BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is indisputable.

Thank you for participating in this debate. I will be arguing in favor of the view that morality is indisputable. In order to qualify for this challenge, you must have completed at least 1 debate. (IFF) morality requires principles (AND) principles require truth (AND) truth requires fact (AND) fact requires indisputability (THEN) morality cannot be disputable. (IFF) morality is disputable then it does not logically qualify as morality per its own definition (and may be more precisely described as an opinion which does not require the property of indisputability). Therefore if some people think that eating a bacon cheeseburger is a violation of "the law of the YHWH" and any violation of "the law of the YHWH" is "immoral" and some people dispute this, then eating a bacon cheeseburger cannot possibly qualify as a "moral violation" based on the definitions detailed below because it is not strictly indisputable. Morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". https://www.google.com... Principle: "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning". https://www.google.com... Truth: "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality". https://www.google.com... Fact: "a thing that is indisputably the case". https://www.google.com... Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.
God punished us for the sins of our ancestors.

Resolved: God is punishing us for the sins of our ancestors. In this debate I will accept that god is real, he is a personal god and a judge for all of us. The god in question here is the Christian god, as the only reference for god’s word and actions is the bible I must also accept this as a valid source. I will hold the burden of proof that god does in fact punish people for the misdeeds of the long since dead. Structure: 1. Acceptance 2. Arguments 3. Rebuttals 4. Closing statements
God punished us for the sins of our ancestors.

1. We still have original sin, but we're forgiven if we're sorry and ask for repentance. In some ways, you can say that we're no different from Adam and Eve. We all sin, and we can all be tempted to do so. "For all have sinned, and come short upon the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). 2. Yes and no, to be honest I've been known to skim through sources just to make sure they have everything I wanted (in this case, it was only this story of Noah). But yes thank you for seeing my point, it was that God will never create another flood or wipe humanity off the face of the Earth. It might contain a lot that contradicts Christianity, but in my mind these things could still have happened. 3. These people are idiots, because even the Bible makes it clear that no one will ever know the day or hour He returns. In fact, He even warned about all of this. False Christs and false prophets, they've always existed but this is happening at an alarming rate. We are definetly seeing more and more prophesy though, like Isiah 17:1 ("Damascus will no longer be a city, but a ruinous heap"). That's taking place as we speak. Prophesy is and never was punishment, God punished us via the flood and made it very clear He will never do so again. These signs of his coming would be very large trials, and maybe we'll even go through the tribulation, but it's not punishment. Also, another theory is that God would call His followers to His Kingdom and only have the rest go through tribulation. We just have to wait and see, but I'm still very sure God doesn't punish His people anymore (even though He allows it from others sometimes, like challenges but that's different). But I also see a little bit of a misunderstanding, the fact that so many people said "the world was going to end" and were wrong. Here's the thing, most people that would say it are locked up and institutionalized. But most of the major "prophets" talked about an event causing a chain reaction that STARTS the end of the world, like the Mayans. The Mayans never said the world would end in 2012, but they said "it would be a new age of spiritual enlightenment". Whether people are wrong or not is basically 99% opinion, but now it's up to the voters. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
God punished us for the sins of our ancestors.

I am actually an atheist, however I accepted for the context of the debate that god exists. I will point out a few flaws in the argument presented. Remember, the resolution is that god is still punishing us for the sins of our ancestors. 1. Jesus died on the cross for our sins so that we wouldn't have to suffer through His wrath. This would imply that humanities sin was forgiven, if that is the case then why did we (humanity) not revert to the way we were before the original sin occurred? Jesus was our collective repentance. Yet we god left the punishment of ashamed of their nakedness, exile from Eden, painful child bearing, short (by comparison)life (Genesis 6:3) and death since it also came into the world as a result of sin(Romans 5:12 & 17) Since we still suffer these punishments, he is still punishing us, even after forgiving us through Christ, for the ancestral sin (a.k.a original sin). Your source pretty much is the most skeptical view of the Ark story you could have linked to. That same source says the flood never even happened and gives reasons for why like Fragile geological formations, Fossil layers, re-population near impossibilities, even Rainbows! Did you read it? However, the point I believe you are trying to make here is that god will not flood the earth again because of humanities sin. Fair enough, but after he did so, why did he not restore Noah and his family to Eden as he clearly. If the answer to this query is “we simply cannot know gods ways” I then ask why not? If we are just incapable of this, then why did go make us so inferior as to not understand reason? Is that not a punishment itself, in the very act of creating us, he makes our minds so frail we cannot comprehend his logic?3. People always think it is the end times. A recent study by pew shows that 41% think Jesus will return by 2050! [1]Not to mention the whole host of “Apocalyptic Prophecies” that never came to fruition. [2] According to scientist, thisis not going to happen for billions of years at least, but certainly not in the next few decades. Again, I feel this was not the point you were attempting to make. You were trying to explain that the atrocities accompanied by the second coming of Christ are not punishments. I have one question, if it is not punishment that will be inflicted on earth in the end f times, why would the followers of Christ need to be saved? Mark 13:13 Unfortunately, I did not see any statements that show that god does not punish us for the sins of our ancestors. So I cannot refute anything further. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... **Sorry, Wiki was the best put together list I found for all the false predictions**
God punished us for the sins of our ancestors.

