BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Jesus Preached Tolerance

My Initial Arguments: Jesus did not preach tolerance. Below are all the commands of Christ. I have unpacked the commands that often get misquoted for the context of tolerance- Repent—Matthew 4:17 Follow Me—Matthew 4:19 Rejoice—Matthew 5:12 Let Your Light Shine—Matthew 5:16 Honor God’s Law—Matthew 5:17–18 Be Reconciled—Matthew 5:24–25 Do Not Commit Adultery—Matthew 5:29–30 Keep Your Word—Matthew 5:37 Go the Second Mile—Matthew 5:38–42 Love Your Enemies—Matthew 5:44 (Does not teach tolerance, but love. They are still an enemy.) Be Perfect—Matthew 5:48 Practice Secret Disciplines—Matthew 6:1–18 Lay Up Treasures—Matthew 6:19–21 Seek God’s Kingdom—Matthew 6:33 Judge Not—Matthew 7:1 (Does not teach Tolerance, but humility. See Romans 2) Do Not Cast Pearls—Matthew 7:6 ( The opposite of tolerance. Keep what is holy as holy. Don't just give it to the faithless (referd to as swine and dogs).) Ask, Seek, and Knock—Matthew 7:7–8 Do Unto Others—Matthew 7:12 (Not tolerance. Patience and temperance.Tolerance teaches that I leave you alone. Patience teaches that I persue out of love and mercy for as long as it takes.) Choose the Narrow Way—Matthew 7:13–14 Beware of False Prophets—Matthew 7:15 Pray For Laborers—Matthew 9:38 Be Wise as Serpents—Matthew 10:16 Fear God, Not Man—Matthew 10:26 Hear God’s Voice—Matthew 11:15 Take My Yoke—Matthew 11:29 Honor Your Parents—Matthew 15:4 Beware of Leaven—Matthew 16:6 Deny Yourself—Luke 9:23 Despise Not Little Ones—Matthew 18:10 (Does not teach tolerance. Teaches patience for Christians who have fallen away from the faith.) Go to Offenders—Matthew 18:15 (The opposite of tolerance.) Beware of Covetousness—Luke 12:15 Forgive Offenders—Matthew 18:21–22 Honor Marriage—Matthew 19:6 Be a Servant—Matthew 20:26–28 Be a House of Prayer—Matthew 21:13 Ask in Faith—Matthew 21:21–22 Bring in the Poor—Luke 14:12–14 Render to Caesar—Matthew 22:19–21 Love the Lord—Matthew 22:37–38 Love Your Neighbor—Matthew 22:39 Await My Return—Matthew 24:42–44 Take, Eat, and Drink—Matthew 26:26–27 Be Born Again—John 3:7 Keep My Commandments—John 14:15 Watch and Pray—Matthew 26:41 Feed My Sheep—John 21:15–16 Baptize My Disciples—Matthew 28:19 Receive God’s Power—Luke 24:49 Make Disciples—Matthew 28:20 (The opposite of tolerance)http://www.sermoncentral.com...http://www.christiannewswire.com... My final point for this round of the debate: Matthew 10:34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'
Religion makes the World a better place

I accept the challenge. Con has not laid out a structure for this debate, but as I am accepting the Burden of Proof, I assume that Con intends for me to make the first argument.I argue that the presence of religion makes the world a better place. Studies have shown that practicing religious people:1. Have lower rates of suicide [1]2. Have better mental health [2]3. Have lower mortality rates [3] [4]4. Have better overall health [5]5. Have lower rates of juvenile delinquency [6]6. Are more likely to help the disadvantaged [7]I think that's enough to start things off with.Sources:[1] http://www.adherents.com...[2] http://munews.missouri.edu...[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[4] http://www.webmd.com...[5] http://www.gallup.com...[6] http://www.orthodoxytoday.org...[7] http://www.familyfacts.org...
I should have won this debate

