BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

I guess this a little informal and more of a question regarding your stance on Abortion. You say "you make it you keep it". What if you didn't make it? What if you were raped? and every day for the rest of your life the child is a constant reminder. A reminder of that night, when you were drugged or jumped. Violated. Nothing was the same afterwards. Then you fell pregnant. And you didn't even have a say over your own body over your own life. So you carry out those nine months. Knowing the child is of a man you didn't know, a by-product of the worst breach of privacy possible. Then the child is born. Do you keep it, or put it up for adoption? Lets say she keeps it. She raises the child. Knowing one half is hers and the other half is made up of something inexplicably evil. Would my child become him. Would my son be his fathers son, will my daughter have the same fate as me - with no right to choice?? And you can't look at your child. Because you don't recognize the smile on its face. It isn't a trait of mine so it must make it a trait of his. I am fair haired but my child is dark haired. And when people ask me does he look more like his father? What do i say? So my child grows up with resentment. Over an unloving and distant mother. Dreaming of its father, wondering what he was like and maybe he'd have this parental love for me. All the while you can't simply tell the child it was an result of rape. Because what kind of life would that child live? It is not an after effect of pure love, but an output of an attack by an violent man.
Christianity Is In Crisis: It Is Time To Recognize That The Second Coming Of Jesus IS a Myth.

I am slightly confused about my opponents debate as you keep forfeiting your round. I will continue my debate. I personally am not a Christian but I do believe ,from what I have learnt you can not believe all the prophecies . If you believe in Jesus than surely you will follow him no matter when he is coming back. i do not know if my opponent is Christian from what I can gather he isn't but I think 'Christianity is in crisis' is an extremely ridiculous accusation. anybody in religion isn't supposed to murder but they do , religion bends and this is just another bend in Christianity.
Christianity Is In Crisis: It Is Time To Recognize That The Second Coming Of Jesus IS a Myth.

You are wrong, prophecies which initiated the concepts of the coming of the Messiah and the establishments of the sacred kingdom do have chronological aspects but the second coming of Jesus does not form parts of these prophecies but was introduced into the Bible by people who gave themselves a blank cheque on time. Writings that claim that there is a second coming of Jesus are invalid scriptures that do not agree with ancient prophecies.
Christianity Is In Crisis: It Is Time To Recognize That The Second Coming Of Jesus IS a Myth.

The Jehovah Witnesses have calculated the prophetic seven times, at the end of which the Messianic kingdom of the Lord must be established, to have ended in the year 1914, from the departure time of the year of the carrying away of the Hebrews to Babylon. They claim that Jesus became king in the heavens in 1914, which is inconsistent with the prophecies which describe the event as something that all eyes will see, which if it took place in the heavens no one would be able to see the face of the Lord. I don"t agree with the departure time of the J W and have arrived at one of which it is that of the year when the Hebrews were freed to return and rebuild the temple, which means that with the use of a good calendar to calculate the seven times, I have arrived at 2005 being the end. One thing is sure and that is that the seven times have been completed and the second coming of Jesus has not taken place and all those who preach it should recognize its failure and stop doing so and instead start seeking to get to know the truth about the kingdom of the Lord.
In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in cjs

Okay, just to be clear, let us lay down some definitions. violent felony: "any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . that (i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or (ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." United States v. Thrower, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 22484, 4-5 (2d Cir. N.Y. Oct. 14, 2009) I will be arguing the side that in the US, juveniles charged with felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. While this may not represent my personal opinion, I will argue for this to the best of my ability. 1) If we try a juvenile charged with a violent felony as an adult, they will receive their just sentence. If a man robs someone's house and attacks them with a knife, they should get 5+ years in jail. But if a child does the same crime, with the same results, they will probably get a shorter sentence. This is hardly fair. If we let a juvenile off easy after committing a crime, he may soon go back and do it again. The judge calculates the jail time necessary so that that individual will not do the crime again. If any sentence less than that is given, the chances of their rehabilitation are lower. 2) Cases like these will teach other children that in this country, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Violent actions will be rewarded only with harsh consequences. This can possibly decrease the crime rate, at least in the under 18 demographic, and less of these cases will have to be fought. 3) The age limit, 18, is rather large. I understand you don't want 3-10 year olds being tried as adults, but for kids 14-18, they are nearly adults. They understand what they are getting into by committing that crime, our education system has taught them that. They are very close to adults, and thus should be tried as such, or perhaps the age limit should be lowered to 14. Just a suggestion. I look forward to your response and rebuttals, Instigator.
In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in cjs