I too, believe that there is a God. However, Jesus died on the cross for our sins so that we wouldn't have to suffer through His wrath. You see, God never changes but He made it very clear that we wouldn't have to suffer through His wrath like in the days of Noah. This source goes on to mention that God will never again flood the Earth. http://rationalwiki.org... There's also hurricanes and earthquakes, but these aren't punishments. These were prophesied in the Bible, as the signs of the second coming. God told us not to worry because these things will pass, and the end will come once Jesus returns to reign in Jerusalem for 1000 years. "There shall be famines, pestilence, and earthquakes in diverse places. And ye shall be hated of all nations, for my name's sake" (Mark 13:4-5).
Assault Weapons Should Not Be Banned

I think 200+ years are very relevant in the changing of history, by that argument it's okay to own slaves. The founding fathers made the consitution so it could be changed or amended as the times changed. Are you suggesting the miltary is going to turn on the government? I fully support giving trained soilders guns to use in wars, but their is no indication they .will turn agoanst our government. And I don't like our current government, I'm libertarian in every issue besides gun rights. Banning guns is going to make it harder for criminals to get them, even if a criminal is intent on getting a gun it will be very difficult for a criminal to obtain a gun, unlke America were they can easily get it. I'm suggesting we get rid of guns, and ban them, instead of just banning them. Your definition of a ban(going to use alcohol as an example, not arguing for the ban of alcohol) is making alcohol illegal, but not closing down bars, liquor stores, etc., my definition of a ban on alcohol is banning it, closing all places people buy alcohol, and arresting moon shiners and other illegal alcohol producers. The point I'm trying to make with Australia is, there haven't been any mass shootings beacuse they are no guns, and soft spots are irrelevant beacuse they only apply if someone had a gun, but no one has a gun, so there are no soft spots. You go on to talk about how different guns are different levels of deadly and you presume that I'm dumb enough to think movies have an accurate portrayal of guns, about the different levels of leathality I've designed an experiment, take a human skull(not of a living person obviously, but also recently dead so it's still as strong) or something that is equally as likely to stop a bullet. Then take the gun/bullet combination your testing and shoot at it from 1 foot away(beacuse within a foot you might as well just have a knife) and if after shooting the skull from a foot away there's no hole in it, it's legal, hole in skull=illegal. In this case I take the right to not dying as a greater human right as owning any weapon, and by that logic I should be allowed to own a nuke.
Assault Weapons Should Not Be Banned

Whether it's the 18th century or not is irrelevant. The founding fathers made the constitution so that it would always apply, even today. What's important here is the detail of the tyranny. Besides, what you say about me being unmatched to the military is untrue, it's a strange sort of opposite. The United States government is what is no match for the military, as I'm not they're the ones fighting the military, not me. Banning guns isn't going to make it harder for criminals to get them, since a gun ban is a law, which I'm not sure if you heard, but CRIMINALS ALREADY DON'T FOLLOW THEM. So you're creating a law to protect yourself from someone who won't follow it. You're like a porcupine begging to have its quills removed so that it may feel protected from a bear, which means you're disarming yourself to protect yourself from people who are armed. As for Australia, I'm actually baffled that there hasn't been a mass shooting there. Their gun laws just make them sitting ducks, just waiting to get holes poked in them. I'm not sure that you live in America, but people here are very afraid, and I would literally have to chase them to be able to hit them with a bat. There is no way 10 people would attack me at once. And I think for everyone to have a gun is a good idea. That would make it so that there is no such thing as a soft target. Let me explain. A soft target is an area where you can go under the perception that no one is armed. So when a dude walks in with a gun and starts plugging children at a school for example, there is nobody to there's no one to shoot the dude before he kills everyone in the room. I do understand the power of a gun, and I know that it commands respect, and as someone who, unlike you, has fired many guns in their lifetime, knows more about ballistics and the inner workings of different firearms, as well as where to shoot to kill on animals and humans, think it's safe to say that I can tell you that guns are much weaker than you may think. To explain, let me tell you, it all matters on which caliber you use, and the shape of your bullet. In the movies, a 5.56 rifle will blow your arm clean off. In real life, it will likely pass right through due to its velocity and shape. A Kimber pistol chambered in .45 ACP firing hollow points will be much more effective as a "killer's weapon." As for your response to the quote, yes, actually, you are given the right to own any weapon.
Assault Weapons Should Not Be Banned

