BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
less money should be spent on education k-12 by the federal government

con mostly just talks about the value of education. that doesn't mean excess spending is going to do anything to promote education. and con doesn't even provide any examples of the feds doing anything helpful that isn't done by locality. the core of schooling is provided by the local level. that is why pro had a poor upbringing. but we can see that the federal government with all that spending did nothing to change his upbringing. the money went to burocracy instead. as examples. in ohio, common core comes with a seven hundred million dollar price tag if the states deny doing it. ive seen first hand the excesses they use in scoring that material. standards can be placed, but they shouldn't and needn't come at hefty price tags. here is a break down of the department of educaiton.... "The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."[11] The Department of Education does not establish schools or colleges.[12] The Office of the Inspector General conducts audits and investigation in connection to the Department's programs. Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation, over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control. The Department's mission is: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.[13] Aligned with this mission of ensuring equal access to education, the Department of Education is a member of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness,[14] and works with federal partners to ensure proper education for homeless and runaway youth in the United States." some of those things are good, keepting statistics, helping homeless and runaways etc. but things like no child left behind or race to the top or common core, unnessaary. and even the more fudamentally good aspects arent that great. the free market will ensure the required level of education. it will function just fine. we're throwing money at problems like runaways when in the bigger picture, that is a problem that has only local consequences, local to that kid. the free market will be just fine. at a time of record debt, sometimes hard choices have to be made.
Opponent's Challenge

I will debate whatever topic my opponent wishes to debate. This debate will be based more on speed than topic and it's primary purpose is to test to see how successful a fast debate can be. Each side will get 5 minutes to make their arguments and/or rebuttals. My opponent will have an immediate advantage because he chooses the topic, thus leaving me unprepared to defend my side. I will take the Con side of the argument. Also, whoever accepts my challenge must make sure I am online first, before they accept, and must message me to make sure I am ready to begin. This way, it will not start without both sides being ready. ;)
Jesus is not the Messiah

I. What (or whom) is the “Messiah” Before we get into whether or not Jesus was the Messiah, we must first know what a Messiah is. In the Hebrew language, the word “Messiah” is מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyahP3;). It is important to note that “Messiah” is not the translation of the word mashiyahP3;, rather it is the English-equivalent of the title. [1] A “messiah” is simply someone who had been “anointed. ” Anointment, or smearing with the Oil of Sacred Anointment as per Exodus 30:22-23, was a ceremony that took place at the coronation of a Hebrew king. [2] Who is called a “messiah” in Scriptures? Well, King Cyrus is called “His mashiyah” in Isaiah 45:1[3] כֹּֽה־אָמַ֣ר יְיָ֘ לִמְשִׁיחוֹ֘ לְכ֣וֹרֶשׁ ׀ אֲשֶׁר־הֶחֱזַ֣קְתִּי בִֽימִינ֗וֹ לְרַד־לְפָנָיו֙ גּוֹיִ֔ם וּמָתְנֵ֥י מְלָכִ֖ים אֲפַתֵּ֑חַ לִפְתֹּ֤חַ לְפָנָיו֙ דְּלָתַ֔יִם וּשְׁעָרִ֖ים לֹ֥א יִסָּגֵֽרוּ׃ So said Adonai to His messiah, concerning Koresh (Cyrus) — whom I siezed by his right hand to flatten nations before him, and I will loosen kings’ loins — to open portals before him and gates will not be closed. .. . Moreover, in the book of Samuel, King Saul and David are called “m’shiyah adonai” or “Adonai’s Messiah. ” Saul is called this several times (see I Samuel 12:3, 12:5, etc. ) and David gets this title three times in 2 Samuel (19:21, 22:51 and 23:1) and once in Psalms (18:50)! This effectively refutes the Christian notion that Jesus “Christ” is the one and only Messiah that was to come. Obviously, there were many more “Messiahs”, and NONE OF THEM refer to God Himself! II. Jesus did not qualify to be the “Messiah” According to Scriptures, the Messiah MUST: 1. Be a descendant of King David through Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-16) 2. Be a political/military leader (Isaiah 2:3, 11:2-3,6; Daniel 7:14) 3. Must be married and have children during his lifetime (Ezekiel 46:16-17) The genealogy is passed from the father (Numbers 1:18). Because Jesus did not have a biological father, Jesus could NOT be the descendant of David through Solomon. Jesus was never a king or a political/military leader. Finally, according to the New Testament, Jesus was God; therefore, he could not be married and have children. III. Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies According to the prophets, the Messiah will: 1. Be heralded by the return of Elijah (Malachi 3:1, 23-24) 2. Rebuild the third temple (Ezekiel 40-48) 3. In-gathering the Jewish exiles to the Promised Land (Isaiah 11:12) 4. Reunifying Judah and Israel into one people (Ezekiel 37:22, 24) 5. Establish world peace (Isaiah 2:4) 6. Bring about the universal knowledge of God (Isaiah 11:9) 7. Realizing the general resurrection of the dead (Daniel 12:2) Obviously, Jesus did not fulfill any of these Messianic prophecies. I turn it over to you. [1] . http://mordochai.tripod.com...; [2] Ibid [3] . http://mordochai.tripod.com...
Jesus is not the Messiah

