BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jews are Naturally Sneaky

While I could just not go into each of the statements that my opponent has made and state the has provided no arguments for how all people of the Jewish race are "sneaky", I will get to that later. For now I will break down each of the individual statements made and disprove them. 1 - "Stabbed in the back! Germany at the close of the first world war? Destroyed by the Jewish conspiracy." This is not really expanded upon by the Pro position, so I will try to explain this to the viewers. Taken From Wikipedia: The stab-in-the-back myth is the notion, widely believed in right-wing circles in Germany after 1918, that the German Army did not lose World War I but was instead betrayed by the civilians on the home front, especially the republicans who overthrew the monarchy. Advocates denounced the German government leaders who signed the Armistice on November 11, 1918, as the "November Criminals." When the Nazis came to power in 1933 they made the legend an integral part of their official history of the 1920s, portraying the Weimar Republic as the work of the "November criminals" who used the stab in the back to seize power while betraying the nation. The Nazi propaganda depicted Weimar as "a morass of corruption, degeneracy, national humiliation, ruthless persecution of the honest 'national opposition'"fourteen years of rule by Jews, Marxists, and 'cultural Bolsheviks', who had at last been swept away by the National Socialist movement under Adolf Hitler and the victory of the 'national revolution' of 1933". Scholars inside and outside Germany unanimously reject the notion, pointing out the German army was out of reserves and was being overwhelmed in late 1918. To many Germans, the expression "stab in the back" was evocative of Richard Wagner's 1876 opera G"tterd"mmerung, in which Hagen murders his enemy Siegfried with a spear in his back. As can be seen by this article, the "stab-in-the-back" myth is nothing more than early German right-wing propaganda, and should be treated as nothing more than a lie, unless the pro can give an exceptional amount of evidence to prove this conspiracy theory then it should be completely discarded. 2 - "The brave man known as Adolf Hitler who tried to stop them? Killed by the Russian Jews and passed off as a suicide." I can find no articles that talk about this conspiracy theory, and for it to be taken seriously the Pro must prove this. And Adolf Hitler was not brave, he was a psychopath. 3 - "The global financial crisis? A Jewish conspiracy to drive up the cost of their gold so that they could finally build their mind control devices." Again, no backing this claim up. In Conclusion. Unless my opponent can back up any of his claims, I have won this debate. 3 -
Kids don't need mobile phones.

Thank you!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ need nēd/ verb 1. require (something) because it is essential or very important. "I need help now" Before we begin I'd like to state that the BOP is on my opponenet since she is the one making the affirmative claim. My job in this debate will be to simply show that in SOME cases a kid will need a cellphone. While my opponent will have to address these contentions as well as show proof for her own. I will simply be searching for flaws in the logic of this resolution. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In some cases phones can save lives. Consider the following story: http://www.khou.com... "Lia Vega, picked up a nearby phone and pressed the call button twice to dial the last number called. That number was her grandmother s. Her mom will call and let her talk to me a lot, but using the phone and calling me on her own, Iwas very surprised, said Bobbie Gonzalez. Lia told her grandmother her mom wouldn t wake up and Gonzalez raced to her daughter s side. Mommy fall down to the floor of sissy s bed, Lia recalled telling her grandmother on the phone. Taylor was taken to the hospital, where doctors informed her she had several seizures because she was hypoglycemic and diabetic. Her low blood-sugar level triggered theseizures." In this particular case, the necessity of a phone was very important. Without the use of a cellphone. The little girl wouldn't have been able to get proper help in the right amount of time. That is all. I await my opponents case. Over to Pro,
Kids don't need mobile phones.

My opponent has completely disregarded that mobile phones can be useful and in the case which I presented, even paramount to saving someone's life. For this she should lose conduct, as the case she presented is faulty. A home phone can't be accessed outside of one's home, this could hinder you from trying to call emergancy services. Sine you can't carry around your homephone a far distance from your house, it's a little useful when you're out in a canyon and someone has broken their leg. My opponent makes an anecdotal fallacy, with a faulty premise, I'll say what she means with some syllogism -I'm a kid and I don't use a cellphone. -I'm still alive C: No kids need cellphones. Obviously this kind of reasoning is completely illogical. My opponent states that Cellphones are a distraction for kids, yet fails to provide evidence. She is the one making the claim and doesn't even present evidence for her case. I really hope she learns from this debate. My opponent says that phones are to call people with, not to play games. She implies that all people use phones to play games on which is not the case, AGAIN she doesn't provide any sort of evidence to back up her ridiculous claims This debate is about whether or not kids need cellphones, and says that since kids don't need games, they don't need phone. Again, completely disregarding my case. Cellphones are not only used for playing games. A phone provides easier access to email, my opponent disregards this completely.
Kids don't need mobile phones.

