BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus was a dangerous, deranged individual

Today, Jesus is often depicted as the personification of the perfect human being in western society. He is celebrated as an individual we should all aspire to become more like, since he was apparently an advocate for all humankind and requested a more peaceful world from those he came in contact with. But if you look closely at his depiction in the now-highly edited and notoriously contradictory New Testament, you can detect the real character of Jesus, by what he said, how he acted, and what he aimed to do. He was obviously no "miracle-worker" (though this was used to convey a sense of supernatural goodness to his religious and political competition), he evidently demanded power and to be in control of his flock, he was insanely jealous of the Jewish religious establishment and the control and influence it exerted, he despised the entire concept of justice, perceived the destruction of the world as a good thing, and was even a proud, unapologetic racist. A deranged David Koresh-like cult leader, he naturally sought to spread his influence through loyal, malleable disciples. But Judas, the wisest apostle in the bunch, discovered the real man and stopped him. In this debate, I will successful show that Jesus was a dangerous and deranged individual, who was neither peaceful, orderly, or a promoter of life and equality, that is typically attributed to him; I will show that he was no perfect human being, at the very minimum. My opponent will successful argue in favor of Jesus and the view that he is a good moral example for humankind, through what he said, what he believed, and how he acted. In ROUND 1, my opponent will accept the challenge and briefly state his or her position. The real debate begins in ROUND 2.
This debate will be deleted.

Same thing. There is obviously no reason for this debate to be deleted. It's possible that PatSox will burst out of his shell of forfeiture with a barrage of bawdy blistering belittlement, or a furious fury of filthy foulness, or an immodest, improper, intrusive insult in an attempt to get this debate deleted. I don't really know what Debate.org's language policy is, but I'd like to take the moment to say that on a site devoted to Debate, 99.9% of the posters are probably mature enough to handle some bad language. My reaction to a future such tactic by PatSox would be one of unwavering, staunch implacability. Bad language should not be enough to warrant deletion of a debate.
This debate will be deleted.

You've only been in three debates, so already, it's not like you're some ultimate master of getting your debates deleted. One was between us and was clearly, both by our agreement and by the definition of a debate, not a debate. It was a conversation, a joke we decided to pull because we're so awesomely great. I'm not entirely sure why the other one was deleted–perhaps someone thought it was a joke, or someone was offended (unlikely.) Considering your argument, and mine, it appears that this debate is going to be much more like a normal debate rather than a joke. I would like you to define "significance." I'll respond to your claim about significance anyway, based on what I think you are most likely to have intended as the meaning. Also, other debates certainly lack significance, or could be perceived as similarly devoid of significance, or could even not be debates–there was the one in which I crowned some guy [1]. That debate was much more ridiculous than this one, as one person's winning the debate would obviously create a paradox. The Haiku Battle which I choked to Tatarize [2] wasn't a debate. It was just poetry. A poetry battle is much more worthy of a deletion than a debate which is about an unusual "issue." Clearly, since that debate wasn't deleted, this debate probably won't be deleted. This debate [3] certainly has an argument, but clearly, it was meant as a joke, as pretty much no one claims to be the person (or robot, in my case, or a dog, or a devil) in his or her avatar. This debate [4] is more like a game, or a challenge, than a debate. It could be interpreted as a debate, but even then, it doesn't have any significance, or at least, it doesn't have more significance than this one. [1] http://www.Debate.org... [2] http://www.Debate.org... [3] http://www.Debate.org... [4] http://www.Debate.org... All of these "debates," if you were to interpret them as such, were less significant than this one. This has a real argument, one that is actually debatable.
This debate will be deleted.

...seeing as 2/3 of the debates I've participated in have been deleted, and both of them were just as inane as this one, I fully expect this one to be deleted, as well, assuming the criteria that has to be met for the deletion of a debate is constant. This debate lacks any significance whatsoever and only clutters the site up; I see no reason for it to stick around -- it's essentially a burden on this site.
The Government rules through fear

*I am happy to accept this debate on the side of CON in this case - BirdieMachine good luck* You initial statements are interesting and open a "can of worms" that I'm more than interested in speaking about; though the term government is rather open and can lead us down various avenues. Governments and in fact all leadership structures are kept in power by one method, which in is support. Support of the military, support of the rich and support of the people are just some of the examples of what have kept governments in power. Fear is not a weapon used by just governments. Fear in those cases is a response to negative connotations created by situations. Take your example of fear of imprisonment. The reason for imprisonment is to remove unwanted actions from society. It acts as both a detterent and punishment for those who consider harming others or other unlawful things. Imprisonment is a representation of a collective agreement of the masses to exclude negative behavior and requires structures to be in place to enforce these systems - Hence governments/leadership structures. You've used statements such as fear of terrorism & fear of force/harm as examples of how governments rule. I feel this is the reason governments were created in the first place. Negative actions are countered other actions. You prevent harm by making things safer. You prevent loss of jobs by providing a stable, growing economy. All these things require leadership to function and this is represented as a Government. While I'm not disagreeing that some governments and leaders all over the world do things that we don't agree with or cause "fear" to you and I - I feel that your argument would need to be more specific regarding the actual "government" in question to rather than a sweeping generalisation to encompass all governments.
Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport

I will give a source for the percentage. I do not deny that that had happened to football players, as well as basketball. But it is a proven fact that things, like video games, can effect ones emotions and way of acting. It was shown in tests that even music effects ones emotions. Violent video games like Black Ops 1-3(I do play them)can and will effect ones emotions, and many have faced it. It even says on in the game,"WARNING, extended play may influence ones emotions." Thought not all violence can relate to things like this. My sources~ https://www.wikipedia.org... http://www.aaas.org... https://www.google.com...
Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport

Will it promote a "beat the crap out of everyone" lifestyle? A fighter can only excel in the sport with proper discipline and respect for themselves and others. May I ask for a reliable source for the 52.2% statistic you brought up? Just because someone knows how to fight, doesn't mean they walk around fighting everyone. Nature vs nurture. Your life and the way you treat others is completely dependent upon your upbringing and your lifestyle. Lately we have seen several football players involved in violent crimes including domestic violence, child abuse, and even murder. But we don't associate this violent behavior in correlation with the sport of football. So if we don't blame football for those violent crimes, why would we blame boxing? Maybe we should take football out of schools as well. Maybe we should take basketball as well since Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. What I'm saying is, the violent behavior of some, doesn't mean we should take the opportunities given in boxing away from today's youth. Child abuse, domestic violence, and even molestation are not brought upon because of boxing. That stuff all happens outside the ring, by people who have never fought a day in their life. It is brought on by the way you are raised, and your own mental state. You cannot blame a controlled sport for the act of people all around the world. With all this being said I thank you for having this debate with me over the past few days. I do believe boxing should be allowed for today's youth as an extra curricular activity in today's schools. It teaches discipline and control, and it allows students to create a closer bond that they could not get anywhere else.
Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport

Boxing will not only affect kids in school, but also for the rest of their lives. It will promote a,"beat the crap out of everyone"lifestyle. It will make kids first reaction to get angry and fight, so what happens when they marry and get a little angry? Child abuse, wife abuse, and even molestation can occur. It was proven in studies that people who box are 52.2% More likely to abuse their wives and children than people who dont box. It is a bad idea to have boxing in schools.
Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport

Boxing teaches discipline. It would teach kids to remain humble. But you stated the bullies will be able to box their opponents, and this is where you are wrong. The student who have a problem with each other will not get the chance to box each other. The closest they will get it a sparring session which are heavily controlled and safe. There is no better bond you can form with someone than when you are preparing another for a fight. So the people you have a chance to spar with will actually become some of your closest friends. You make the statement of "The students getting bullied would have no chance at defending themselves from it" as it the bully will always be a stronger force. But like I said, if the bully is not a boxer, and the victim is, chances are the bully won't risk the embarrassment of possibly getting beat if the victim chooses to retaliate. But vise-versa, if the bully is the boxer and the victim isn't I mentioned how boxing does teach respect. As a fighter myself, we do not see ourselves as a force. We know what it's like to have someone stronger and better trained go against us, and that makes us humble. We would never put someone in the situation of making them feel weak. But the possibility of that happening is still there. But just like any school sport, there would be penalties to such action. Maybe if one of the boxers does become a bully, he is done for the season. That would motivate the athletes to not bully, or get in trouble at all.
Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport

Hello! First i would like to thank my opponet for letting my debate this topic with you. I disagree, i do not think that boxing should be allowed to be catagorized as a school sport, or to be allowed in school at all. Boxing will actually increase the amount of bullying that goes on in school. The bullies will be able to box their opponets, and be allowed to beat the crap out of them, and get away with it. What will people do when they go up against a guy who can box? And worst of all, it would be allowed. The students getting bullied would have no chance at defending themselves from it. Thus boxing would be bad for bullied students.
Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport

Boxing should be taught as an extra curricular activity in schools. Boxing is good for you. You cannot box without getting fit just like you cannot swim without getting wet. That being said, having boxing in schools will help today's youth get in shape, as well as stay in shape. Nothing gets your blood pumping quite like boxing. Boxing is also a sport you must commit to. It is not a sport you can play with emotion. You must prepare yourself mentally and physically for the task ahead. Mentally boxing teaches you control and makes you calmer. It demands respect, for yourself and others. Most people see the athletes as wild, crazy men and women; and while boxing may attract those of that nature, it transforms them into calm and collected athletes. It teaches them discipline. Boxing changes a man. So if they allowed boxing in schools, then maybe it would teach today's youth what many of them are missing, respect. Boxing also teaches self defense. It would also end a fair share of bullying. If a bully knows that the person they are trying to pick on can fight, chances are they won't risk the embarrassment. As well as someone who is in boxing would not attempt to be the bully because they've learned the control and respect that was said earlier in the argument. Boxers don't see themselves as a force to be used outside of the ring. They see themselves as athletes. They realize what they are capable of and why they need to keep that inside the ring.
The Earth is quasi spherical in shape and not flat.

Thank You..., Simple conclusion..... .........I Wrote:"again (during first round), ++++++"as my waiter serves me your butt on a silver platter"++++++++ It Is A Very Indecent Statement...." .......You replied:"You know bringing things up twice like this gets tiresome and quite... annoying. But while were on the topic, do mind if I measure your butt to see how big of a platter I will need? If you really want to know the reason behind it, wait until my final argument, and I will reveal it. Then it will make sense to you." It is another Indecent Argument..... ......You also wrote:"I should've expected such a weak sauce argument" Time Tells...... 1]The contender brands citing the source as plagiarism. 2]"I do believe in gravity. I don't see what magical gravity my opponent keeps talking about" ............Translation please..... 3]My opponent disagrees with the NASA.... 4]My opponent claims to have refuted all my statements while this is not the case. 5]Since most of my proofs are not accepted (being branded as plagiarism), i have nothing more to say. I thank you for your cooperation.
Americans are too greedy.

When I stated that I did not mean to imply any sort of legal constructs applied to that statement. Ignorance is only an excuse if the offense was legal and unintentional. Sex I mean to say that it is not greedy to use something for that which it is meant. I agree, those who are greedy often lack self-control, but just because a person lacks self-control does not mean they are greedy. Abortion People were not necessarily so greedy they would not stop, but because they were unable to do so because of the chemical addiction. In Nebraska if a person is found with any sort of substance abuse, even once, parental rights are immediately terminated. My mother would do anything for her kids if she could…but she was physically incompetent. Personal Items That is being human….making a mistake, not greed per se. My Argument I believe the country is in decline because of irresponsibility and general stupidity amongst the American population, not because of greed. Conclusion Greed is not the problem with the American population, it is a lack of responsibility. Thank you to all who vote. Thank you, ejh238, for giving me the opportunity to debate with you.
Americans are too greedy.

Unfortunately, your statement , “You cannot blame someone and hold it against them if it was done unknowingly” is completely false. Any court will tell you that, though you did not know the law existed, you will still be punished for breaking it. Ignorance is no excuse. Sex In your statement about sex, you seem to be saying that, because someone likes something, it’s not greedy to use it beyond its purpose. But this actually is greedy. You can be greedy and lack self control. Usually those who are greedy, also lack self control. Abortion You stated, “By the way, most of the children in foster care are not there because their parents gave them up, but because the parents made mistakes and had their parental rights terminated. ” This proves my point. People were so greedy, they could not quit doing whatever got them in trouble (quite often, drugs). They couldn’t even do it for the child they brought into this world. That’s the most greedy in my opinion. Personal Items Your statement is basically temptation. Being tempted does not mean you are not greedy. Giving in to temptation, is the greed inside of you taking over. Your Argument You have confused the definition of greed. Greed is taking excess. Like my example about women and their shoes. To have 4 or 5 different shoes, can be counted as necessary. Running, walking, heels, and I’m sure there is a couple other purposes for shoes. But to have an average of 17 is greedy. A $500 TV is wonderful, and I would not count that as greedy, even though it is not needed. But the fact that people average 2.86 TV’s per household is greedy. My wife and I in a 3 bedroom house with no intent on having children in the house, is greedy. I believe the country is in decline because greed and irresponsibility are working hand in hand. Greed fuels irresponsibility. It is hard to be irresponsible when you take nothing more than you need. But when you decide you have to have that million dollar mansion all to yourself, you’ve become greedy. And when you buy that mansion, despite your income, you have become irresponsible. Conclusion My opponent has tried to equate greed with wants and desires. But this is not the case. I contend that greed is the desire for more than you need. Please remember, I am not arguing that a single want (a TV) is greedy, it’s the 3 TV’s that are greedy. This is the basic principle in my examples.
Americans are too greedy.

