BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus Is Not God.

I begin in the name of Allah the beneficent and the most merciful. I am refuting what the Christians claim and falsely attributed to Jesus(peace be upon him) stating that Jesus is God, because we believe that is something that was fabricated by human beings which Jesus himself never claimed to be God, and it is not part of the Monotheism way of Jesus (peace be upon him) or the way of any other Messenger. Jesus never preached being God and there is no where in the Bible where Jesus said I AM GOD and there is no previous Messengers Sent ever mentioned the name Jesus being God. I have never seen someone gives me simple clear plain answer and evidence from the Bible - Where Jesus said " I AM GOD or WORSHIP ME or THERE IS NO GOD BESIDE ME etc... Jesus in his entire ministry NEVER uttered this words once, hence he fails in the First Criteria. We believe that Christians fabricated all this lies and false doctrine in which the Christians trying to justify So they can practice Polytheism which there is Historical Ancient pagans of Man-God for Example: (Chrishna of India Krishna, 1200 B.C.- Hesus or Eros (Esus), 834 B. C. - (Osiris of Egypt ) , They are all man-god aswell who came before Christ so there is no new thing in Christianity coming up with the Pagan idea of Jesus being man-god when Jesus himself never said I am God. in this Debate I would point out the Bible verses which prove Jesus is not God and I will provide evidence from the Bible which disqualify Jesus being God...
Is God real

I'm pretty sure this is the most interesting argument from the con, but oh well. Yes sir, god does exist. And, no, I will not use the bible. I will simply use only science. While it is true I'm not going to focus mainly on evolution, I will just simply use it as some proof. First, evolution is the theory that animals, including humans, evolved from one another all the way to tiny organisms. The problem with this theory is that it is very well only a theory, and there are many, many ways to disprove it. As an example, here's a short little thing I like to call, monkeys. Note that this isn't one of my best arguments, I want the con to actually try and fight. First of all, Let's talk about 'Mitochondrial Eve'. In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA), where a child and mother share an unbroken and direct relationship that goes on when that child (if female) has children of their own. Because of this, each mother's mother, and their mother goes all the way to the beginning to one single woman, 'Mitochondrial Eve'. Now, do you think this is from evolution? I think not. I believe this is some proof to God's existence.
Affirmative Action Should Be Abolished

Affirmative Action: The act of placing one higher over another in the process of admission to a place education, occupation, or status, based on the race or ethnicity of the people involved. Abolish: Formally put to an end. Standard format: 1st - introductions 2nd - Pro=opening arguments / Con= opening arguments and rebuttal 3rd - Pro=rebuttal/closing arguments / Con = closing arguments ONLY Good luck to my opponent! Do you accept my terms?
Rush Limbaugh is a blithering idiot.

Second is for construction only. No new arguments or rebuttals may be made in the final round. Blithering idiot- a dumb talkative person Rush Limbaugh- A conservative political pundit "Rush Limbaugh is a conservative radio talk show host. His website describes him as 'America's Truth Detector; the Doctor of Democracy; the Most Dangerous Man in America; the All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie; defender of motherhood, protector of fatherhood and an all-around good guy. '" -Politifact
Rush Limbaugh is a blithering idiot.

Second is for construction only. No new arguments or rebuttals may be made in the final round. Blithering idiot- a dumb talkative personRush Limbaugh- A conservative political pundit"Rush Limbaugh is a conservative radio talk show host. His website describes him as 'America's Truth Detector; the Doctor of Democracy; the Most Dangerous Man in America; the All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie; defender of motherhood, protector of fatherhood and an all-around good guy. '"-Politifact
There is no objective basis for morality.

My apologies for not adequately defining my terms. I'll try to simplify.Pro defined, in Round 1, the term “objective:” “For this debate, the term "objective" will have the definition found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.”Only the physical Laws of Nature represents a “phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.”Therefore, the scope of my position is in the physical domain not metaphysical.The physical Laws of Nature is the omnipotent set of rules for the machinery of nature. Hence the evolution of life, humans, physics, technology and social organization, all a part of nature, via the physical Constructal Law. Morality is a binary construct. When one follows a set of rules, one is moral. On the other hand, when one does not follow a set of rules, one is immoral.The set of rules in my position is the “objective” physical Laws of Nature. Not some subjective metaphysical set of human rules, commonly referred to a code of ethics, moral codes, etc. When one follows (morally) the Laws of Nature in the pursuit of a goal, upon success one usually feels happiness (positive feedback). When one does not follow (immorally) the Laws of Nature in the pursuit of a goal, upon failure one usually feels unhappiness (negative feedback). For example, Pro asked the following question:“So if I [Pro] pursue the goal of killing myself and I succeed then did I morally follow the Laws of Nature even though life did not survive?”The answer is, yes! You morally followed the Laws of Nature in the pursuit of your goal to commit suicide. Imagine, how upset you may feel (negative feedback), if you wake up knowing that you were unsuccessful in your goal. I could go through, one by one, the long list of Pro's questions, demonstrating the moral and immoral results relative to the “objective” physical Laws of Nature. But I decided to take the one that ends Pro's life as being an adequate example, which effectively addresses the other questions. In reality, Pro did not commit suicide, and therefore, I'm looking forward for Pro's burden of proof that the physical Laws of Nature are not “objective.” Those “objective” set of rules, the “basis for morally” working within the awesome machinery of nature resulting in the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today.
Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008.