I thank my janetsanders733 for agreeing to debate this utmost important topic with me. TERMSResolved: Jesus of Nazareth is not the promised Messiah.Clarification: This debate is NOT about whether or not Jesus existed, rather, we will examine the claime that Jesus is the Messiah under the light of Jewish scriptures.Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals5. Closing arguments/rebuttals The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that Jesus is not the Messiah, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that Jesus IS the messiah. It is thus not enough to simply refute my arguments. My opponent must also erect his own case against the probability of Jesus being the messiah.
Jesus is not the Messiah

Final Conclusion/Closing Statements:I would like to again thank Pro for this great and exciting debate, which is considered to be such a controversial topic among the Jewish community today, as it did 2000 years ago. As we can see, I gave very good reasons for thinking Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Son of God, who was promised to save Israel and the world from it's sin. I showed several prophecies and gave meaningful insight as to how each prophecy was fulfilled in the person of Christ. Christ Jesus fulfilled over 350 prophecies+, and we can clearly see that in the Old Testament.My opponent didn't really prove me wrong, as he accused me of circular reasoning throughout most of the debate. However, I gave justification to each of my arguments and used the context, as well as the original Hebrew to support the prophecy of the Coming Messiah Jesus. An end time prophecy that has not yet happen is not a failed prophecy. For in order for a prophecy to be failed, it must have not happened at a certain time that it was supposed to happen. But as we can see, Christ Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in his life time (Example: Dwelling in the 2nd Temple before 70 A.D.), and since he proved to be the Messiah, those other few prophecies are future prophecies waiting to happen. When taken inconsideration, the evidence for Jesus being the Messiah is overwhelmingly amazing. To argue otherwise is without justification.Have a good Shabbat as well!
Jesus is not the Messiah

Thank you for a fun and exciting debate. As this is the last round, I wish to make a summary of the arguments and closing statements. First it should be noted that my opponent didn't even begin to address my opening arguments on why Jesus is not the Messiah. As such, my arguments stand and I strongly urge a vote for "pro. " Proper lineage I've shown even if this is the case, that does not prove Jesus is the Messiah. Moreover, I've shown Jesus' lineage was incorrect as the lineage goes from father to son and the mother's lineage is irrelavent. Out of Egypt I've successfully shown that this is an out-of-context quote. The "types and shadows" or "smoke and mirrors" argument does not work because it is unsupported by the text. All of the Messianic prophecies in which I have shown to be messianic prophecies are clear and concise. Hosea 11 cannot be talking about the Messiah. Second Comming FailureThe idea of the second coming in relation to the failed prophecies of Daniel 9 and others is unsupported and begging the question. Out of time. Have a Good Shabbat!
Jesus is not the Messiah

