introduced handheld video games. Gameboy Pocket- Very similar to the original Gameboy, only this fits in your pocket. It introduced that videos game are very portable. Gameboy Color- This system brought color to the Gameboy Gameboy Advanced- An advanced version of the Gameboy Color. This system introduces two new buttons to the handhelds of Nintendo; L and R. Gameboy Advanced SP- A revamped version of the Gameboy Advance. This system is exactly the same only it introduces light screens to the handhelds. Nintendo DS- This handheld is legendary. It has two screens; one of them being a touch screen. The Nintendo DS makes gamers more interactive with its touch screen which is often used. The Nintendo DS also allows players to play over the internet using Wi-Fi. Overall, in-point-of-fact, Nintendo is awesome.
MInecraft PC is better then Minecraft Xbox

i always enjoy arguing with a fellow gamer (sorry my responses have not been long) Ok again, really strong arguments, But the $5 for all games don't really matter because multi-player is free on PC (comes with the game). Well I know how to make a non-lan and free server, its easy. Well if it wasn't for PC then you would have to suffer the bugs, and it all works out in the end. Lastly when making a server, the game will tell u to protect your server, (being a server owner) and also mods dont work on servers unless admin/owner. Can i continue this tomorrow i have a really busy schedule.
MInecraft PC is better then Minecraft Xbox

Your point with Xbox live is very valid and does bring the prices closer but the two things I want to mention about this is the fact that Xbox live is not only used for minecraft thus the five dollar price can be divided by all the online games your own, additionally even with the higher price it is still almost two dollars cheeper than the PC version. Next I want to address your point you brought up about multiplayer on PC being free, fun, and you can play with people all around the world. These are all qualities of PC multiplayer but also Xbox multiplayer, it is also free, fun and you can choose if you want to play with people all around the world or just with a select group of friends to avoid trolls and such. If you want to play with only a select group of friends on PC you either have to pay for, set up, and host your own server or play on LAN which is only with people in the same house as you. Once Again I wish to mention the point that thought the PC version is ahead in updates it is like the "test subject" of the updates with kinks and other problems having to be fixed in the next patches, while the Xbox version, though it does come later, will not have to deal with these problems and will get only the best quality. The last point you brought up is the point of Pc exclusive servers and sure there are some, however there are also servers with only Xbox users and as I have said before Xbox allows people to have servers with friends only for free. Finally I would like to restate my points that Xbox minecraft provides in game voice chat while the PC version does not, also it successfully protects servers against people using mods to make themselves more powerful than others ruining their experiences. I eagerly await your reply.
MInecraft PC is better then Minecraft Xbox

Ok those are some good points, Sure i would love to play with my friends, but you need xbox live which cost like $5-60$ (i think) so $20 + $5 (xbox live) =$25 so it basically cost the same if u wanted to play multi-player. But would u want to wait so long for an update, PC will always be one update ahead, and minecraft PC multi-player is fun, free, and can play with people allllll around the world. Plus What about all the servers that can only be PC (hypixel, Mineplex, ext). Your move, have any other arguments?
MInecraft PC is better then Minecraft Xbox