<"It wasn't obvious. The thing at the top is a title. It only says what your debate is about. "> The debate is about the following: "Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A. L. MVP Award in 2008. " And I took con. Knowing that I'm "con" to that topic ("what the debate is about), this means that I don't think Dustin Pedroia deserved the A. L. MVP in 2008, which contradicts the argument pro is trying to make about my position being that Pedroia deserved it. So, in essence, the above quote actually helps me. Seriously, taking all that into account, it wouldn't take Gregory House nor Sherlock Holmes to deduce what this debate is about. <"It's reasonable to assume that the first sentence you posted in the argument, standing alone, was your resolution. "> Why? Why is it reasonable to assume that's my resolution when it contradicts the position I've taken in the debate? The title is "Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A. L. MVP Award in 2008," which is, as my opponent said, what the debate is about. I then took con, which means I disagree with the title. Knowing this, how in the world is it at all reasonable to *assume* my first sentence is the resolution? It isn't. It really doesn't even make sense; it's a bad attempt at a semantical argument. <"Now, I will admit that there're two ways I could have gone with this. I said that taking Pro means that I, molinjir, believes that Dustin didn't deserve the award. That's probably unfair though, because then we aren't even debating. "> . .. yeah? This only helps me, as well. In fact, the part where my opponent says "then we aren't even debating" seems contradictory to the position he's trying to take up, which is that I wasn't clear with the intent of this debate. If one supposed "way" you could've taken it would make it so that we aren't debating, then wouldn't the other option be the viable choice, since this is, indeed, a debate? This is a debate, which means something is intended to be debated. If one position you could've taken would make it so that we aren't debating, then shouldn't that tell you the intent rather easily. .. ? Knowing that I'm con to what the debate is about, and that the way my opponent is trying to take this argument would mean "we aren't even debating," my actual position in this debate clear. <"patsox834's argument shows that he doesn't believe Dustin Pedroia deserved the award. "> Right, which is kinda what I was going for in starting this debate. <"Therefore, in taking the Pro position of the resolution "patsox834 believes that Dusitn didn't deserve Major League Baseball's A. L. MVP award in 2008," I am supposed to show that patsox834 believes. .. etc. It's all right there. "> No, this is simply a frivolous distortion of the debate I was looking for -- as I've shown, the intent I had in starting this debate is clear, so my opponent is really reaching here.
Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008.

"Simply because I didn't say "Resolved: Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008," doesn't necessarily mean that there are any inaccuracies present. In essence, just because it doesn't seem accurate to my opponent doesn't mean it that's, indeed, the case. I worded the topic clearly; what I meant for this debate was very, very obvious." It wasn't obvious. The thing at the top is a title. It only says what your debate is about. It's reasonable to assume that the first sentence you posted in the argument, standing alone, was your resolution. The resolution is "I believe that Dustin didn't deserve Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP award in 2008." Now, I will admit that there're two ways I could have gone with this. I said that taking Pro means that I, molinjir, believes that Dustin didn't deserve the award. That's probably unfair though, because then we aren't even debating. So, I did misinterpret the resolution. When you said "I believe," that universally means that "patsox834 believes." Thus, what I am truly trying to show is that YOU, patsox834, believes that Dustin Pedroia didn't deserve the award. Now, the only evidence I need to use is right in front of everyone's eyes, and it is the most reliable as its existence affirms its own validity. patsox834's argument shows that he doesn't believe Dustin Pedroia deserved the award. Therefore, in taking the Pro position of the resolution "patsox834 believes that Dusitn didn't deserve Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP award in 2008," I am supposed to show that patsox834 believes... etc. It's all right there. He doesn't believe Pedroia deserved the award. He thinks Mauer deserved it. [1] I have affirmed the resolution. [1]http://www.debate.org...
Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008.

