BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Current U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East Undermines Our National Security

Second round is for your main argument (do not attack anyones speech during this round). Third round is for rebuttal (attacks now allowed). And Fourth is for final focus (no new points should be brought up in this round). If my opponent accepts then we have 8,000 characters and 72 hours to present the next round. I stand in firm acceptance of the resolution. Thank you.
The Bible mandates beating slaves nearly to death

Voters who wish to be intellectually honest, lend me your eyes. The topic that was to be debated is stated clearly above us all. "The Bible mandates beating slaves nearly to death"Have we come to a better understanding of the issue? Not at all. Rather, the issue is helplessly misguided. At an attempt to pander to a specified group of voters, Pro has constructed a loaded topic. .. one that pulls at the heartstrings with rhetoric while maintaining a false basis of meaning in proper definition. Your judgments should be as Pro listed them, and I will address them accordingly. Pertaining to the use of the term slave, Pro uses an emotional appeal. The horrendous nature of it being legal to strip the fellow man of his rights, thus dehumanizing him, is appalling. I showed how this understanding was not Biblical. However, when called out on his attempt, he manipulates his original meaning to a counteractive issue, saying that a slave is merely one who is in legal human service to another, as the definition clearly states. This is sophistry at its finest. I certainly do hope to that you voters can see through his ruse. We think of slaves as owned humans, with no legal protection and no rights. This clearly is not the case, no matter how much Pro would like to make it seem so. To begin a discussion with an emotionally charged term, with which to direct the term to a semantic basis when called out on such an attempt is dishonest, duplicitous, and disrespectful to both your opponent and the audience. Please, people, look at the meaning put at the start of this entire discussion. Then look at how such meaning changes to continue the false proposition. I have no doubt that you will see that the original intention was to appeal to the emotional backing of the word "slave', thus the entire topic is in err. Next, the term mandate. As explained, the word mandate is used almost exclusively to mean an order or a direction to do something. Pro later justified his use with the definition, which allows for it to mean when one is given authority to do something. Again, while this is true, the use of the word is used to mean where one is made able to do something necessarily, as if a board of directors were mandated to judge certain company actions. They must necessarily do so. Such is not the case with the meaning used in The Bible. Pro also attempts to make another topic or resolution to further the belief that he is not truly committing the attempts he is accused of, but he does so knowing that it practically cannot be rebutted in my closing argument, since it is an entirely new issue. Finally, Pro blunders on minor issues such as Jesus not coming to change the law, which is used to demonstrate that we are still under such law. We are not, the death of Jesus fulfills the law, we are under a new covenant. Also note that the first five books are called the Pentateuch, not "Five books of Moses". The issue is loaded, fraudulent, and made in bad taste.
The Bible mandates beating slaves nearly to death

Gentle voters, you are being asked to make three judgements:1. What does "slave" mean?2. What does "mandate" mean?3. Do the verses cited, in proper historical context, represent mandating the beating of a slave?I have been to Google and entered the following search terms (taking the first, primary definition), and I ask that anybody in any doubt do the same (especially Con). I'll make it easy and include the literal results here, to make it easy for everybody:Google "define:slave"(especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.Con's attempt to overload the modern word "slave" with aditional meanings and then claim that the resolution is not right because what the bible was saying doesn't comport with Con's new superslave concept is, frankly, risible.Google "define:mandate"Verb give (someone) authority to act in a certain way.N.B. - Notice that the word "mandates" in the resolution is being used as a verb, so this is the appropriate definition.(I've also checked the OED, Freedictionary.com, dictionary.com, etc.)So, I suggest that the resolution can be rewritten in plain English so that Con has no wiggle room for shifting the definition of words to suit their ends:The Bible authorises the legal owners of people to beat those people (who are their possessions) nearly to death.But I must note (to avoid any shiftiness) that I mean the word "legal" in the sense of Biblical, Mosaic Law (the "law" that Jesus said he "did not come to change"). I will now cite two verses which clearly illustrate the resolution AND the bold statement, which is equivalent. I am sad that we have devolved the debate into a petty argument about definitions.I'm using the NIV but you can check other versions. If there are any gentle voters out there who happen to have your own Bibles, I encourage you to look up the following verses (and read the context around them if it so suits you). We should look at the original writings, not translations, but we don't have time to learn the ancient language required for this!Leviticus 25:44-46Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for lifeExodus 21:20-2Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.I realise it's hard for a Christian to pass the resolution but I beg you, before your God, be honest and true!Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are, collectively, the Torah. They are called the "five books of Moses". The rules they lay down are called "Mosaic Law" and this is the "law" that Jesus said he "came not to change".
The Bible mandates beating slaves nearly to death