Thank you for your response. As my opponent did not refute my opening statements, please extend those arguments. Fulfillment of Scripture Born in Bethlehem I already shown that even if Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, this doesn’t prove Jesus is the Messiah. Notice the circular reasoning: 1. The Messiah must be born in Bethlehem 2. Jesus was born in Bethlehem 3. Therefore, Jesus is the Messiah 4. But how do we know Jesus is the Messiah? 5. Because he was born in Bethlehem…. And so forth…. Though my opponent never really addressed the fact that the text does not support that the messiah must be born in Bethlehem; rather, the messiah will have roots in Bethlehem “from old, from ancient days. This, of course, is a reference to King David. Finally, notice what verse 4 says: “And he shall stand and shepherd his flock yin the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. 5 And he shall be their peace.” From this we see that this King Messiah will fear the Lord – so obviously he cannot be God. Secondly there will be peace on earth and Israel will be secure. Obviously none of these occurred. Out of Egypt So the Messiah is called “Israel.” Let’s look at more of the context and see if this is supported by the text. When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols. So, the Messiah was called out of Egypt and the more he was called the more he was sacrificing to Baal and burning sacrifices to idols. All this while being God in the flesh? Give me a break! Please tell me where in Hosea 11 does it hint that it is talking about the Messiah. Lineage Argument Once again, circular reasoning which has not yet been addressed. Logically, we can put his arguments as follows: 1. The Messiah will be a descendant of a. Abraham b. Isaac c. Jacob d. David 2. Jesus was a descendant of A-D 3. Therefore, Jesus is the Messiah. Notice the circular reasoning. “The idea that he could not have descended from David through Mary is without justification.” Wrong. I gave Numbers 1 where each of the genealogies goes through the father. Everywhere genealogies is listed in the T’nach, it always goes through the father and son. Let’s say that a man from tribe “A” marries a woman from tribe “B.” Which tribe does their son belong to? The answer: tribe “A.” Third Temple I am not quite sure what my opponent is referring to. Please expand in the next round. Daniel 9 The problem with the second-coming hypothesis is that the idea of the second coming is found nowhere in scripture. I could easily say that my late grandfather was the messiah and he’ll fulfill the messianic prophecies when he returns. I am out of time. I will finish responding in the next round.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals should have equal rights

Pros' rebuttal is "That said, Pedophiles are not on the same level because they are attracted to children." Why ? You have just single out pedophiles in your treat people the same regardless of sexuality principle. Also I am only referring to their sexual orientation not any actual sex acts. Lets take another example............ What about if Brother and Sister want to get married or adopt ? Father daughter ? Does Pro support the equal treatment in these cases ? I doubt it. Assuming Pro does not support equal treatment for the examples I gave, why doesn't this make Pro just as bigoted, pedophile phobic, incest phobic, denial of civil rights oppressor, just as much as the people that deny equal treatment to homosexuals ? Pro has not justified why homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals, while these other groups would continue to be discriminated against. This puts Pros' justification for equal treatment of homosexuals on very shaky ground.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals should have equal rights

Thanks for the response. Con argues that my argument, homosexuals should have equal rights because they are essentially the same as heterosexuals, is an equivalent to the argument that pedophiles should also have the same rights. My response would be that it is a false comparison. Pedophiles are not equal to homosexuals or heterosexuals in the strict sense. I should have clarified this previously, but as you know pedophiles can be ether homosexuals or heterosexuals as well. However, when I'm talking about homo/heterosexals I am talking about just homo/heterosexuals and excluding pedophiles. That said, Pedophiles are not on the same level because they are attracted to children.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals should have equal rights

Before we begin, just because some one argues a view, doesn't mean they believe it, eg: devils advocate http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_advocate I thank Pro for instigating this debate. Pro makes the claim that since homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals with the exception of sexual preference, they should have the same rights, for instance the right to adopt children. Trouble is, this same argument works for pedophiles too. Pedophiles are the same as heterosexuals except for sexual preference therefore they should have the same rights, for instance to adopt children......... Now does Pro think pedophiles should have this child adoption right ? I am assuming No. This shows the principle of equal rights regardless of sexuality as false, after all even Pro doesn't advocate equal rights regardless of sexuality. I look forward to Pro response.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals should have equal rights

My argument is that homosexuals and heterosexuals should both have equal rights in every area. Homosexuals should be able to adopt children as freely as heterosexuals, get married, engage in social activities, etc. I support this argument with the stated facts that homosexuals are essentially the same as heterosexuals in every way, except for their sexual preferences. Heterosexuals have equal capacity for intelligence, morality, emotions, parenting, working, etc. Given the fact that they have equal capacity for everything that heterosexuals have, there is no rational reason to exclude them from the same liberties that heterosexuals enjoy. I argue that any arguments that attempt to dismiss equal rights of homosexuals is inherently flawed.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals should have equal rights

I don't think that incest is morally wrong as long as it is done among consensual adults. There are obviously biological dangers associated with incest, though. I'm not condemning incest couples. I'm just saying that they aren't inherently the same as traditional straight or homosexual couples. Moreover, even if there is no reason to outlaw incest couples from adopting children...I don't see how that is an argument against homosexual couples adopting children. I think that it is a diversion tactic. We aren't talking about incest couples here. We are talking about gay couples. Even if incest couples deserve the same rights, it isn't relevant to the main argument that I am making :Gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals should have equal rights