1. A home phone could have worked exactly the same. 2. Nice job stating that I did not say it was their own phone smart "Alec". 3. I don't use mobile phones, ever, and I'm still alive. 4. Cell phones are a distraction for kids and even teenagers. 5. The whole purpose of a phone is to call people, not play games and listen to music. 6. You can text using an email 7. You can call with a home phone.
Kids don't need mobile phones.

Thanks pro! Refutations:That story does not prove that kids need their own mobile phones. "A nearby phone" is not their own mobile phone. My opponent makes this claim while failing to comprehend her own resolution. "Kids don't really need phones" This resolution does not imply ownership, it simply restrict complete usage of phones as an pre-pubescent child. My opponents resolution says that Kids don't really need cell phones. So under all circumstances she will need to defend this. If she had not had a cellphone she could have:1. Asked someone else if she could borrow their phone. (This would still necessitate a phone as a child)2. Used the nearest payphone. (This would still necessitate a phone as a child)3. Used a house phone. (This would still necessitate a phone as a child)4. Yelled for help. (If you read the source, you'll see that she was alone with her mother in the house, 2 year olds are naturally prone to cry so it wouldn't even sound suspicious if there's a crying little baby next door)Wait a second... Who said that was her own phone? It was most likely her mothers! (This would still necessitate a phone as a child)5. Gone to any home, resturant, store, etc. and told someone. (As a 2 year old girl, she would have no comprehension of her neighborhood) My opponent accuses me of copy and pasting, I have quoted my source to provide insight into what my argument is. There isn't a person on this website who would consider that copy/pasting your argument. Especially after I just listed the source.My opponent has failed to address my contention properly, and has yet to provide a case for why kids don't need phones. Phones provide easy access to-Emergancy Services -Family and Friends -Text messagingMost smart phones provide access to: -Music -Video (Including movies) -Video Games -Email access So phones provide a useful platform to not only staying safe, but keeping children from boredom. I have presented a case in which a celluar phone was critical to the situation and could have resulted in a tragic accident. I'll ask my opponent to respond to everything I've said and to refrain from accusing me of copy and pasting an argument. The argument is what is said to convince voters, not the actual source materials, that is an ignorant claim. Over to pro,
Kids don't need mobile phones.

If she had not had a cellphone she could have: 1. Asked someone else if she could borrow their phone. 2. Used the nearest payphone. 3. Used a house phone. 4. Yelled for help. Wait a second... Who said that was her own phone? It was most likely her mothers! 5. Gone to any home, resturant, store, etc. and told someone. That story does not prove that kids need their own mobile phones. "A nearby phone" is not their own mobile phone. Also let the people reading this take a moment to realize that while your debate looked good, most of it was COPIED AND PASTED. You have not yet proved me wrong, try again. Sources: Dennybug's last argument.
Gay marriage should be legal.

Pro should better explain his argument and how "Freedom of religion" translates to "let's violate the constitution," you should really read history because the word "state" means a sovereign state, a full on nation, meaning that every state was supposed to be just that, "United States," not State divided into smaller states." Besides, if we left Gay Marriage to the states we would have gay states and straight states, then the issue would be solved, the answer to the question "what is the proper definition of marriage?" Will be"it depends on what state you live in."
Gay marriage should be legal.

Hmm. Con decides to go to the constitution to prove his point. Well, as I recall, the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The states cannot choose someone's right according to the first amendment sir.
Gay marriage should be legal.

The Tenth Ammendment to the United States Constitution says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court was never given the power to decide what the correct definition of Marraige is neither wsthe Federa Goveronment, thus this should be left to the states. The constitution is the Sureme Law of the Land, any law or decision in violation of it is void, it isn't a law.
People don't have to go to church to have a strong relationship with god

I am a non denominational Christian. It's where we aren't tied down to one specific theory. We believe certain things that some other religions do as well. We are open-minded to different beliefs. My great uncle goes to a catholic church and wanted his daughter (my cousin) to get baptized. However, he had to pay for it to be done in the church. Where I know some people go to other churches and believe in getting baptized in a lake because that's how they used to do it back in biblical times. A lot of churches also take in the body and blood of Jesus Christ, yet you need to be a certain age. I understand where a little itty bitty not be able to take it because they don't get the full concept yet but I think an 11-12 year old could. They can grasp that concept, most churches don't allow that though. You're right n that god wont hate you if you go to church yes, but I don't believe that if you go to church you're closer to god. Actually, a lot of church goers think they're better than other Christians because they go. God doesn't judge you on how much you love him etc. based on if you do or don't go to church. Someone can be just as close to god if they don't go to church just as how close one who goes to church can.
People don't have to go to church to have a strong relationship with god