When I say that the men and women as described in the verse are not slaves, I am referring to the common understanding of the word slave. As we both have at least a rudimentary understanding of western culture, we know of the great struggles that African Americans had to take in order to be free of their bondage. They were treated as inhuman, with no rights or authorities under the law. Because of this, as well as many other civilizations who unfairly treated their slaves, the term slave has taken a new meaning in the minds of the recent generations. We seem to forget that any culture which had servants, maids, legal contracts to human duties, etc. all had forms of slavery because of them. Today, the term slave has taken on an emotional meaning, where the subordinate person is stripped of human rights. This definition is not productive to the debate, as the people that this verse is referring to do have rights under the law, they are treated as human beings. It therefore is reasonable to conclude that the use of the term slave in this situation gives the Pro a semantic edge, as which to use the common understanding of the word slave to further his own case on an emotional perspective versus the intended meaning.The actual definition of slave, however, describes a legal contract in which one person is subservient to another. While the topic statement does fit with the definition, the colloquial meaning of the word will impact the way other people see the debate. I find it only fair to use the terms servant and maid. This understanding is even biblical:In taking the original Hebrew words, we can see that the words used are not meant to describe a slave as we would commonly understand them, but as a term used to describe a relationship in which one person is below another. http://biblehub.com... This link shows that the words being used for male and female are the words ’ă·mā·M91;!3;w (female) and ‘aL87;·d!3;w (male) We can use contextual reference to get a good understanding about how the word is being used. In Exodus 14:31, Moses is referred as "ab dow" in respect to the LORD (Yahweh). You can find the evidence for such here: http://biblehub.com...With that, I hope we can now accept that "slaves" in this sense are better understood to mean servants. For the sake of an intellectually honest debate, I hope we can now use the terms servant and maid when referring to these passages.The next reason why I think this debate is in err, is due to the understanding of mandate. Mandate comes from the Latin word "mandatum" meaning something which is commanded. It is used in both formal and informal language to express a command or a directive. The topic therefore is contorted, using yet again a semantic approach to convey an understanding of the passage that is not there. These people were not slaves as you would like it to be meant, and the use of the word mandate is not productive to a proper understanding of the topic.
The Bible mandates beating slaves nearly to death

Welcome to DDO; no, you've done nothing wrong so far! Well, nothing that violates the rules of DDO, anyway... you've committed a grave moral error in my book, but that's for me to explain and you to rebutt and the voters to decide!You say outright "these men and women were not slaves" and go on to claim that this, on it's own, invalidates the assertion. I ask that you go some way further to explain yourself. I know how fond Christians are of claiming that the word "slave" is not a fair translation and I am fully aware of all of the debates that have gone on over the years - on the whole, biblical scholars (even Christian ones) are of the opinion that "slave" is the best translation... but... I don't care about that too much because it does not help inform this debate!If I use a word in plain English, using a computer in the 21st century, I expect it to be understood in its modern sense. That is, unless I am doing something like quoting a bronze age text... then I agree that we might need to look at the original language and discuss possible alternative interpretations...So, what does the modern word "slave" mean?Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.The bible is absolutely explicit about the fact that these "maids" can be bought or sold; it is clear that they are the property of their masters; it is clear that they can be left, like any other property, to their masters children when their masters die. The bible is also explicit about the fact that they are forced to obey them, and the verse I chose even tells us how much such force may be employed. Do you deny any of these facts?If you do not deny any of these facts then I fail to see how you can refute the proposition. You may, I suppose, challenge the word "mandate" - and, to a degree, you did when you wrote:"The topic also seems to be worded in a way in which this law is a command for one to nearly beat one's maid or servant to death."No, that's not what I intended... I intended"The topic is worded in a way in which this law is a command that one may nearly beat one's maid or servant to death."Mandate, as a verb, means "give (someone) authority to act in a certain way" If you don't believe me, put "define:mandate" into Google and see what you get (remember to look for the definition of "mandate" as a verb, not a noun)[1].[1] Google definition of "mandate": http://bit.ly...
The Bible mandates beating slaves nearly to death