Pro says " They are not inherently the same as a straight or gay couple since they are practicing incest", why do you single out incest as morally wrong and not homosexuality ? Pro says "BTW, I do think that 2 consenting adults should have the right to sex no matter the circumstances. As long as it hurts no one." The incest couple are not hurting anyone, yet you condemned them. Once again, Pro seems to be not arguing for equal rights for all, but special rights for homosexuals and not others like the incest couple. Pro has not shown why homosexuals should get these rights while others should be excluded, as such the resolution that homosexuals should have equal rights to heterosexuals is negated.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals should have equal rights

No. You are incorrect. The issue of whether a gay couple can adopt and whether brother and sister can adopt are two different issues. Totally distinct. My argument would not even apply to them. They are not inherently the same as a straight or gay couple since they are practicing incest. If a brother and sister want to adopt a child, and are not "in a relationship" with each other, then I see no issue there. BTW, I do think that 2 consenting adults should have the right to sex no matter the circumstances. As long as it hurts no one. Should polygamists get the same rights? Yes. Should they be able to adopt? Sure, Why not?
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals should have equal rights

Con says "If a brother and sister want to adopt, is this the same as a man and a man or a woman/woman? I don't think so. I haven't put too much thought into that, since it isn't an issue today." Well you had better, cause If you advocated on principle that consenting adults should have the same rights, then this argument can be applied in this situation. Remember we are not just talking about the right of adoption, we are talking about ALL rights, like the right to consensual sex and getting married. And lets not forget polo-gamy. Do they get all the same rights too ? Once again, It seems this equality regardless of sexual orientation only applies to homosexuals for some reason.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals should have equal rights

Con, Yes. That is correct. Pedophiles are singled out because they are sexually attracted to "children". While homo/heterosexuals are attracted to other consenting adults. That is the difference. One act causes harm to the other party, while the other act (same sex marriage) causes no harm to anyone. This is not arbitrary distinction. In the end, it also all comes down to which causes harm and which does not. Pedophiles cause harm, gay people do not. If a brother and sister want to adopt, is this the same as a man and a man or a woman/woman? I don't think so. I haven't put too much thought into that, since it isn't an issue today.
getting called FAT :'(

Yes, being called fat can make one sad, but that is the point. And I do not believe an emotionally stable person would commit suicide for being called fat. People who are fat, know they are fat. It isn't a huge shock , but it does make you want to do something about. People care a lot about how others see them, and if you can use that to get healthy, it is fine. If I was getting a bit chubby, and one of my friends called me on it, I would think it is time to actually do something about it. I will also say, while I think just saying "You have been getting pretty fat" or "You have really gotten fat" is a good bit of motivation, making several mean spirited comments like "Wow, did this fat b*tch really just talk to me?" Or "Oh shut up you f*cking pig," are a bit much.
The Civil War Was Caused By Slavery

Disproportion of who? Con fails to specify what made the South different from the North. When the war began, It was those states who joined the secession vs. Those that stayed in the Union. But prior to that, It was slave-holding states vs free states. This conflict became critical as new western states were joining the country and had to be declared one or the other. So con's argument may ultimately be correct, But misses a critical step in logic. You can't just say that the South was outnumbered. Detroit is vastly outnumbered by not-Detroit -- that doesn't make them want to secede. What made the South secede must have been a difference of interests. That interest was slavery. I've already given the reason for the Civil War by quoting from the secessionists themselves. I'll close with one more. Here is what Alexander Stephens, Vice president of the Confederacy, Said about the reasons for secession in his 'Cornerstone Speech' given just before the war began: "The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions"African slavery as it exists among us"the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. " So there you have it.
The Civil War Was Caused By Slavery

The civil war would of happened with or without slavery. The disproportion was 21 million in the north and 5 million in the south. That is over a 4:1 ratio. Now including the 3/5 rule it is a 3:1 and still too different. That is the reason they wanted to leave. The north made laws that benefitted them but not the south. The final straw is when the north sent federal troops into the south. That is why they wanted to leave the union. Saying it was slavery is just a topic of it and not a major factor. Do you seriously think that the south would leave just because of slavery and have war against the military superpower that is the north. I don't think so.