Times have changed since the 18th century. And you seriously think all civilians with guns would be a match for the United States military. How about the police shootings in Texas, it's Texas so somebody their had a gun, yet the officers(who also had guns) still were killed. By banning guns we make it harder for criminals to get guns, and we could buy the guns already out there and take the rest, it worked pretty darn well for Australia. When you see mass shootings in Europe it's ISIS, before ISIS Europe didn't have mass shootings because they didn't have guns, there were no mass knifing. You couldn't not kill 50 people in a nightclub with a knife or baseball bat, 10 people would attack you at once and you'd kill 3 of them. With a gun sometimes you don't see the person shooting you, and if your argument is to fire back, than it requires every single person to own a gun. I seriously don't think you understand how much easier guns make it to kill people with, there is a reason America has more mass killings than any other 1st world country. I would also like to say as a response to the quote, which I have used in arguing against the NSA on a form on a different website before, owning guns is not a freedom, guns are weapons not a right
Assault Weapons Should Not Be Banned

No offense to you, but you're a classic example of someone who doesn't know what the second amendment is actually for. You see, the founding fathers didn't even trust themselves, and wanted you and me to be equally armed to them in the case that they became tyrannical and tried to level us. The second amendment wasn't made for hunting or going to the shooting range, because if you didn't hunt, you didn't eat; and at the time of the country's founding, there was no such thing as a shooting range. If you intend to protect from criminals by using laws, you don't understand the dynamic of a criminal. A criminal is already willing to break the law if they want to kill you, so they already aren't going to follow the law and just obtain guns illegally. Plus, a ban wouldn't take care of ghost guns, and if it just bans the sale and manufacture, then it wouldn't take care of the guns that are already out there. Guns don't actually make it any easier to kill people than any other weapon. I don't know about you, but I personally could kill 50 people with a knife or a baseball bat. Addressing the thing about defense from a bullet, your defense is rather than to try to run and get shot in the back, disrupt your attacker's ability to shoot you, then pull out your own gun and fill them with lead. I'd rather just shoot the person attacking me than risk being disarmed and get killed. "Those who will give up freedom for security deserve neither and will get nothing." -Benjamin Franklin, 1755
Assault Weapons Should Not Be Banned

It has always been my belief that civilians should not be able to walk into a store an easily get a gun. Assault weapons should be banned because guns should be banned for civilians. licensed Hunting and shooting ranges should be able provide guns to Licensed people and the guns should never leave the designated area. Every time I say anything about any measure of gun control 2-no amendment supporters are always like, Guns don't kill people, and my response is always, no but they make it ridiculously easy to kill people. Can you defend yourself against a guy with a knife charging at you form a distance, yes, a bullet, no. Then when a mass shooting happens people are like,"their going to make it about gun control again" my response is, then what is it about then? Are you saying you can kill 50 people with a knife, no you might kill a few, but you won't last very long.
eli manning deserves to be in hall of fame

Five. Only five quarterbacks in the history of the National Football League have been MVP of two Super Bowls; New York Giants quarterback, Eli Manning is one of them. Eli"s stats are up to par compared to many other hall of fame quarterbacks. Pro Football Reference.com ranks his career stats in front of hall of fame players such as Mike Ditka, Joe Namath, and his dad Achie Manning Therefore Eli Manning is worthy of being a hall of fame quarterback. According to the Elo Rater on Pro Football Reference.com Eli Manning is ranked 121st for offensive players, 212th overal as of January 23, and the 36th best quarterback of all time. There are 258 inductees in the hall of fame currently therefor he should be inducted into the hall of fame. 1 year ago the Bleacher Report rated 25 active quarterbacks on odds of being inducted to the hall of fame where they gave an 80% chance to Aaron Rodgers, they gave New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning a 99.9% chance of being inducted to the hall of fame. Espn sportswriter Seth Wickerson states that Eli, although being streaky, has what it takes to be in the hall of fame. Many anti Eli fans can argue that Eli"s stats are not up to par, and many neutral fans believe that and don't side with Eli. Newsday states otherwise, comparing all other Hall of fame quarterbacks and their statistics through the age of 30. This project was launched on february 6 2012, When Eli was 30. His stats were better than Troy Aikman, George Blanda, Terry Bradshaw, Len Dawson, John Elway, Dan Fouts, Otto Graham, Bob Griece, Sonny Jurgensen, Jim Kelly, Bobby Layne, Warren Moon, Joe Namath, Bart Starr, Roger Staubach, Fran Tarkenton, Y.A Tittle, Johnny Unitas, Norm Van Brocklin, Bob Waterfield, and Steve Young. Some people can say that when these quarterbacks play it was not a passing league, but Eli had a better completion percentage than 86% percent of all of the quarterbacks in the hall of fame. This is significant because now Eli Manning is throwing against a defence that is expecting a pass play, whereas in the 1900s they expected runs not passes. As mentoined earlier Eli is one of five multiple superbowl mvp winners (all of which are in the hall of fame or will be*). Also only 11 quarterbacks have won multiple superbowls (ten of which are in the hall of fame or are active) the only one to not be inducted is Jim Plunket. Who was barely even a starter and had way worse stats than eli has currently. the five quarterbacks are Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Bart Starr, Tom Brady, and Eli Manning. Because Eli is on a list with those four NFL legends he deserves a spot in canton. Eli Manning, the quarterback of the New York giants deserves a spot in canton because his stats are up to par and his super bowl success.
eli manning deserves to be in hall of fame

