BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama's Christian Faith

Hey, sorry sir, I am brand new here and didn't know about time limits etc. Anyway, here's my response. YOU: Despite all that Obama says, despite all that Obama does, despite all that Obama appears to be, he could still be a closet atheist.ME: Obviously, that holds true for every single Christian that has ever stated publically 'Jesus Christ is LORD.' Thus, your argument could apply to any Christian throughout history, including Peter and all he Aposltes and Disciples who knew him personally. The only true way of really knowing is to be martyred- killed by refusing to deny Jesus Christ unto the point of death. As history shows, this can and does happen, but surely for the rest us 'mere Christians' there are other suitable ways to judge a man's sincerity. So, here's a few clues to Obama's authenticity as a Christian- His successful loving marriage to Michelle Obama, a life-long Christian who comes from a distinguished family of American Christians.- His own autobiographical words about his eventual Christian faith appear to be very genuine (ie evidence of a true conversion experience) and have been confirmed not only by friends and acquaintances, but the media as well, including investigative jounalists. - The factual reality of his Baptism and his very frequent attendance at a controversial, ethnic-centered, but still nominally Christian Church in Chicago. - The way he openly prays in front of his staff, the words he has stated publically, and the way he prays before every meal with his family at the White House. Face it, true atheists do NOT pray, ever even to fake it as a sign of respect or to be polite. I urge you to type Obama prayer or praying on any major search engine and then go to images only. You will then find several photos of Obama with his hands together. his head bowed, and his eyes clearly shut. Name one known atheist, not a Christian who has doubts, but a true non-believer who has ever done this, and for so long of time.- If it walks like a duck (marryig a fine Christian woman from a long-line of Christians) and if it talks like a duck (Yes, his theology is that of a flaming liberal Protestant but still Christian in general content) then we all must conclude kind sir that Barack Obama is a Christian.God bless and shalom.
Barack Obama's Christian Faith

My argument is one point, one simple point that I hope my opponent will take into consideration. Despite all that Obama says, despite all that Obama does, despite all that Obama appears to be, he could still be a closet atheist. The methodology I wish to propose is this very well known strategy in politics that most people term 'Lying' or perhaps 'Deception' it just happens to spring to mind as I think of politicians to be honest with my opponent. Lying: Not telling the truth. [1] Deception: The action of deceiving someone. [2] Politician: A person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement. [3] Sources: [1] https://www.google.co.uk... [2] https://www.google.co.uk... [3] https://www.google.co.uk...
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

I am taking a guess that you are against vigilante justice ... sorry but its quite confusing , you also posted my argument for me it pretty much seems , but for those who cannot be bothered reading it I shall put it short and simple. vigilante justice is wrong because its against the law full stop. People may believe vigilante justice is right just like how they believe things like euthanasia should be allowed but they are still illegal. vigilante justice is often a cruel form of justice and can often involve the person being beat to death by a angry mob , looking for blood because something happened to someone they don't know. the idea of the justice system is to prevent vigilante justice and punish the person who has committed a crime by law. Not by the people , normally if the people have a problem with the law they should not have to resort to vigilante justice. As this can lead to them getting into serious trouble as well. If the government has failed to enforce the law then this person must have been proved innocent ( even if the descion was debatable ), there for vigilante justice could be regarded as killing an innocent person.
Christianity is a healthier lifestyle than atheism

In this debate I will be arguing that living by the teachings of Christianity is a more forward and healthy lifestyle choice than subscribing to atheism. I define "healthy" contextually according to Oxford Dictionaries: "Normal, natural and desirable" I define "forward" according to Oxford Dictionaries as: "Onward so as to make progress. " This entails moral progression and the increasing of one's well being. I define "Christianity" as: Any person who accepts that Jesus was divine, died and was resurrected; somebody who accepts the teachings of the New and Old Testament to be divinely inspired. This includes both liberal and conservative Christianity.
Abortion