Conclusion: This debate is centered on three points: 1) Whether evidence for Judaism is evidence for other monotheist religions. 2) Whether or not the meager arguments and evidence that my opponent used against Mirza are adequate to win. 3) Whether or not my opponent refuted all of Mirza's arguments. I have shown that evidence for Judaism is evidence for other monotheist religions, since at least two monotheist religions including Islam share the Jewish God. Furthermore, my opponent himself admitted that Islam is a takeoff of Judaism, thus conceding that evidence for Judaism is evidence for other monotheist religions. That Mirza did not make this argument is immaterial. I made this contention to point out how the resolution gave my opponent's opponent the advantage. Voters reading the debate may have been thinking the same thing. I have pointed out that my opponent did not make many arguments and depended on asking for sources to negate his resolution. I have also pointed out that his arguments were not sourced like his opponent's. Thus his arguments are insufficient to win. I have shown that my opponent has not refuted all of Mirza's points, as his counter claim of the Torah being perfectly preserved is not sourced and thus falls. Mirza provided evidence in the form of a quote to support his point of the Qu'ran being the only preserved religious book. Thus my opponent's loss in the debate in question is absolutely justified.
I should have won this debate

Closing up this argument, I'd like to say that it's centered on two points: 1) Judaism and Islam are fundamentally different from each other, mainly because of acceptance of the Qur'an and Mohammed. Furthermore, Mirza did not even make this as an argument for evidence of Islam. 2) Whether or not Mirza brought evidence, the Qur'an has remained the same through the ages. a) Mirza's link did not work. b) The link was not evidence for his claim.
I should have won this debate

Rebuttal to Rebuttal: Contention 1: Judaism and Islam are two different religions: This does not show that they are fundamentally different. The Qu'ran and the Torah tell essentially the same story and support the same morals and values. Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods" and "details of belief as taught or discussed". Jews and Muslims worship the same God, and (as Mirza points out) the Qu'ran teaches the history of Moses as does the Torah. Furthermore, my opponent admits that "Islam is a take off of Judaism", which means that evidence for Judaism is evidence for Islam. My opponent may argue that "Judaism is not a take off of Islam", but this is irrelevant to my contention, since I said that evidence for Judaism is evidence for other religions, not vice versa. Contention 2 and 3: You do state that there is an unadulterated Torah, but you do not provide any sources for your claim. I would like to point out that Mirza, on the other hand, provides a quote from a strong condemner of Islam admitting to the preservation of the Qu'ran. At the very least, you should lose points on the reliability of your source. Since your claim wasn't backed by evidence when evidence was clearly needed, it should be considered a moot argument. Thus Mirza's point about the Qu'ran being the only preserved religious book still stands. In addition, this was the only argument you stated in the course of the debate. For Mirza's other arguments, you just demanded evidence and came up with hypothetical situations. Mirza of course would get the points for more convincing arguments, since he actually had arguments. You keep stating that the BoP was on Pro. I agree, but I ask you to refer back to my statement about the BoP being two-sided. You have not refuted that.
I should have won this debate

Rebuttal to the Rebuttal: Contention 1: Muslims and Jews worship the same God, even if there are differences between the two religions, they are fundamentally the same. We can compare Islam and Judaism with different sects of the Islamic religion. Sunnis and Shiites "fundamentally reject each other", but the foundation for their religions is the same, thus evidence for the religion of one sect is evidence for the religion of another sect. Contention 2: Answer to R2a: this is the equivalent of asking for evidence. Answer to R2b: this does not disprove any of your opponent's points, and you do not bring up any evidence for this in the course of the debate. My opponent's comment about Mirza's sources is hard to understand. I'm assuming the hyperlinks did not work on his computer, but that doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist (refer to Mirza's William Nuir quote). Mirza clearly explained what he meant: "There are literally thousands of old copies of the Qu'ran that perfectly match the texts of one another." My opponent claims that "when BoP is on pro and he makes claims without evidence con does not have to refute them with any more than a demand for evidence." You have to remember that the burden of proof is two-sided. Pro has the burden of proving his statement. Con has the burden of refuting Pro's statements, and not just demanding evidence. While Pro's sources really don't support his burden of proof, you also failed to support your burden. Contention 3: Con obviously did not read Pro's argument. Pro's response was that few things survive the passage of time. That the Qu'ran in its original wording survived is a sign of it divinity. Con had no response to this. P.S. If Con does not read Pro's case or sources, and only asks for more sources, he has failed to fulfill his side of the BoP.
I should have won this debate