I don't know what denomination you are, but I'm a roman catholic. In our religion, we believe that in order to get close to God, we must eat his body and drink his blood. (It's not cannibalism) When we celebrate the mass, we not only listen to the word of the LORD and learn from it, but after communion we actually have Jesus living in us. I'm not saying that if you don't go to church that you're going to hell. I'm just saying that you are less prone to making bad choices if you have Jesus dwelling in you when you make those choices. Jesus is merciful, but He also gave you free will. This means that you can make the choice to be close to Him or not. You can make the choice to go to church or not, and if you chose not to, it does NOT mean that He hates you. It just means that you've pulled yourself so far away from Him that it's hard for you to find Him again. You're just lost without him. Catholics believe that there is a place called purgatory and that if you aren't ready to go to heaven, you go there. If you go to purgatory, you CANT go to hell. This is just a cleansing period to prepare for you to go to heaven. If you go to church as often as possible, you may be able to knock off a few years of purgatory.
People don't have to go to church to have a strong relationship with god

I'm truly convinced that you do not have to go to church in order to have a strong relationship with God and Jesus Christ. A lot of people actually have really busy lives and almost never get a break, not everyone can make it to church. Is God really going to punish someone for not going to church? Probably not. God is very loving and understanding and always has open arms to anyone no matter how bad the person might be. Jesus died on the cross for our sins so we could be forgiven. It actually bothers me when people think they're better than others because they go to church. That's also another one of my points. A lot of people end up feeling uncomfortable because church is not about judging someone and discriminating on certain things. However, most people in this time of age do. It's quite sad. All you need to do is truly believe in God with all of your heart and soul, pray to him and let him be there to help and guide you. A lot of people who can't go to church or find it not so interesting usually read parts at a time of the bible. Some people also view church on a person in standing up there and is saying what is right and wrong to believe in etc. when in fact every pastor is different and they may not like the feeling that someone's telling them how they should feel towards God and on what to think and/or believe.
God Speaking To Humans Directly

here some verse...34:10 Deuteronomy Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, Solomon is a prophet in the talmud, and for job i dont know... anyway In Islam they are propehts... job moses and solomon peace of upon them all. you said " All christians can have a prophetic on some level" well do you know how many sects in christainity deferring from each other? and you know what the problem? everyone says he got the holt spirit all standing on opposite ways.. so which christains you mean by that?
God Speaking To Humans Directly

Please find me in the bible where it states either of them were prophets ,, assuming that you read your bible any Man who is.in fact a prophet has it stated in his title // of all people solomon and moses- people of their caliber would most definitely have it stated in their title . If you wont accept that remeber Job wasnt a prophet he was just a righteousman of God yet God spoke to him Either way thaats besides the point.God did and still does speak to people other than those with a prophetic annointing
God Speaking To Humans Directly

God Most Definitely Does talk to people other than prophets directly. I have many associates who I can guarentee are not prophets. All christians can have a prophetic on some level, but that doesnt make them prophets . But God can speak to anybody,, for example Moses wasnt a prophet God spoke to him,, Solomon wasnt a prophet but God spoke to him ,, on many occasions throughout the bible God speaks to people who are not.prophetic in anyway
God Speaking To Humans Directly

PRO - and I dont inderstand what you are talking about im accordance to "everyone says he got the holt spirit all standing on opposite ways.."Well some say jesus is God, some say he isnt, some say he is the father and some say he is part of the trinity... there are many sects, if you consider them all as christians, why we muslims 2 billion are different from "christians"? we also believe in Jesus so what?
God Speaking To Humans Directly

We are not reffering to the talmund or the islam religion we are reffering to the Bible in which they are not prophets. And I mean all Christiams the whole entire department of Christiams ,, doesnt matter what "sects" they belong to its about your personal relationship with christ a catholic can speak with God just as well as a christian can... and I dont inderstand what you are talking about im accordance to "everyone says he got the holt spirit all standing on opposite ways.."
The French ban on wearing veils must be enforced without religious prejudice