My opponent failed to accurately highlight his resolution. Thus, we can assume it was "I believe that Dustin didn't deserve Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP award in 2008." As I am PRO, I will show that I do believe that Dustin didn't deserve Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP award in 2008. I will commence in round II.
Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008.

I believe that Dustin didn't deserve Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP award in 2008. The criteria that will be used for this debate are hitting, fielding, baserunning, and durability, which will be measured with statistics. This round is merely an introduction; however, my opponent can still post an argument if he/she wishes to do so. Dustin Pedroia: http://www.baseball-reference.com... A.L. (American League): http://en.wikipedia.org... MVP (Most Valuable Player) award: http://en.wikipedia.org... Major League Baseball: http://en.wikipedia.org... deserve: to be worthy of, qualified for. (1) 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org... not: http://en.wikipedia.org... Lastly, to avoid fiddling with semantics, I'd like to point out that for this debate, the terms "better" and "more valuable" are synonymous, and by accepting, my opponent agrees to this. (1) = http://dictionary.reference.com...
Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A.L. MVP Award in 2008.

First of all, what is up with this immensely odd grammatically excursion from the fundamental rules of the English language in which you have partaken? ("what I refrained from enclosing the above sequence of characters within brackets or marks to signify quotation in order to maintain the hilarious absurdity that dwells in the seemingly innocuous 6-letter stream. "The debate is about the following: 'Dustin Pedroia Deserved Major League Baseball's A. L. MVP Award in 2008. '" The topic is a differing entity from the resolution. You selected the Con position with regards to the resolution, and I have illustrated what the resolution was, in actuality. I have negated my opponent's sole argumentative discourse.
The human will power ( mind) can affect time and space based phenomenon of our world

I assume I do not have to make an opening argument because you didn't tell me too. So I am going to start with a rebuttal point by point. 1.) I actually find this very interesting. But, this does not affect rules beyond our physical world. This only shows us that we have a human spirit and we are above animals. A human spirit gives us a reason to do more than our animal instincts, yet it does not allow us to enter the metaphysical world. After all, we kill ourselves through physical means. 2.) Those people you mentioned are only prominent because other people let them to be prominent. They merely give a voice to a mass of people who want a voive. They offer hope for a better life, that is why people still follow them. No man can change the wills of many, and those people didn't. 3.) Yes, but all that could be done physchological and physical. The human mind has complete control of the human body, true, but that does not mean it affects time and spaced phenomenons. 4.) Same as point 3 5.) Extreme version of point 3 In conclusion, you are right that human willpower is superior to the survival of the human body, but how does that affect the metaphyisical world?
The human will power ( mind) can affect time and space based phenomenon of our world

The human willpower is far more superior than its per-considered role of survival of human body and it has power to severely affect time and spaced phenomenons metaphysically beyond rules of our physical world. Following are my evidence in support of this claim 1. As a simple rule, If willpower (mind ) is sub product of body whose main function is to play its part for the survival of human body then it can not damage and annihilate human body itself but we often see that when human will power decide to kill the body in shape of suicide , it violate said rule and do the opposite that clearly shows that said rules is not valid . 2. When we study history , we see prominent figures those changed the world solely with their willpower , examples nelson Mandela, hazrat Muhmmad , gandhi , mahatama budh thought they were not much powerful at initital stages but with only will power they dominated the world and phenomenons based on time and space revolved around them as per their will. 3. Research show that scientists and researchers has longer life than others because they have much stronger desire for life than others that clearly show that their love for life and willpower take part in the health of their body. 4. Psychologists has researched on placebo effect and admit that it effects positively on patients that prove the willpower played its role. 5. An example of will power that defeated rules of physical world is Stephan hawking who was diagnosed with ALS and ALS Association says the average lifespan of someone diagnosed with the condition is between two and five years but he still survive at 73 also earning status of scientist of century .
The human will power ( mind) can affect time and space based phenomenon of our world

First off, human spirit merely refers to our consciousness that is free from logic and experience and is based on free-will, nothing to do with metaphysics. I believe in God, yet I do not believe that he gave us metaphysical abilities, if so, he would teach that in the Bible. 1.) You conclusion that God gave us metaphysical abilities is based on no proper reason. Why would God give us such abilities? And how do our minds affect time and space? 2.) She might've rigged the system or got lucky. You fail to prove that her winning streak affected the metaphysical world. That's the problem with your arguments, you make a claim and call it metaphysical because you don't understand how the work. 3.) Easily could've been rigged. You should try it, just for the fun of it. In order for this to work, Dr. Emoto didn't have to say anything to the rice, and merely think of negative and positive emotions. And merely saying good or bad things doesn't mean you feel those emotions. 4.) Doesn't count, they got the year wrong and the Worlds Trade Center is an obvious target for terrorism. Furthermore, they made two more claims for terrorist attacks, both of which were wrong. 5.) Telepathy does not necessarily affect metaphyics. It just means that a mother and son could read each other's mind. (Could be faked, by the way). 6.) Pro doesn't care to explain how science proves the connection between our mind and the material world, so I don't care to make a rebuttal for it. If you believe that our mind is connected with the material world, why not make experiments on your own and see for yourself? In summary, Pro has only provided specifics to show how our mind affects metaphysics, but does not explain why or how those examples work. Nor does he explain why it is even philosophically possible to
The human will power ( mind) can affect time and space based phenomenon of our world