It seems like you are referencing the voters' comments from the debate you say you should have won, but since you don't specifically say so, it is hard to tell. Your case is hard to understand since you don't organize it into specific arguments. I will start by stating all my arguments on why you shouldn't have won. Contention 1: Evidence for Judaism is evidence for all other monotheist religions You agreed that Judaism is very similar to Islam and Christianity. Parts of your holy books have the same meaning, which brings me to my first point. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all believe in the same God. If there is evidence that this God exists, then there is evidence for all three of these religions. I agree that there are differences among these three religions, but their foundation is the same. If one can provide evidence for the foundation, one can provide evidence for all three religions. The differences arise from differences between men and God, and you yourself cannot prove (or tell) which differences are from God and which are from men. Thus from the very start you doomed yourself to lose. Contention 2: You only asked for evidence, you stated no arguments against what your opponent said In your debate with Mirza, your typical argument was this: "Frankly your evidence thus far I have found quite unconvincing." As you can see, this is not an argument at all, but a request for more information. Mirza could simply give a few hyperlinks, and your whole case would fall to pieces. In fact, that is exactly what happened. Contention 3: You did not refute all of your opponent's points, and thus that debate's resolution is affirmed After giving evidence that the Qu'ran is perfectly preserved, you did not have an adequate answer. The resolution required that you refute all your opponent's points. Since you did not refute the point mentioned above, the resolution is affirmed and Mirza wins. P.S. Even in this debate, you state that Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof, but you did not show how Pro failed to meet his burden of proof. You only explained why the voters were wrong. Let me summarize their comments for you: Pro was not very convincing, but Con made no real arguments.
I should have won this debate

(The debate under discussion was unclear, unorganized, and complex. Therefore,) The main point of this round will be to clarify the points to be debated in this debate: Pro is clearly more experienced and organized in this debate, which is probably why he won. However based on the content, he did not fulfil his BoP. I will start off with the reasons given for pros victory: v1)pros arguments were not successfully refuted v2)While Pro was not very convincing in his argument, he at least made an attempt. v3)Pros claims were standard in dense the Koran, Con was not familiar with the standard rebuttals to this and even allowed Pro to shift the BoP back to them (Con has to prove the Koran is corrupted - what?). Fairly dominating performance by Mirza, 3:1. v4)Kind of a poorly worded resolution. Pro had a better structured and supported argument overall. My responses: v1:pros arguments were not successfully refuted: My response: Pros arguments were as follows: a1)The Koran is the only preserved religious book. a2)The Koran contains no contradictions nor errors. a3)Mathematical complexity of Koran. a4)Mohamed is prophesied by old testament. a5)science in Koran. I will show where these arguments were successfully refuted: a1)The Koran is the only successfully preserved religious book. refutation: a) The claim was made without evidence. R2 b) The original Hebrew bible also has no mistakes. R2 a2)The Koran contains no contradictions nor errors: response: 1)claim without evidence. R2 2)Not having contradictions, is not supernatural. R2 3)challenge to bring contradiction in bible. a3)Mathematical complexity: response: 1) Not particularly complex, or significant. R3, R4. 2)Lack of evidence. R3, R4. Pro provided an You tub video over 1h 50m. That's called an argument? a4) Mohamed prophesied by old testament: Response: 1)Verses are not clearly referring to Mohamed. R4. a5)science in Koran. Responses: Each of the examples were addressed in R5 showing the following problems: a)unoriginal. b)obvious. c)Not the plain meaning of the verse. v2) While Pro was not very convincing in his argument, he at least made an attempt What? BoP was on my opponent. And all evidence was refuted as shown above. v3)Pros claims were standard in dense the Koran, Con was not familiar with the standard rebuttals to this and even allowed Pro to shift the BoP back to them (Con has to prove the Koran is corrupted - what?). Fairly dominating performance by Mirza, 3:1. Response: What I responded to voter #1's cement suffice here as well. As pointed out previously pro was challenged for evidence. v4)Kind of a poorly worded resolution. Pro had a better structured and supported argument overall. Response: poorly worded resolution is not a reason. Indeed pro was clearly much more experienced and organized. But that doesn't matter what matters is content. Which was discussed above. I now turn it over to my opponent so we can pinpoint, were this debate lies.
public smoking

