BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christians should just forsake their religion's history of stoning

To begin I would like clarify something. Pro believes that Christians should reject stoning. I am arguing that they already have rejected it, as they don't agree with stoning, nor do the practice it. Let me elaborate. Rebuttals: Pro states: "if he acwknowleeges that it was once their religion, then there must be a history there with practices to reject. so, they should reject it. "Yes, Christians do have a Jewish history. Christians already have rejected it; they've rejected it since Christ started the church. I am a Christian and I know several other Christians. None of us used to be Jewish, as we do not practice the Law of Moses. I'll expand on this later. Pro then states: "the bible says that Jesus said he did not come to overturn the laws, but to fulfill them. that means that he is acknowledging his history, which most say is the law of Moses. which includes stoning etc. that means there's something to reject, and something some might say is a valid part of their history. "Yes you are correct, Jesus came to fulfill the laws. However, he didn't come to fulfill the Law of Moses. He came to fulfill the higher law, also known the New Testament. "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. " (Luke 22:20) Everything in the Old Testament was preparing, and prophesying of the New Testament. Case:The resolution states: "Christians should just forsake their religion's history of stoning. "My argument is not that they should, it is that they already have. 'Should' and 'already have' are two different things. If one were to argue that they should forsake stoning, that would mean that they still practice and agree with it. I am arguing however, that they already have forsaken it. This means that they don't practice it, or agree with it. In fact, the Christian church has never stoned one sinner. The Christian church does not endorse stoning. Never has never will. Conclusion:Although Christianity may have Jewish roots, they no longer practice them. They instead follow after Jesus their savior. As I have established earlier, the Old Testament testified of the coming of Christ, and his church. Christians follow after Christ's teachings. Christ did not teach that stoning was acceptable. Instead, he taught that they should instead be forgiven and loved. Christianity has never endorsed stoning. Therefore, Christians have already rejected the act of stoning. Sources:The Bible
Christians should just forsake their religion's history of stoning

con seems to be essentially saying that Christians are not jews, so whether they should reject stoning isn't an issue for them, given they have been against it since Jesus? it is an issue for them. even con says Christians "no longer live under the laws of Moses". if he acwknowleeges that it was once their religion, then there must be a history there with practices to reject. so, they should reject it. con seems to say Christians aren't into stoning anymore, so he must agree it's something worth rejecting. also, the bible says that Jesus said he did not come to overturn the laws, but to fulfill them. that means that he is acknowledging his history, which most say is the law of Moses. which includes stoning etc. that means there's something to reject, and something some might say is a valid part of their history. if the bible says this, it is giving credibility to at least being th way things used to be, God ordained. this is why a fundamentalist even if he isn't into stoning as it's no longer the way things are, would still give the arguments I listed above for why it was God directed and such. con doesn't really address bible fallibility issues or whether it was God to begin with. he just seems to be saying Christians don't believe in it, but not what that means per the history of stoning. it's hard to follow what exactly con is getting at and why.
Porn shouldn't be censored there should be support out there to block it

The benefits you listed are only for self-stimulation which does not require pornography. Porn objectifies women. Big no-no. Also, why do partners need it to "spice up" their sex life? Porn is basically getting off on watching other people engage in intercourse. While that isn't cheating on your partner, why can't you just enjoy your partner and your partner only? there are other ways to "spice up" your sex life that do not need porn. It is also very addictive, even when you try it in moderation, it's hard to quit. Time Magazine did an article about men who became addicted and found themselves only enjoying having real partners when they objectified them. They also found that they had harder times enjoying sex.Not worth it.
Porn shouldn't be censored there should be support out there to block it