As a brief roadmap I will be discussing first the general gameplay, then the multiplayer experience and finally how you can exploit modifications to the game. The first thing I want to bring up is a small point but valid point anyways. Minecraft of the PC costs $26.95, where as it costs $20 on Xbox, meaning to start experiencing the joys of Minecraft it is cheeper on the Xbox. To argue what controls are better keyboard or controller is a rather pointless because when it comes down to it, that is just a personal preference. Though it is true that minecraft on the Xbox is a few updates behind the PC version this does not mean that this is worse because a lot of the times we will see new features added in the PC version but then modified or even removed a few patches later so when this patch roles around for the Xbox the features have already been tested and modified to perfection. The next main point I want to discuss is the general Multiplayer experience. One of the biggest points when it comes to multiplayer is the fact that voice chat is a part of Xbox minecraft, where as in PC though it is true that you can use voice chat with programs like Skype, you can only voice chat with friends on Skype but not with every person on the server, leaving Pc minecraft users limited to text chatting with strangers. Additionally one problem you will run into a lot in multiplayer on the PC version is people griefing or destroying your creations. The best way to prevent this is to use a private server, but on the Pc version it costs to set up and maintain a private server where as in Xbox this is a free and provided service allowing anyone to play with only their friends if they want to or to go onto a normal server with complete strangers if that is what they want to. Finally I want to bring up the pros and cons of modding. Though it is true that you as an individual can instal and use mods onto minecraft on the PC to add a new experience to the game this modding feature has also been used a lot in the multiplayer experience to "use hacks" like making yourself invincible spawning in items and flying and though this might make it fun for you it will ruin the experience of other players on the server. Though servers try to prevent mods they are always one step behind moders. For these reasons I believe that the Xbox version of Minecraft is superior to the Pc version. Thank you for creating the topic and I eagerly await your reply.
MInecraft PC is better then Minecraft Xbox

We all know Minecraft is best played on a PC for many reasons, Im no expert on Xbox version but i do know its many updates behind the PC version. I mean they just added horses LOL, if you want a good skin sureeeee go ahead and buy some, or download them on the PC. Same with texturepacks, In Xbox they cost money, but PC you can download them for free. And dont get me started on MODS.
The Meaning Of Government

Hello one and all, I'm hoping this debate will pertain more to political philosophy and our arguments for what we believe is the true meaning of government. I would also like to avoid limiting the scope of this debate, So let's talk about the meaning of government has it pertains to all humanity instead of one group. I will be taking the position that government at it's core should be working towards equality of outcome for it's citizens, Regardless of the difficulty of such a quest. The first round will just be used for accepting the debate and the second round will be used if my opponent has any questions such as definitions or judging criteria. I'm looking forward to seeing what is said, And what my opponents views are.
The Meaning Of Government

Considering that you hadn"t the chance to reply I will also keep my comments brief. I mainly intend to stress the point of what equality of outcome means and what a government striving actively for it would look like. It is not about policies such as affirmative action as they themselves fall more under the umbrella of equality of opportunity applied at a later stage. They recalibrate the system at a later point in life to counterbalance the earlier and unequal starting points. Thereby they try to achieve an equal opportunity for achieving a later outcome. Whether this kind of policy is useful is debatable, But not in this context. Actual policies to equal out the outcome of the lives of people are rather some kind of direct communism. Its goal also is to achieve equal outcome. In this case we know that it isn"t a useful policy as we have observed the phenomenon for a long time now. I know that you aren"t arguing for a direct form of communism but if you want to claim that you are in favour of equality of outcome and that a governments main purpose is to achieve that equality, You will have to stand for some system or some action that actually is there to equal out the outcome and not the opportunity. Meanwhile I maintain that on the fundamental level neither is as important as increasing overall wealth and giving everyone as much as they need. Only working for equal opportunity is useful to achieve this goal, By allowing an increase in overall wealth possible to distribute, While focusing on the outcome isn"t efficient as it tries to equal out the current wealth which doesn"t work and which diminishes it. I am looking forward to your answer.
Gun Control.

Think about this. You are sitting in school, and the bell rings. You grab your backpack, and start to go to the gym to get to your bus. The door busts open, and you hear people screaming. It's a person with a gun. They purchased it legally. Now, with the intent to harm anyone and everyone, they start shooting. Now, I apologize if that had harmed anyone. Anyways, I'm not saying, "OH BAN ALL GUNS" I'm saying, ban the AK-15s and other machine guns. Ban bump-stock. Ban the ability to buy a gun if you have some sort of mental disease. (Schizophrenia, Bipolar disorder etc. etc.) I'm saying ban the ability to buy a gun if you are a documented creeper. Guns should be used, basically not at all. If you looked on the internet, go search as you are reading this, "How many school shootings have there been this year? (2018)". I assure you, you will be shocked. I'm looking forward to debating with someone.