As opponent never made another argument or clarified their position there isn't much else to debate here. The banning of smoking in "public" places, when those places are actually private businesses such as restaurants is beyond the scope of what the Government should involve itself in no matter how ultruistic their reasoning might seem. When you consider that cigarettes are a completely legal product, it is not the place of the Government to determine whether private businesses should or should not allow the use of that product on their property. I have no objection to banning smoking in Government operated facilities such as court houses, fire stations, etc. but interference of this sort in private business is unjustifiable and most likely unconstitutional.
public smoking

Well, as my opponent has failed to respond I will respond to something written in the comment section if that's alright. "I have seen more intelligent comments made by a pineapple. Of course you are infringing on someone's health! Do you honestly think that your cancer stick has no effect on them whatsoever? Honestly, even when you are outside in the open, while the effect is often diminished, it is present. I also don't see anything relating to obesity in any of the statements made." Taking this step by step. -If you have seen more intelligent comments made by a pineapple I'd suggest you must have been using a far more dangerous chemical than tobacco at the time. -It makes no sense to say I'm infringing on someones health smoking outside, in the open air. Unless you CHOOSE to stand quite close to me while I am smoking or I somehow make you, you are completely unaffected. There are far more dangerous pollutants in the air than Cigarette smoke, but I don't see anyone petitioning to ban automobiles or factories, do you? If you don't believe me I suggest a little experiment. Stand in an enclosed garage with 50 smokers for half an hour. You'll come out uncomfortable and perhaps a little dizzy, but with your long term health relatively unaffected. Now stand in the same enclosed garage with a single running automobile for half an hour. You will no longer have to worry about your health because you will be taken out in a body bag. Now, which is more dangerous to society? -Obesity is a far more serious issue than smoking is, but it's the dirty little secret nobody wants to talk about because there are so many obese people in this country. When my opponent states that being obese hurts nobody but themselves, He/She is WAY off base. FAR more tax dollars are spent treating the effects of obesity than of smoking. It's not even close. Also, I was under no obligation to debate the obesity/Cig issue as that's not the title of the debate. The title was simply the very vague "public smoking".
public smoking

Your argument is very vague and the topic not much more enlightening. I assume you want to ban smoking in any public place. This would basically include anywhere this is not your own property. Not only is this unnecessary, it violates basic civil rights. Cigarette smoking is legal in this country. I understand the concerns of "second hand smoke" in enclosed areas, but what about outside in the open? How am I, a smoker, infringing on your health by walking down the street smoking a cigarette? Depending on where you live the factory smokestacks you may live near are potentially FAR more harmful as you take that walk. Exhaust fumes from cars are certainly more dangerous. Additionally, when it comes to smoking indoors in "public", why should a restaurant be forced to ban smoking? It's a private business in a privately owned building. If you don't want to be exposed to the smoke, don't go to the establishments that allow it. If the restaurant/bar/club loses enough business it will ban smoking as a result. Why should it be regulated by the Government? Sorry, I'm a smoker who lives in a state that just passed a law banning smoking in all "public" buildings whether they are privately owned or not. It makes no sense to force a business owner to tell his patrons they aren't allowed to use a legal product on their premises.
Professional Sports Players Shouldn't Get Paid So Much