I'm optimistic about porn it doesn't deserve negative stigma. Porn isn't that bad as people make it out if anything that's if people watch it too much. You don't hear much about the short term effects or watching it in MODERATION which is beneficial for you. People should look at porn as something a single person can use to get off or feel good to satisfy their sexual needs or porn should be used to spice up a couple's sex life or try something new. The positives of porn is #1 encourages masturbation masturbation. which helps you feel better. #2 Relieves stress which is the top 5 causes for cancer #3 Just like anything you look at the more you watch it the more acceptable it is to you #4 It's free/cheap, easy to access and a form of safe sex, no STI,STD's, pregnancy # 5 It turns you on #6 It' still a little educational to give you and insight on what sex is like #7 The obvious entertaining just like violent video games
Gay Marriage is Objectively Immoral and, Therefore, Should be Illegal

I believe the advantage lies in the fact that just because since morality can't be defined indefinitely for all, you can't say one thing is immoral as a country. Secondly, I believe even if everyone agrees that something is immoral, is it necessary to be illegal? So the legality part of the topic falls here. Thirdly, making something illegal won't stop it from happening, so in a world where gay marriage is illegal, that doesn't mean you are going to stop them from engaging in coitus which i'm assuming is the reason anyone might think it is immoral. So making it illegal wouldn't actually prevent something immoral from taking place.
Gay Marriage is Objectively Immoral and, Therefore, Should be Illegal

Definition of "objective" from Merriam-Webster: 1. based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings 2. philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world 3. grammar : relating to nouns, noun phrases, or pronouns that are the objects of verbs or prepositions Definition of "immoral" from Oxford Dictionaries: 1. not conforming to accepted standards of morality: Rules: 1. Pro may begin his argument in round 1, but in order to ensure fairness, must type "no round as agreed upon" in Round 3. Failure to do this will result in forfeiting the debate. 2. Please cite your sources. 3. The key to this debate is two-fold. Pro must prove both that gay marriage is immoral, and that, by virtue of this, it should be illegal.
Football Is Better Than Soccer

I agree soccer is a horrible sport but if I had to pick one over the other it would be soccer. I see what your saying but do you know how many people a year get a concussion from football, thousands. Now soccer is stupid that is agreed upon both of us but I like soccer better then football because it is a overall better sport then football. Because football like you said is just running around with a ball throwing and hurting people. Now I dislike both sports and baseball is my favorite sport. Why would you even like football?
IVF Debate

One major problem with IVF is the problem with multiple births. However it is not only that but the major health defects that cone with it. Through IVF more twins and triples are born then if it were conceived normally, and because of this it is hard on the mother and the wallet. However money isn't the major concern. It is found that twins and triplets conceived through IVF actually have more health problems, such as prematurity and low weight. Thirty years of IVF data was analyzed to conclude these findings. This isn't something new.
IVF Debate

As said before, the human body is a very resilient thing as there are many workings going on even within the Reproduction system. The Scientific advancements that have been able to help along the human body, in the reproductive sense is astounding. That's all IVF does, is to help along pregnancy for women, couples, etc. that can't do it on their own easily, and they've tried. The risk of OHSS, although small does happen, yes, but no couple, woman whatever chooses this. It is not forced on them, what they do is their choice not anyone else's. Therefore, it doesn't risk anyone else's body but her own and that is something couples should think about before even getting involved with in vitro fertilization.
IVF Debate

This issue with the embryos/eggs being alive or not, shouldn't be an issue. If the moral debate wants to be brought in, it has to be with a breathing, feeling, developed fetus/thing. The Embryo/embyros implanted are actually only 7-10 cells by 72 hours. What we classify as being "alive", is yes the movement, the multicellular organelles, respiration, excretion etc. But, when we think about cells or bugs for instance, we do not care if we crush them in fact we think that this living, breathing thing is a menace and we squash it. Yet we feel so much towards a ball of cells hardly visible to the naked eye, we have to use microscopes to view it. It is not alive, even then if one egg or embryo can be saved then it wasn't just for nothing. The female system gets rid of unused, unneeded eggs all the time. But, if one egg/embryo can be saved then it's better than nothing. The couple would want a baby, and sometimes the eggs don't get fertilized which is why they make the follicles make so many and they take so many out is so they can try to get one fertilized, which leads to why the couple couldn't naturally conceive on their own because just trying to fertilize one egg was next to impossible because of their problems.
IVF Debate