I would like to state that this debate will be done in LD format. If you do not understand LD, please do not accept this debate. I look forward to debating, thank you. Here is the format: Round 1: Pro states his/her case. Round 2: I ask questions, state my case, and attack the pro's case. Pro answers my questions, rebuttals, and attacks my case. Round 3: I attack and defend and the same goes for my opponent.
The Golden Hour

This debate is on weather or not EMS personal should have protocols regarding the "Golden Hour" of trauma. The "Golden Hour" is a concept that states that a person should be on an operating table within an hour from the time of a traumatic injury. For example a victim of a motor vehicle collision who meets priority II or I trauma levels should be on the operating table with in one hour of the car accident. I will be arguing ageist having protocols for meeting the "Golden Hour." First round acceptance. Last round closing remarks only.
The Golden Hour

I must apologize for not posting my other arguments I have been busy with finals and work. If you would like to redo this debate I would be willing to. Any way on to your arguments1 “The patient has a far better chance of surviving if they get to a hospital sooner as opposed to later. That's a fact.” Could you provide evidence? If you would have looked at my sources above or read my argument about you would have seen that this is no evidence of increased mortality for any length of time exceeding one hour. “You also pointed out the fact that the leading cause of death among EMS personnel is motor vehicle accidents. That is true. What else is a person who works on a moving hospital gonna die of? Malaria? Also, I'm sure the patient is far more likely to die from not getting to the hospital quickly enough than from an impromptu motor vehicle collision.” Just because they are more likely to die from a MVC does not mean we should not do what we can to reduce the number of fatalities. A study by Emergency Dispatch concluded that there is only a 43.5 second mean time saved when running with full lights a siren[1]. As mentioned above there is no evidence to support an increased mortality rate for any length of time after the first 60 min so why risk the lives of the patient, EMS personnel, and the public for 43.5 seconds? [1] http://www.emergencydispatch.org...
The Golden Hour

An hour is by no means the definitive time a trauma patient should be receiving heavy treatment by. It's simply a dramatization of the urgent need to get patients to the hospital quickly, and indeed, that is the job of the EMS. The driver isn't going to suddenly flare up the engines when the time since the accident approaches an hour, he's going to be rushing it the whole trip. The patient has a far better chance of surviving if they get to a hospital sooner as opposed to later. That's a fact. There's reason to rush. You also pointed out the fact that the leading cause of death among EMS personnel is motor vehicle accidents. That is true. What else is a person who works on a moving hospital gonna die of? Malaria? Also, I'm sure the patient is far more likely to die from not getting to the hospital quickly enough than from an impromptu motor vehicle collision. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(medicine) http://www.emsworld.com...
The Golden Hour

What is the Golden Hour and what is the science behind it? The golden hour is a concept that a person who is involved in a trauma should be in the operating room with in one hour of the accident. This sounds like a logical idea but what exactly does science say about this? Truthfully nothing. In an article that was published on EMS World website states that there is no science behind it but it is actually the oppion of a single doctor1. In another study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine states that there was no difference between time intervals and mortality in trauma2. Safety concerns for EMS personnel regarding the Golden Hour. According to an article on the National Volunteer Fire Council A leading cause of death for EMS personnel are motor vehicle accidents3. Most accidents that involve ambulances are when the ambulance is responding to a call or on the way from the scene to the hospital and they involve running stop signs and stop lights. Removing the pressure of making the Golden Hour would in turn help decrease the amount of accidents and result in lower Line of Duty Deaths. Safety Concerns For the Patient. The same argument I made above applies here too. Less accidents on the way to the hospital means less patient injury's and deaths from those accidents. On top of that many traumas involve some sort of extrication weather that be from a vehicle or a house. This takes time. Putting pressure on the Fire Fighters to hurry to extract the patient leads to mistakes and possibly injuring the victim even further. Conclusion Due to the lack of evidence and safety concerns I feel that any protocol involving the "Golden Hour" is based on a medical urban legend and has no thought regarding EMS safety, Fire safety, or public safety. Resources 1 . http://www.emsworld.com... 2 . http://www.sciencedirect.com... 3 . http://www.nvfc.org...
The Christian doctrines of gender roles are contradictory and wrong:

Pro: "You cannot expect all men to assume 1 role in a relationship and all women to assume another specific and absolute role because all men and women are different." Of course. This very debate is a generalization based argument in the first place. Most men are wired a certain way. Most women are wired a certain way. Most women are attracted to strong, dominant, "leader type". Thus, to say the "Christian", version of "gender roles" is nonsense is actually standing against science ,statistics, and reality. Are there sexuality exceptions? Sure. The Bible talks about these differences giving an actually rather lengthy description of eunuchs. Matthew 19:12 is an example of this. -"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Matt 19:12 Jesus said some are born gay. Excerpt from article- -"Here Jesus refers to "eunuchs who have been so from birth." This terminology ("born eunuchs") was used in the ancient world to refer to homosexual men. Jesus indicates that being a "born eunuch" is a gift from God." http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org... According to experts women are attracted to dominant men. http://theplayboyprogram.com... According to Evolution, our survival actually depends on this phenomenon of women picking dominant men. Essentially females who had dominant mates begat dominant offspring, they survived, so this gene is prevelant in our species. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org... So when the Bible suggests males as dominant it isn't expressing a view based off of strang dogma or social norm, but science and reality itself. Ever heard the term "nice guys finish last"? Of course you have. It didn't just appear magically one day because of one disgruntled "nice guy". It manifested because it is reality. Being "nice", "beta" or "non-dominate" yields little success with women and yields virtually no success with high caliber women. Why? We know why. http://elitedaily.com...
The Christian doctrines of gender roles are contradictory and wrong:

"scientifically" speaking, you are wrong, women do not like being dominated sexually," I teach men how to attract women for a living. You are living in a fantasy land. At least choose a fabtasy land that doesn't suck. I'll give you a little advice my young, awesome, naive friend... (Video) http://youtu.be... * (Video) http://youtu.be... * (Video) http://youtu.be... * (Video) http://youtu.be... * "According to the Tanakh, men and women are exactly equal, they are still, on course, different" Then the Tanakh needs to pull its head out and act like a man instead of the biggest wussbag of all time. * "Read Yefet Ben Elis commentary on proverbs and Genesis 1:27, men are equal to women. Also see Genesis 12:21, disproving that G-d does not believe that women should be submissive to MEN." Really? Then why is the bride(the church in a feminine role) to be submissive to God?(the masculine role) * Dear God Pro. Am I gonna have to slap you?
The Christian doctrines of gender roles are contradictory and wrong:

First of all my opponents religion is "primal-indigenous," not Christian. Second of all we were arguing whether wives SHOULD submit to their husbands as per Christian gender roles, not that wives enjoy being submissive. Third of all this is a religious debate, not a scientific debate. We are arguing what the Tanakh says, not what women are aroused by. That's beyond the scope of the debate, and I'm pretty sure I'm too young to discuss such topics. Either way, "scientifically" speaking, you are wrong, women do not like being dominated sexually, I'm sure some do, but this is called BDSM and some men have it too. However, testosterone makes people more dominate, and since men have higher testosterone levels than women, they are more likely to be dominate, everyone is different though, and some women have more testosterone than some men. Women do not find pleasure in being humiliated or compromising their dignity either, https://jwvictims.org... According to the Tanakh, men and women are exactly equal, they are still, on course, different. But this doesn't constitute any specific set of gender roles because not all men or women are the same. Everyone should be free to chose their own roles. Read Yefet Ben Elis commentary on proverbs and Genesis 1:27, men are equal to women. Also see Genesis 12:21, disproving that G-d does not believe that women should be submissive to MEN.
The Christian doctrines of gender roles are contradictory and wrong:

According to science itself...my opponent is? Dead wrong. Hmmmm....maybe God is smarter than my opponent...who knew?QUOTE:-"But there"s a dark side to this. Because so many women like being dominated, they are more likely to tolerate physical and emotional abuse in relationships, and are less likely to strive to positions of power in society. In some ways, to be sexually fulfilled, women must sacrifice their dignity."End of quote...QUOTE:-"There"s also a dark side for men. Because men are turned on by being dominant, they are more likely to engage in rape and other sadistic acts, because for some men, consensual sex is a turnoff. If the woman is agreeing to the sex, she"s not being dominated, which ruins the experience for a lot of men. The dark truth is that a lot of men are so evil, they go home every night and have sex with their wives, while fantasizing about jumping out of the bushes and raping some completely random lady on the street."https://pumpkinperson.com...
The Christian doctrines of gender roles are contradictory and wrong:

1. Google docs are not a violation of conduct. 2. I will argue that the Christan version of gender roles is contrary to the Tanakh, and that they are morally as well as factualy wrong. 3. My opponent must be a Christian and believe that wives should "subit" to their husbands. 4. I will argue that this is contrary to the Tanakh, and therefore ought to be denied.
The Christian doctrines of gender roles are contradictory and wrong:

Pro: "and even if my opponent could prove that most women want to be dominated (whilst this is clearly not the case)" Sure it's not. That's why dating coaches teach domination to men and get millions of dollars to do so, while the others scream "nice guys finish last!" seeming bewildered that women only go for "badboys" or "alpha males" refusing to listen to an alpha male who picks and chooses women at his whim. Pro: "his position in this debate was supposed to be that wives should submit to their husbands." Should they not? Men are physically superior, more left brained, more dominant, etc. The same reason God commands men to submit to Him. He is the one built for His role, not us. I accept my role to submit to God. Why? That's my commanded role, and I accept it accordingly. I'm not a woman so I do not play her role of giving birth, breast feeding, or nurturing in a motherly way. Pro: "because in Christianity you believe that you must be a Christian to go to heaven." This is an assumption. Denominations disagree and individuals on many things. No one knows who God judges to the left or to the right other than himself. Pro: "according to you, christian or not wives should submit to their husbands." I made no mention in this debate as to what a non-Christian woman should do, nor what a Christian woman should do. I have simply made the point that the description in the New Testament of gender roles is consistant with Biology and reality. Pro asserts that Old Testament Jews considered men and women as "equal in role", yet the woman could not get a divorce of her own accord from her husband while he could get one from her. It also dismisses that lineage was tracked through the male. Pro: "Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendents" The word "lasting" does not mean eternal nor are Gentiles descendents genetically of the Jews. So here is what we have: 1)Gentiles are not under the covenant that Pro speaks of even according to himself. 2)The New Testament version of gender roles is consistant with what men and women expect from each other naturally via biology. 3)Even Old Testament Jews placed women in a submissive role by not allowing women the same power in a divorce nor lineage being taken from the woman's side. Noah begat Shem begat etc. Adam begat Seth begat etc.
The Christian doctrines of gender roles are contradictory and wrong:

Pro's burden of proof: 1)that they are morally as well as factualy wrong. I have proven they adhere to biology ,science, and reality in the earlier rounds. The Christian version of roles actually is the roletaught to people with swag and great success with women. It is also the role taught to women on how to attract men. Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Interesting. Pro must be stoning adulterers still... That's why the New Testament was given, to make what God deemed a "better covenant". -Hebrews 8:6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. -Hebrews 7:22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant. Rabbinic Judaism teaches that Moses presented the Jewish religious laws to the Jewish people and that those laws do not apply to gentiles, including Christians. Theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there are three types of biblical precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. He stated that moral precepts are permanent, having held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature. Ceremonial precepts, the "ceremonial law", dealing with forms of worshipping God and with ritual cleanness, and judicial precepts, such as those in Exodus 21, came into existence only with the Law of Moses and were only temporary. The ceremonial commands were "ordained to the Divine worship for that particular time and to the foreshadowing of Christ". Upon the coming of Christ they ceased to bind, and to observe them now would, Aquinas thought, be equivalent to declaring falsely that Christ has not yet come, for Christians a mortal sin. http://www.iep.utm.edu... http://www.biography.com... Pro's burden of proof- 2)My opponent must be a Christian and believe that wives should "submit" to their husbands. If they freely choose to enter into a Christian marriage, it's of their own accord. I've seen marriages where both partners fulfill their "Christian" roles. It's the most beautful thing I've ever seen and shows romance at the deepest level imaginable. The wife lifts up and supports her man. He protects her at all costs even if to hisown loss. Both partners sacrifice. The man is held to a greater accountability to God as the leader. And if he treats his wife poorly he faces judgement. If he does his God given duty and so does she, in reality, the wife is not in a poor position, only a different position. It's like chess. One piece defends at all costs to itself to protect the other piece despite having different skills and abilities. 3)"Morally wrong" By this logic God is "morally wrong" to expect us to submit to Him in our God given role. Besides, no one is forcing the female to join into a marriage or a Christian marriage. They freely choose to do so. They can marry a Jew, a Secular man, or no one at all.