Go on what site? No one cares about someone's stats at 30 because 1. For Eli, that was 2 years ago. And 2. It's career stats that mean something. Joe Montana might have had an off year when he was 30 ( I don't know whether he did or not) And Eli might have had a better year stats wise when he was 30, but Montana's numbers are way better overall. The Super Bowl MVP doesn't mean a whole lot because It's pretty much the same thing as player of the game. Which is meaning less the next game. It's the actual MVP award that matters, which Eli has none of. And you keep switching between people who have won multiple Super Bowls ( There has been more than 10) and Super Bowl MVPs. I did use sources, I used NFL.com and Wikipedia. I look forward to your response.
eli manning deserves to be in hall of fame

did you ever go on the site? i dont think so because they showed all quarterbacks stats to when they were eli's age so it showed those stats not the career stats because Eli has another solid 7 years to play. there are no quarterbacks who are flawless and come out every week or every year and put up huge numbers even Dan Marino and Joe Montana had their off years. But with the superbowl thing there are 258 inductees currently, there are five people with two Super Bowl mvps. Just to get things straight this debate is a very opionated topic but you need to use some sources.
eli manning deserves to be in hall of fame

There are more than 10 people that won 2 or more superbowls. How is being streaky a good thing? Being consistently good is better, which Eli is not. That is the reason Eli is not and will not be considered one of the greats. And what evidence do I not have? I thought this whole debate was completely opinionated. I stated plenty of points in my favor. So you are saying that Eli manning is better than Steve Young? If it's stats you want.... Here are Eli's career stats: CMP % YDS TD INT Rating 58.5 35,345 229 171 81.2 Here are John Elway's CMP% YDS TD INT Rating 56.9 51,475 300 226 79.9 Sonny Jurgensen's CMP% YDS TD INT Rating 62.0 32,224 255 189 82.6 Jim Kelly's CMP% YDS TD INT Rating 60.1 35,467 237 175 84.4 Warren Moon's CMP% YDS TD INT Rating 58.4 49,325 291 233 80.9 Roger Staubach's CMP% YDS TD INT Rating 57.0 22,700 153 109 83.4 Fran Tarkenton's CMP% YDS TD INT Rating 57.0 47,003 342 266 80.4 Steve Young's CMP% YDS TD INT Rating 64.3 33,124 232 107 96.8 And Finally, Joe Montana's CMP% YDS TD INT Rating 63.2 40,551 273 139 92.3 That's just a few, I didn't want to bore you. I look forward to your response.
eli manning deserves to be in hall of fame

first of all you have no evidence of any of that and it is completely opinionated and you used no facts you just said that I was wrong with no evidence. You did not even state a single point in your favor. to get things straight Eli is one of 11 quarterbacks to win two super bowls, that is there are 23 quarterbacks of in the hall of fame, and three of the 11 are still active. Now even crazier is that Eli is one of five players (since the super bowl was started) to be MVP of multiple super bowls (there are about 23,000 players to ever play in the NFL). I admit that Eli is streaky but that does not take away from his two super bowls and solid stats, and being streaky is not a bad quality. I have a question you must answer in the next round because it was to vague in your opening statement, How is every single player I listed better than him, where is your evidence where are the stats. just going to say that you said my argument is solely based on stats, its not the core of my argument is the super bowl victories, (emphasis on the s at the end because only ten other people can say that).
eli manning deserves to be in hall of fame

No he does not. You are comparing his stats at 30 compared to other quarterbacks, but every single player you just listed is better than him. Your whole argument is based on stats, which can only go so far. He is too streaky, He wins the super one year and cant even get to the playoffs the next. He is only going to get worse. Then you said that only 11 quarterbacks have won multiple superbowls and there were only 5 that were MVP of 2. That's roughly half, so it doesn't really mean much. And it's not the websites who overrate players that vote them in the HOF. You said his stats were better of all those quarterbacks but they all played longer and Eli's not done playing yet, so his will probably end up being worse than theirs