One of the main ethical issues with the IVF fertilization is the fact that the mother or father have the ability to destroy or freeze the unwanted eggs. To freeze the eggs means to keep them protected until another time which is fine until the fact that these embryos are people, they are humans, and they are alive. The embryo has DNA, a full set of 46 chromosomes, from mom and from dad. Humans are identified by their DNA and embryos do have DNA. However freezing them is one thing, but destroying them? Many have argued that the baby is not 'alive' until it is a fetus, but things with DNA are alive. They do not have to be multi-cellular organisms to be living. The second main ethical issue is what was mentioned before, the possibility of OHSS. This can be an illness even if the doctor takes every precaution, it happens. However should this procedure really be done if it can cause harm to mother and child. Doctors are suppose to relieve pain and make peoples lives happier, but people who are sick are not happy. Besides what is the point of a procedure that helps you have kids, if in the end its a toss up between getting sick or not and whether the procedure will work or not.
IVF Debate

In regards to OHSS, Doctors work to prevent this with extreme caution. They identify patients at risk by an accurate antral follicle count and measurement of anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) Levels, if they find that the patient is at a high risk they can lower the starting does for the fertility drugs , and also can decreasing the trigger dose of hCG, which is the prime stimulator of VEGF. If they do manage to get OHSS even with all the precautions, pregnancy CAN worsen it, /but/ the doctors are able to freeze all the eggs/embryos so they can treat the symptoms by either: 1. Early tapping of ascitic fluid, which reduces the load of VEGF in circulation and can show immediate improvement in the patient, or 2. The usage of metformin, it's normally used for treating type 2 diabetes and works by reducing insulin levels, because insulin stimulates VEGF, so it may reduce the chance for OHSS. One of the big reasons why IVF is needed, is because it bypasses many problems with a woman's fallopian tubes. IVF was actually first made because women who had fallopian tube damage or blockages wanted to still have children. It lessens the need to have surgery on the fallopian tubes, and in estimation has cut the number nearly 50%! It makes sure, even though they cannot have an egg pass into their uterus naturally, that one can be placed there (And it's still theirs.) without having to use a surrogate mother or to adopt.
IVF Debate

IVF may seem great and even hopeful for those couples who are 'in fertile', who wish to have kids,but are several serious problem that many don't consider. The first issue is a disease called OHSS or Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome. IVF helps increase the number of follicles by stimulating ovaries, however this can cause an exaggerated natural cycle. The ovaries produce many follicles and fluid may leak from the blood vessels. The leakage would then lead into the abdominal cavity and lungs. Due to the fact that in many cases the symptoms are mild and resolve themselves, those with severe OHSS have it much worse. Symptoms and conditions of severe OHSS include enlarged ovaries, dehydration, fatigue and the collection of large amounts of fluid in the abdomen and lungs, and sometimes blood clots and kidney failure. The mild form of OHSS occurs one in every 30 simulations. Sometimes in less severe terms there has to be a cycle cancellation which takes more time and money. However a cycle cancellation may worse the chance of getting OHSS. There are many reasons to have a cycle cancellation and you can even request it, but it puts you at a higher risk. On top of that the process it self may fail. There could be no fertilization, no embryo development, or no implantation. It could even be the labs fault, which means you spent money on a lab to help you have a baby and there were short comings.
IVF Debate

In vitro fertilization allows couples who would otherwise be considered "in fertile" to be able to have their own children. This makes for happier couples, and also a new life brought into the world no matter how it got there. It's still the mother's egg, it wasn't created out of no where by a test tube. Also it can give knowledge to the scientists and doctors performing this an insight into Birth Defects, and overall it would help prenatal care in general as being able to do this is a big advancement in science and in the health industry, to help prevent other birth defects, and in general the health for women.
Banning guns would cause a fall in gun crime