//This is true, the law was clearly designed as a tool to persecute the sizable Muslim minority in France. However, this only reinforces my argument: the high-profile detention of Christian brides under the law would heighten the absurdity of the legislation.// But this wasn't your resolution at all. Your resolution was that the ‘French ban on wearing veils *must* be enforced without religious prejudice. And you were pro on the subject. //Indeed, and that's why the law should be enforced without religious prejudice - hauling blushing brides off to jail would cause outrage in the general public and the law would have to be either scrapped, or amended to openly discriminate against Muslims - which would, rightly, expose the ultra-right wing Jewish French president, Nicolas Sarkozy [1} as actively anti-Islamic.// But that is the point. They cannot be hauled off without religious prejudice, because even the wedding veils have a religious significance. This was explained in the previous round *with sources*. So, even that would be religious intolerance to a degree, since the ban would have religious underlinings. That would make Nicolas Sarkozy an actively anti-Islamic, and non-actively anti Jewish, Judaic and Christian. And a little bit of Anti-Hindu. I would urge the voters to vote Con. Thanks to Brian_eggleston for this enjoyable debate.
The French ban on wearing veils must be enforced without religious prejudice

The veils are worn only by the Muslim women on a daily basis : Since only the Muslim women wear a full face veil as a compulsion on a daily basis, any ban on it would affect these women the most. It will be religious prejudice on any count. " This is true, the law was clearly designed as a tool to persecute the sizable Muslim minority in France. However, this only reinforces my argument: the high-profile detention of Christian brides under the law would heighten the absurdity of the legislation. "2. Even the wedding veils have religious underlinings:" Indeed, and that's why the law should be enforced without religious prejudice - hauling blushing brides off to jail would cause outrage in the general public and the law would have to be either scrapped, or amended to openly discriminate against Muslims - which would, rightly, expose the ultra-right wing Jewish French president, Nicolas Sarkozy [1} as actively anti-Islamic. Thank you. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The French ban on wearing veils must be enforced without religious prejudice

This week the French ban on wearing veils in public came into force and already Muslim women have been arrested for not uncovering their faces, perhaps so that lecherous Gallic kafirs can drool over the sight of their bare countenances and, possibly, undress them with their eyes before mentally raping them. [1] Fair enough, you might say, French sexual perverts should be allowed to fantasize over women of all faiths, and over women of no faith at all – Islamic women should not be singled out. That's why the ban on wearing veils applies not only to Muslim women but to everybody. [2] So, in order to avoid accusations of discrimination, as well as cracking down on Muslim women wearing niqabs, the French police should stake out churches where weddings are held and if a bride arrives wearing a veil, they should pounce on her as she steps out of the limousine, bundle her to ground, arrest her and haul her virginal Christian arse off to jail. That way, the French authorities could rightly assert that the French ban on the veil is being enforced without religious prejudice. Thank you. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...
Morality can exist without religion.

Rebuttals"In the line of thought with a Creator God, theists argue that humans were created in the image of God. Because of this, we are rational beings who can relate with one another, create new things with the tools of the earth, and we all have inherent value." The human relations, creations, and values are independent of a Creator. My opponent has not provided sufficient evidence supporting the notion that these three things are truly dependent of a Creator. I will go more in depth when I refute other points made by my opponent. "The other line of thought is that humans were not created with inherent purpose." Humans were not created. They evolved. And humans are not even destined to have a purpose, they set it themselves. We humans evolved to think in certain ways and this has allowed us to set this purpose. This purpose is to institute justice, feel empathy for fellow humans, and to create a better world. "This is the beginning of moral relativism, which is a logical consequence of atheism. What this means is that morality is just an illusion. Just as one person may like chocolate ice cream, he is entitled to his own opinion, and noboby else is wrong for disliking chocolate ice cream. Also, one person may think murdering is wrong, but that is just his own opinion, and anyone who thinks murdering is okay is not incorrect. Morality is objectively meaningless, and we create arbitrary values so that a society can function. So, one society is not wrong to make murder legal, and so also another society is not wrong to make murder illegal. One society has no authority to tell what another society ought to do." There is a large difference between opinions regarding chocolate ice cream and murder. Morality is not just an illusion; humans evolved to have these views, to believe these things. Morality - not at all related to chocolate ice cream - can be proven using facts. In a previous debate, my opponent won, but I still urge my opponent to read my arguments. I do make great points: http://www.debate.org...Contrary to the belief of my opponent, humans can still be good without religion. 'Good' is not defined by the Bible or any other religious teaching. Morality derives from the opinions that were forged as a result of human evolution and adaptation. In conclusion, morality does not require religion. If a Theist argues that morality is dependent of religion, he or she is absolutely wrong. Morality is a series of values forged over time due to human evolution, adaptation, expansion, and prosperity.