Hello, I am arguing for the idea of abortion. I think that abortion is perfectly in line with secular ethics and beliefs. The reason why I particularly mention "secular" ethics is because there are many people who do not agree with abortion because it goes against the religious beliefs they have. One popular belief is that abortion is unethical because it goes against one of the Ten Commandments of the Christian faith, "Thou shalt not kill." However, I think that abortion is undoubtedly harmonious with the popular Christian opinion. First of all, an abortion is sometimes performed as a NECESSARY surgical procedure. The abortion of a fetus is sometimes the only way a life-threatening pregnancy can be terminated. For instance, during an ectopic pregnancy, fertilization occurs outside of the uterus, usually in a Fallopian Tube. If the blastocyst (fertilized egg) continues to develop, it is bound to be life threatening for the mother. Usually the only solution to this is an abortion. In the case that I have presented, abortion was necessary for the safety of the mother's life. However, is it still ethical to perform an abortion on a mother who is not in danger? The question of whether it is ethical or not stems from the notion that "abortion is the killing of an unborn baby, which is human and very well alive." Is it really alive tough? Biologically, for an organism to be alive, its organs must be able to perform its functions (http://www.biology-online.org...). For instance, if the organism has functioning organs, like a heart that provides blood to the rest of the body, it can be considered alive. With that being said, was an aborted fetus alive (according to our definition) before the medical procedure was performed? If we can agree with the definition provided by the scientific source provided, no, the aborted fetus was NOT alive to begin with. Abortions are safely performed during the first trimester of the pregnancy, or the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy (http://www.pamf.org...). So does the fetus have functioning organs in the first trimester? Again, it doesn't. While organs like the brain begin forming during the second month of the pregnancy, they actually don't start functioning after the 21st week of the pregnancy. In fact, one of the first organs to begin functioning, the kidneys, don't start to function after the 13th week, by which time doctors hesitate to perform an abortion because it puts the mother's life at risk (http://www.acog.org...). Lastly, I would also like to refute the idea that the fetus is able to feel pain. This just isn't true. To put it simply, pain receptors transmit signals to the brain, which brings out a sensation we call "pain". The keyword in this explanation is the term "pain receptor". Pain receptors are part of the PNS (Peripheral Nervous System), and the PNS is not functional during the first trimester of the pregnancy (http://education.jhu.edu...). Therefore, based on the biological development of a fetus, the fetus CANNOT feel pain during the abortion period.
Evolution and the Big Bang are real.

I see one question i failed to answer. my appologies, i didnt see it the first time around. I dont exactly have a map for you, but i can tell you that based upon scientific theory, for something to exist in space in any organized manner, it must orbit around something. presumebly , there is one object (perhaps a star or plant) forged from the big bang, that everything else revolves around. Just because man doenst posses the technology to go that far from earth doesnt mean that science behind the theory is incorrect. 1) apples and oranges are different because one is a citrus based fruit and the other does not. If youd like examples of natural objects that are similar and evolved from a similar ancestor, look to limes and lemons, reptiles and birds, dogs and sea mammals and of course, monkey and man. Asking questions is not proof, its logical analysis 1. What created space? ?? Was space formed from the "exploding atom"? ?? -space is a vaccum, not an object. no, but the big band star possibly was, we see that when the molecular structure of atoms are comprimised (i. e. the atom bomb) catastrophic event are possible. Perhaps it was just this on a grander scale. Im not claiming to have all the answers, but i do believe evidence supports a big bang over any other suggestions. 2. For evolution, why have creatures not "evolved" on the moon or the Sun to fit the conditoins there? -this is the one i didnt catch the first time. for a creature to evolve, it needs to exist first. I believe that life may have sprung out based on the will of our creater, who ever it may be, but i believe the diversity of life is based on evolution. If you could sustain a habbitat on the moon or sun long enough for a creature to live, i guarentee it will evolve to survive (if you were to somehow fast forward a few million years) 3. When did life form? When cells just happened to build up? ?? Hell if i know, that wasnt your quesiton to this debate. Im sure there is science to speculate an answer to that question though. In summation, thank you for your time and for the debate.
Evolution and the Big Bang are real.

You failed to answer my questions, so I am guessing that you do not know or cannot explain them. "2) the big bang pressumabley occured at the universes center" And where is that? As you can see, this is just another example of the faults there are in the Big Bang Theory. "3) Monkey and humans are remarkebly alike. They develop a similar body structure, a similar size, strength and primitive behavior. We are more evoloved in the intellectual sense and monkeys are more athletic. i dont know how this doesnt make sense to people?" Take for example apples and oranges. They are very similar, but yet different. They did not "evolve" from an orapple... "4) i fail to see your so called "proof"" My proof against the Big Bang was in my questions which you did not answer. 1. What created space??? Was space formed from the "exploding atom"??? 2. For evolution, why have creatures not "evolved" on the moon or the Sun to fit the conditoins there? 3.When did life form? When cells just happened to build up??? This is my main proof that the Big Bang and Evolution did not occur. There are so many faults in the two theories.
Evolution and the Big Bang are real.