Yes, I agree that professional athletes and players should get paid so much. Such as Kobe Bryant as you have mentioned. Since you have no further arguments, I will rebut your own rebuttal. Rebuttal #1: Though there are a greater demand for doctors and engineers and other jobs, there are a greater supply of them. Whereas for pro athletes, there is a greater demand and a small supply of them. Many people in the world are not talented in sports like these athletes so they deserve to be paid a lot for what they do. Rebuttal #2: Since there is a small supply of these rare talents, owners of teams are willing to pay multi million dollars to keep their talents in their team. Either to earn profit and rivalry issues. Rebuttal #3: If they not make it then they are not capable of joining the pros. They have to improve a lot. Lastly, those players who don't get selected, they don't earn multi million dollars as pro. They make from $500000 and less. Rebuttal #4: As I said in my previous rebuttal and argument, pros also have to pay taxes. Those taxes goes to governments and much more. So, players do live off with less money than they actually earn by what they are doing. They are not special in any way except for what they are doing. Thanks for the lovely debate but I found you were repeating what you were saying over the whole debate.
Professional Sports Players Shouldn't Get Paid So Much

Just to make this clear: this argument is about if pro players should get paid so much. Do you agree that Kobe Bryant should get 30 million dollars just to essencialy throw a ball into a hoop? Rebutal #1: That depends, do you mean the number of jobs, because I daresay that there is a greater demand in numbers for doctors and engenniers than Pro athletes. Rebutal #2: I mean that there are a lot of capable hockey players, but only a few are selected, so in fact there are lots of potential players. Rebutal #3: Well, don't you think that those players could live off of much less money, maybe just a few million? The rest could somehow go in taxes to the government or somthing.
Professional Sports Players Shouldn't Get Paid So Much

Rebuttal #1: The need for hockey players and athletes are much higher than any jobs such as doctors or engineers.Rebuttal #2: "but some just don't have the chance, or are slightly under some of the others in the tryouts." ----- Well if someone gets cut from tryouts, it mean they have to improve. Also it players that are not selected don't earn multi million dollars so your point is completely not logical.Rebuttal #3: "Because there is such few people, I think they should at least try to balance it out a little, like maybe making a tax for pro sports people on their salaries. I bet they could live on one or two million dollars a year." ----- Haven't you heard of Lionel Messi and the case he had against for not paying tax. Well, we can completely see here that athletes do pay taxes such as #1 soccer player Messi for example. Even Sydney Crosby, LeBron James and Tiger Woods have to pay taxes.Argument #1: Yet again I will repeat... The need for athl.etes are much higher than any jobs such as doctors or engineers because the scarce number of professional athletes.Argument #2: Taxes are taken from every citizen even multi - million earning athletes as shown in rebuttal. So it is a win - win situation for us (since we want entertainment), for the athletes (they make a living out of what they do) and for the government/citizens) because the taxes payed goes toward education, health care and others.
Professional Sports Players Shouldn't Get Paid So Much

I bet there is a lot more capable hockey players, but some just don't have the chance, or are slightly under some of the others in the tryouts. Because there is such few people, I think they should at least try to balance it out a little, like maybe making a tax for pro sports people on their salaries. I bet they could live on one or two million dollars a year. This tax would go for transportation, health care, institutions, schools, and so much more.
Professional Sports Players Shouldn't Get Paid So Much

I accept. Nice topic by the way. I learned the answer to your question in business class. So I wonder how am I going to continue this for 2 more rounds. Well, I guess we will see........ Here is my introduction. I believe that multi-million dollar salaries for people that essentially throw a ball into a hoop or hit a ball with a stick is right because of the number of people in the world with the job skill. For example how many great hockey players do you see in this world? Not that much But how many doctors or engineers are in this world? Well, you see a lot. As you see, our taxes does not go toward sports such as NHL, NBA, NFL or etc. It goes for transportation, health care, institutions etc. it is just the needs and wants in society, that gives athletes multi million dollars for the sport they play.
Abortion is morally wrong.

"I just don't think you should have sex and then get an abortion just cuz you don't feel like taking care of it"And that's a totally fair opinion. But that doesn't make abortion an immoral response to being pregnant. Just because a portion of our population is stupid, why do we have to punish those who aren't stupid and just get a bad stroke up luck because of other people's stupidity and lack of responsibility? If we're looking for the best interests of the baby, it's often a good idea to keep abortion a possibility.Also, I'd like to point out to the voters that she really hasn't refuted any of my arguments.