Child Care Well, regarding people being greedy due to sex, it depends on how you view humanity. The drive for sex is not because of reproduction solely. Sex is a hormonal drive. Example: Men generally feel the urge to have a sexual release about every three days. Having sex is not in and of itself selfish. Now, the very fact that the parents still had the child says that they are in fact, not greedy. They didn't leave themselves to just having their lives, and then terminate the fetus before it was given an opportunity to live. Thus, the fact that they had him/her shows a being without that greed. Sex is also an act meant for love. As people, we are able to make our decisions without as much bias as there is in the rest of the animal kingdom toward instinct. A natural response to having an overwhelming sense of love for a person is to be physically intimate. I myself am a product of foster care. I know from personal experience the effects of it. The unplanned pregnancies and children are not in and of themselves greedy. Rather it is the system which might keep them (the children) down. These kids end up living off the system because some of them decide not to try and others simply are not able to get off the system. I agree, these people are drains, yes, but some simply cannot help it. Personal Items The argument you have established in this section doesn't really speak to greed as far as I can see…It seems to be pointing more to the foolishness gripping society. People spending and spending doesn't have much to do with greed but more with a lack of wisdom on their part. I spend money on things that I do not need, but I still bought my sisters necklaces. These statistics show more that America is spoiled. Because of a surplus of credit card companies who want to put people in debt, those lacking wisdom enough to say no, choose to put themselves in debt. A lack of wisdom and the excess of everything that America seems to offer makes Americans seem as though they are greedy. Business Greed Okay, for this topic I must say that, for the most part, I agree. However, I cannot in good conscience say that you are correct entirely. I know that my girlfriend's father's business does not try to make excessive amounts of money, as you claim businesses do. Instead he runs the business in an attempt to make sure that he can support his family. A family friend of theirs runs a business as well. They simply try to make enough to support a family. There are quite a few more people I know and/or know of who do the same. Corporations, yes, are greed machines. My Argument You gave a definite, all-inclusive statement. I don't count myself as too greedy. Do you believe yourself to be horribly greedy? To make such a statement makes the argument practically invalid. There are always exceptions.
Americans are too greedy.

Round 1 Rules and Acceptance Round 2 Arguments Round 3 Rebuttals Round 4 Second Rebuttals and Conclusions Please dumb it down for me. I don't care much for English. Please ensure the point you are trying to make is as clear as possible. Pro's role is to establish that the level of greed in America is having a negative impact on our society. IE – decline in economy, welfare of children, other areas I may think of. Con's role is to establish that the level of greed in America is not having a negative impact on our society or that greed in itself does not affect our society. Please use the Comments section if you would like to suggest any changes to the rules , prior to accepting.
I like to sniff toilet seats

Yes"m yes helo yes yes oleh my nam es flatstanly and did yo no that th erf es acualy es uh sircle yes wow u thinking how es that well I tell u haha see erf es flat I c it evre day yes I do al u need do es walk to edge u silly if don"t belief then try! Ha if u don"t then I do win haha just try to deefeet me ha!
gay is bad

Okay. There isn't going to be so many gays in the world that Americas going to become dumb. There is going to be the majority of straight people to have kids, and guys can adopt. You can't prove that just because those rulers were gay means that's why the country failed. And with the whole pedophiles comment, I don't give a dam* about how bad this county is going to get, the pedophiles aren't going to be able to do anything to kids. Gays are one thing, a pedophile is a whole other thing. You can't bring that into a gay debate.
gay is bad

clearly you missed my argument. I said gay have higher IQ than normal human, dumber people have dumber kids. Because gay has significantly higher and they do not make kids the average IQ of the world will drop. It has decreased by 14 points since the Victorian era. If gay had kids the world would be smarter. Empires fall because of degeneracy like gay and tranny. Roman Empire had tranny emperor. Rome fell. Greece admired gay. Greece fell. And remember that I did not mean female gay I meant male gay. No one cares about female gay. Because gay don't have kids woman have (for the first time in the history of the world) become smarter than man. You did not reply to my argument about gay pedophilia.
gay is bad

Okay sorry I forgot to input rules only rule: No religion can be in the debate. Who cares if gays don't want to have kids, thats not going to affect anything because it will level out to the straight people and there will still be kids! And enough with your opinion. Debate is about fact not opinion. You can't sit here in a debate tell me that gays kill society. THEIR NOT HARMING ANYONE! My best friend is gay! Is she affecting anyone, NO! You can't say that gays make society dumb, you said it yourself, they have a high IQ.