1) if you believe that creatures can evolve to adapt, than you believe in evolution 2) the big bang pressumabley occured at the universes center. 3) Monkey and humans are remarkebly alike. They develop a similar body structure, a similar size, strength and primitive behavior. We are more evoloved in the intellectual sense and monkeys are more athletic. i dont know how this doesnt make sense to people? 4) i fail to see your so called "proof"
Evolution and the Big Bang are real.

I also do believe that religion and science can go hand in hand. But I do not believe that The Big Bang occured. As for evolution, I do believe that species can change to be better adapted to their suroundings, but I do not believe that monkies and humans share the same ancestors. First of all about the Big Bang, exactly where did the atom explode and what created spaces? For evolution, why have creatures not "evolved" on the moon or the Sun to fit the conditoins there? When did life form? When cells just happened to build up???
Abraham Lincoln cared about the Union more than slaves

At the beginning of Lincoln's presidency, he wanted reunification at any cost. He strove to avoid a civil war over the issue of slavery and urged to seceded states to rejoin the rejoin the Union. He felt strongly that saving the Union was his primary job. In his inaugural address, he stated, "You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect and defend' it. Lincoln felt that seceding from the Union was an illegal act, and it was his job to get the states back in the Union. Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, but at this point in his presidency, he didn't want to interfere with pre-existing slavery. On August 14, 1863, Lincoln called a meeting for black leaders at the White House. There he proposed that the slaves could choose voluntary recolonization to Central America and the Caribbean. At that point, he felt that the slaves would be treated better there than in America. The prominent leader Frederick Douglass was angry at hearing Lincoln's plan, and accused him of hypocrisy. Lincoln later realized his mistake, so he changed his mind and sent the navy in 1864 to retrieve the recolonized slaves. By 1863, Lincoln felt that slavery should be addressed in order to save the Union. Lincoln needed to strike at the heart of the issue – slavery. He began to believe that the preservation of the Union depended, in part, upon the destruction of slavery. He waited for the military victory at Antietem to announce the Emancipation Proclamation which he signed on January 1st, 1863. This document didn't free all slaves, but the ones in the rebel states. He realized that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't enough because it could be challenged and turned over by Congress After Lincoln was once again elected in November, 1864, he pushed Congress to pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which would make slavery illegal permanently anywhere in the United States. On January 31, 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment passed. Abolishing slavery was finally achieved after the military victory over the Confederates when Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Virginia on April 9th, 1865. At first, Lincoln wanted only to maintain the Union and not eliminate slavery. Throughout, the war, Lincoln's point of view changed over time. Lincoln eventually found that he had to strike at the heart of the issue, which was slavery. Lincoln progressed from the Emancipation Proclamation, a partial elimination of slavery, to the 13th Amendment, which eliminated slavery permanently in the United States. Lincoln's main purpose was to maintain the Union, and at the end, he found that eliminating slavery was the means to the end. Thanks for accepting a hard debate.. Cheers, Mate
Abraham Lincoln cared about the Union more than slaves

I will assume we're talking about the civil war. Abraham, trying to save the union, was the first reason why we were fighting. Yes, we WERE fighting to save the union, but this was not possible with many variables, such as: Economic and social differences between the North and the South. States versus federal rights. and The election of Abraham Lincoln. so its not fair to say the title it has faults. here's a quote My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." This means although save the union was a higher cause, he couldn't freed the slaves. what then?
Abraham Lincoln cared about the Union more than slaves

First of all im only 13 and I SUCK at debating Let's keep it nice :) When we think of Abraham Lincoln we usually think that he is well-known for freeing the slaves in the United States. We see him as a strong leader who wanted to abolish slavery from the start of his presidency. However, there is another side of Lincoln that isn't well-known. He felt that restoring the Union was much more important that freeing the slaves. At the beginning of Lincoln's presidency, he wanted reunification at any cost. He strove to avoid a civil war over the issue of slavery and urged to seceded states to rejoin the rejoin the Union. He felt strongly that saving the Union was his primary job. In his inaugural address, he stated, You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect and defend' it. Lincoln felt that seceding from the Union was an illegal act, and it was his job to get the states back in the Union. Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, but at this point in his presidency, he didn't want to interfere with pre-existing slavery.
It is fine to insult or disrespect a terrible person even if they have recently died.