In my opening, I will try to give a clarified way of thinking of how I interpret the verse. I think we need to clear a few things up with the way in which the topic is understood in relation to how the verse should be understood. These men and women were not slaves, they were Canaanite maids and servants. As such, the very topic itself is flawed. If one is slave to another, it is meant to mean one is obligated in their own human service to another. However, the human rights of these maids and servants were upheld. A rod was used to correct, and if one went too far in their correction that the servant or maid died, the owners themselves were put to the sword. Also notice that the tool used here is a rod, which is for discipline...not a weapon. The topic also seems to be worded in a way in which this law is a command for one to nearly beat one's maid or servant to death. Rather, this law is in a chain of laws pertaining to human ownership. This was for the purpose of protecting the rights of life to the servant/maid, so that a master would know not to go too far, lest he be put to death himself. I would also like to note that by definition, slavery is the legal possession of another human being. However, the cultural treatment of various slaves in history gives the term a negative connotation, which certainly trivializes the concept of this form of ownership and limits the overall understanding of the debate. I would like it if we used a more proper word instead of slave, one which agrees more with the intention of the writers. (This is my first debate. If I failed to do something that was needed, or if I need to provide sources, please correct me)
The Bible mandates beating slaves nearly to death

I need not say much in opening, but I'll make what I think is a watertight case:Exodus 21 : 20 - 21When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.Note: I sincerely hope that nobody will accept this debate, ever. I fear that somebody will. My earnest hope is that a few Christians will look at the debate, consider taking it on, then realise that it's impossible to defend. HOPEFULLY, then, they might not be so quick to jump to "the bible says so" as a reasonable justification for any moral position they might wish to take.
know=true

Galileo proved a truth (truth being that the Earth revolves around the sun). Before hand, people did not know of this. What you morph this easily understandable statement into in your Round 1 is absolute trash... yes, he proved something wasn't true (Earth is the center of the universe), but he also proved something WAS true (Earth revolves around sun). And we did not KNOW this, but the truth was there all along. Your "knife in my chest" comparison is a good analogy of my argument... at least your jumbled up and idiotic deciphering of it. 1."true is, not can be.. obviusly" You brandish your third grade mind without shame. 2."possibilites are not true." At one point, it was a possibility that the Earth revolved around the sun. It was true all along, but at the time, just a mere theory/possibility. We now know it is true, as it was all along. 3."as if you has a case.. you people baffle me with your stone age thinking" I wouldn't call it stone age thinking... it's logical and easily destroys your whole argument. But even if it was stone age, which it isn't, it beats having no thinking. Such is your case.
know=true

therfore galileo proved it wasnt true... i dont understand how this is a problem for people to uderstand.. they simlpy believed it, obviusly they did not know it... thats like saying, i knew there was no killer behind the counter, but sticking that knife in my chest i better defend myself.. i mean wtf dude? true is, not can be.. obviusly possibilities are not true as if you has a case.. you people baffle me with your stone age thinking
know=true

I think this will be a fairly simple debate. But we'll see. My first round will center on this example: people did not know that the Earth revolved around the sun. But even though they didn't know, it was true. An Italian astronomer named Galileo Galilee eventually gave light to the world, though, that the Earth is not indeed the center of the universe [1]. He made the truth known. If you believe in something, it can be true or false. Belief is not knowing, but you can't rule out the possibility that it's true. Even without anyone knowing, the truth will always be true. Sources: 1. http://www.biography.com...
know=true

Here is the proof that Earth revolves around the sun: [1]. But before the late 1500s, 1600s, people actually believed the exact opposite, demonstrated by this article [2]. But since you can't understand this example at all, let me give you another one that suits your knowledge. A five-year old has a test question that reads "2+2=?" Below the question are two choices. The first choice is 3, and the second choice is 4. We both know that two plus two equals four, but the kid does not. Now, which answer is true, 3 or 4? Obviously 4 is the correct and true answer to the question. The fact that the little kid doesn't KNOW the true answer does not make it untrue. I did put forward a challenge. You are simply not on the intelligence level required to except the challenge (and the level isn't even that high.). You've made this harder than it should be, dumb a@s. Get off this website for your own good. Sources: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. https://www.reference.com...
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

I am genuinely shocked DDO finally is back! New fonts and everything on debate typing, And finally the system updates the debates! Hooray! I guess now I automatically win since con forfeited, Even though i explicitly stated no to except if you are going to forfeit. I wish their was a setting while creating a debate that requires an amount of time you have to be on DDO to accept. I will rebuttal to con if he posts again, Even though he has technically already forfeited.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