The major flaw with you argument is that you fail to prove that you examples influence the metaphysical world. You cannot immediately explain your answer so you assume it has something to do with humans affecting time and space. Oxford-Razor theory- 'Simplest answer is usually the right one'. 1.) I do reject materialism, yet I do not think killing yourself means you affect the metaphysical world. It just means you lost your will to live, something humans possess to live on, so you decide to kill yourself. You no longer have a reason to live so you don't Nothing to do with metaphysics. 2.) How does that example show that Muhammad affected the metaphysical world? There could be other causes for his success, which includes his tenacity and determination. 5.) How does that violate rules of the physical world? Maybe we do not understand the physical rules or maybe the doctors got it wrong. Maybe it just shows mind over matter. You have a very strong argument for the human spirit. I agree that we have a human spirit. But how does that affect the metaphysical world? That is what you failed to prove.
The human will power ( mind) can affect time and space based phenomenon of our world

Thanks for your arguments. actually my claim can be divided into following two parts a) I do reject materialism that everything is made of matter and I am of the opinion that human-being's will is far superior than matter b) Human's will power function metaphysically even it also effects time & space based phenomenon Now taking into account these , Following are my responses to your arguments 1. You too rejected materialism and admitted that we have a human spirit and we are above animals . definition of human spirit : bible says that the human spirit is the very breath of Almighty God and was breathed into man at the beginning of God"s creation that clearly shows that human will power is far superior than matter and you too agreed with my sub claim (a) . 2. I do not agree with your argument that those people merely gave voice to a mass of people who want a voice , you may be right in few cases but there are hundred of prominent people those change the course of history only with their will power , take example of Hazrat Muhammaded , when he started his campaign , he started alone also suffered humiliation from powerful tribes of mecca even he was forced to migrate from his own city but never give up his message , consequently he changed the entire course of history that prove my sub claim (b) . 3. admitted 4. admitted 5. We can not take Stephan Hawking's case as simple psychological case, it is beyond the scope of psychology as it clearly violated rules of physical world thus it is an example that how human will power can effect time & space based phenomenon 6. If Einstein was right in his claim that time and space bends and it can be manipulated then human being need to posses a tools that can too effect time and space and it is human's will
Prohibition: Should we bring it back

The Prohibition should not return.1) Alcohol has numerous health benefits includingLowering the chance of Cardiovascular DiseaseLowering the chance of Diabetes http://www.medicaldaily.com...Lowering chances of caridovascular disease is important because deaths from heart attacks and other caridovascular disease outnumber those from accidents (Includng car accidents) about 4.6:1http://www.cdc.gov...Thus we need to prioritize preventing heart attack deaths, and banning alcohol will do the opposite.2) The Alcohol Industry is an important part of our economyThe alcohol industry in the US accounts for $400 billion in economic activity in 2010, generating nearly $90 billion in wages and over 3.9 million jobs for U.S. workers. It also is one of the most heavily taxed industries thus providing the Federal government another soure of income.http://www.discus.org...We cannot ban alcohol because the country is currently coming out of an economic slump, decreasing economic activity and losing jobs would only hurt the people.My opponent has stressed how driving is becoming more dangerous and important, and that we need to regualte it more. This is simply not topical as I have already stated why we need to look at other issues before we look to the driving industry in relation to alcohol, e.g. Cardiovascular disease.
Prohibition: Should we bring it back

Prohibition was once an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It prohibited the sale, trafficking, or manufacturing of alcohol in an way shape, or form unless used medically. Alcohol is one of the leading causes of accidents on roadways. With new high tech, high speed, high performance vehicles being manufactured and sold, serious consequences can be expected due to intoxicated driving because cars are being made of aluminum and crush like tins cans, where as, 20-30 years ago vehicles were made of steel or other materials that made vehicles harder to inflict serious damage. With high consequences comes a higher price to pay. This year in 2015 alone over 40,000 Americans will be killed by accidents alone. We need stricter driving laws and more driver education.