Usually I don't make debates regarding people who believe in the moral ground because I believe said using the moral ground is a bad way of dodging. But for this, I must respond "It would be stupid to say that someone is invulnerable from criticism simply because they are recently deceased" Ok, First off, Saying "I hate this guy" is not criticism, Saying a book has poor grammar is criticism, Insulting someone is not, Call it what it is: Insulting. Second off, No one think that, Killers and School Shooters are mourned only by people as a joke in 4Chan. "but for some reason this is a belief held by many" "Its not held by many for people who commit crimes, The only people who seem to fit in your view are Abusers who were discovered after they died. " "John McCain, Held no remorse for other people, And were evil and disrespectful in life, They deserve no respect, Even if they are dead. " Same could be said towards every War hero ever. And I believe you are referencing the Vietnam war. And how he lead thousands of men to their deaths, Like it or not, If John McCain won the war, People would have thought of him as a hero. Sure he separated families, And and forced people to be in the army, But the same could be said with over half the countries today.
Legalizing Marijuana: Save the Economy

Thank You for this debate and I hope it is a good one ;) You have shown several arguments that legalising marijuana will benefit the economy. It will in some way but then again it will also determent it in another. Your first point is that legalising it will create and new market source and that it will help the economy. However there is major flaw in this. by legalising it yes there is a new economical source but new laws and rules have to be implemented also there are many unknown side effects that this drugs has. Millions will have to be infested into the research and the proper understanding of this drug. This also creates many problem that the black market for marijuana will still exist. And the economy will not benefit form this because all the profit will be taken but the drugs lords. The black market marijuana will be cheaper and therefore people will rather buy it there. Also you bring up the point that legalising it will not cause tragic deaths, this is untrue the product that is currently causing deaths will continue to do so because it is no different. It will still have the same side effects as it has had before and therefore the same consequences. Now onto your point that is has similar effects as other legal drugs. These drugs are legal because they have been legal for a long time. They have become part of society. The difference is that governments are now strengthening laws against these drugs and we will see this until they come to the point where they are out of society. Onto some positive matter: 1. The economy has been doing badly lately I will admit. But bringing in such a product that first have to be tested for millions of dollars and will have a bigger deficit to society than advantage, is not going to work. 2. There is no problem with the stays quo. The figures have shown that there has been a decrease in the deaths of people regarding drugs, why? Because laws have become harsher and people don't want to pay the fines and be jailed. By legalising marijuana there will be and massive increase into the market before it has been properly tested and deaths because of this may sky rocket. 3. There are other ways to fix the economy. We don't dont have to fix the economy by endangering society as a whole. By legalising marijuana, people that previously not done it because of its illegal manner now will try it and it is addicting so there will be an increase in users, abusers and deaths. In the next round I hope to discuss how there are other ways and better ways to save the economy. Therefor I know the motion must fall. Good Luck (not being cocky) Enjoy
Legalizing Marijuana: Save the Economy

Legalizing marijuana would not only cut down on criminalization but also help the economy, which at the moment, is a necessity. 1) Legalizing marijuana would add a completely new economical source, one that is already quite popular and would start the market in total demand 2) Legalizing marijuana would take away the criminal aspect. While some might try and argue that it would increase crime, the case is not true. Marijuana on the black market leads to a dangerous society, and because it is illegal, theft and other issues that might come up, are dealt with by the consumers verses the law. However, by making it legal, it would put it on the legal system, and would also take away the business from the black market and put it in the hands of a systemized, law regulated business. 3) Legalizing it will not cause tragic deaths, riots, or the destruction of mankind. It has been made legal before, and nothing has happened, except for a stimulated economy. Marijuana has existed for thousands of years, and regardless it it is used for recreational or medical purposes, it has not had any fatal results. Its side effects are nothing more extensive than any other legalized drug used in excess: alcohol, dip, cigarettes, even over the counter drugs such as bynodryl or Nyquil. The difference? Its illegal and overly dramatized criminalization have made marijuana seem to be the inducer of all crimes and the devil's advocate. And to say that keeping it illegal keeps it from users is an ignorant assumption. However, legalizing it would keep people (whom do nothing wrong but enjoy smoking a joint) out of jail wasting our tax dollars and on the street doing productive things. Because also, contrary to other stereotypes, marijuana, unlike HARD drugs, does not prevent you from being a function able, productive member of society.