You are looking at it the wrong way. OK, Lets look at G. B. (great Britain) and America. Sure, We can use whatever statistic you want, I'll believe it. Apparently you say 1 gun homicide every million people, While in America there are many more. The problem with this is that it isn't conclusive to just compare gun homicide rates, As there are other factors that contribute to those. In other words, Each country is different. What I would compare is the overall homicide rate(not just guns) before and after the gun ban. In the U. K. , Homicides spiked up after the gun ban, And eventually subsided to about the same as the pre-ban rate. This is the same for places such as Ireland, Jamaica, And even places in America who have the highest violent crime rates like Chicago or Washington, D. C. (https://crimeresearch. Org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/) Also, There are over 2. 5 million defensive gun uses per year, Compared to 10, 000 gun homicides, Which indicates guns save far more lives than take them. So for your last question the answer is, I am saving lives by fighting for the 2nd amendment, Not taking more lives.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Then please explain to me why you think this is right is worth so many lives. In 2014 A little over 8, 000 gun homicides in the United States alone. Of course, One could never prevent people completely from homicides, Murder and other gun-related crimes. However if we compare the situation to Great Britain. The gun homicide rate in England and Wales is about one for every 1 million people, According to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, A multinational organization based in Switzerland. Considering the population of 56 million, That adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, By contrast, There are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. Have you personally profited from this 2nd-amendment-right so tremendously, That you'd sacrifice this many more lives to keep it?
abortion

Hopefully I'll win this debate. I would like to start off by saying I've been searching for someone just as fun too debate as you, and I couldn't. Hopefully this will be a good, fun debate and may the best man win. Without further adieu let the debate begin. Abortion: harmless joyful procedure or cold blooded murder. I will begin by using the constitution to support my reasoning that abortion is unjust murder. And I will also use science to support my reasoning. Constitution: I respect the men who wrote the constitution. We both knew they didn't know of "abortion" back then, but what if they did. Would they support the burning and poisoning of an innocent baby. At this point your probably thinking fetuses aren't babies, well I would have to rebute you my good sir. Fetus: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(biology). . http://en.wikipedia.org.... These two links are important for my rebuttal. Last debate I plagorized and I feel awful for it, so now I'm only gonna use links and context to help me in a rebuttal. Now, to explain my rebuttal. Let's look at the first link. It states that a fetus is the stage between embryo and birth, but in fact it never says that a fetus is not a baby. I have a question for you, do you think a fetus feels pain? It has developing nerve cells. If it has nerve cells then why shouldn't it feel pain? Onto the second link. The more important of the two links. "In 1983, the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, also known as the "Pro-Life Amendment," was added to the Constitution of The Republic of Ireland by popular referendum. It recognizes "the right to life of the unborn". " This seems like a pretty important amendment, does it not? Why would people go out of their way to create such an important amendment, if they know it would start heated debates, like this very debate. Take a couple of minutes too think about this amendment. That is my opening arguement, thanks for taking the time to read it.
The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

You raise a good point, manpower was a luxury that Germany struggled to attain, considering the constant pounding they took from the seemingly endless industrial machines the allies possessed, but you lost me when you said that the gun on the T-35 had a higher velocity then the 88mm flak. upon research to the vast expanse of the cyber realm, I found first accounts stating that the 76mm F-34 gun used on the T-34 was not able to penetrate the Tigers front armour, and had difficulty penetrating the side and back. The 88mm was the most feared gun used on many German tanks because of its anti-tank capabilities. It had an effective range of 25000 ft. It was the greatest anti-aircraft gun of the war, and I would like proof towards you telling me how any tank gun could exceed the range that of a Tiger. Another thing, even if a Tiger was caught getting sniped by a T-34, the shells would simply bounce off, the gun could barely penetrate the Tigers armour at close range.
The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

I'm sorry for a mistake. By "It consumes a lot of gasoline" I mean the Tiger.,Which is the main reason why it was out of action. If you want another reason why the Tiger was not so good tank. Here's the list: 1) the Tiger requires more crews than the T-35. Men was very necessary. 2) the Tiger had shorter range than T-35, so the Tiger had to get closer to the target in order to hit them. Source: Weapons of World War II by Alexander L"deke.
The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

So, your claiming that the T-34 is superior over the tiger because of its speed? Are we taking anything else into consideration? I suppose all light tanks were the greatest because of their speed, at least that's according to you. And your final statement "Plus it consumes many gasoline". Isn't that a bad thing? excess fuel consumption is a negative attribute, and the way you use it in your sentence points to you talking about the T-34. The Tiger had the powerful 88mm flak gun, and the armour depth was a whopping 120mm in the front mantlet. The Tiger has been battle proven, few tanks matched its attributes.