You make the points on the SECOND round! Now, you claim that banning guns would mean that people smuggle in guns, meaning that there would be no shootings whatsoever, and here is why you are wrong! Banning guns could be achieved using 3 ground rules; * Anyone who owns a gun is to be arrested * Police and security are to give tighter checks in airports to find guns * Police are to check anyone who looks like they could be holding a gun These 3 simple rules would be enough to practically eradicate gun violence. And before you say a slippery slope argument like "people would smuggle in guns", then no; the 'bad' people wouldn't have them, because of the stricter rules, and the good people wouldn't carry guns because they would have no plan to anyway.
Vaccines are safe

I have a very good argument for the safety of vaccines. There are tons of studies showing that vaccines are safe. I couldn't figure out how to post a link to it; but if you type into Google "list of studies proving that vaccines are safe and effective" you will find an article with the name VACCINE SAFETY STUDIES-THIMEROSAL-AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS that lists 20 pages of studies proving that vaccines are safe. By the way I would appreciate it if you could give a list of peer-reviewed non-discredited studies proving that vaccines are not safe or effective.
Vaccines are safe

Because vaccines are created with the actual virus, disease, ect. it gives the risk of contracting what you are trying to avoid. In fact, my brother was given a shot when he was an infant, within a few hours, he blew up and was a hard as a rock. We had to bring him to the ER. And the link of the website i am about to reference is just another point of proof. As Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), stated: "The truth is, nobody knows how many vaccine victims there are in America, how many of the 1 in 6 learning disabled children; or the 1 in 9 with asthma; or the 1 in 100 who develop autism; or the 1 in 450 who become diabetic, can trace their chronic inflammation, disease and disability back to vaccine reactions that have been dismissed by public health officials and doctors for the past century as just "a coincidence."" http://articles.mercola.com...
Splitting of 1direction , good move or a bad move

You committing the fallacy of arguing from emotion. We can be here all day arguing why it is ridiculous for some of the public to be so emotional about something like a pop band, but I know it happens. Pop bands do not sign a contract with the public that they forced into staying together forever-kind-of-thing, and ultimately they only sharing their talent. It is sure genius if they actually get a whole lot of money in the process. The public are blinded by an 'idea' and many a time it is not realistic. Pop bands aren't hurting people when they split up. The people who are getting 'hurt' need to change their perspective. Have you seen how many bands are no-one and no-where today? Who of the public died when their idols 'died'? Tomorrow another band will arise. The public is fickle and isn't loyal. Why should any celebrity bow down to serve the public with their talent? They have a talent to do with which they please surely and they have a responsibility to themselves? They owe it to themselves alone to do as they wish with it. The only thing celebs owe the public, is to lead by example for the sake of the kids.
Splitting of 1direction , good move or a bad move

Fans are rarely loyal to pop groups for very long. They like 'fad diets'. Would it really be fair to force a group to stay together if it was in their best interest to split and it begs the question; If a group wants to split but are forced to stay together, can they actually keep performing really well or will their conflict eventually spoil the music? There's a saying 'a house divided among itself won't stand'. It stands to reason that if a group wants to split, we can speculate that perhaps they running out of 'what worked' to offer and would rather break up and make it solo before spoiling it all. Leave while it's still good kind of thing.
Splitting of 1direction , good move or a bad move

Just because a group is together, doesn't make them unified in thinking, goals and direction. All may not be on equal footing when it comes to talent growth. If a group feels the need to split, the public may not know all the ins and outs which is causing the wanting to break up and it's going to happen eventually. Being together and having no agreement is far worse than if a group splits. For the record though, the alleged rumors are recorded as untrue. http://www.examiner.com.... For the sake of the argument, I will say that pop groups phase out. So it is better to split as the solo career can be more lasting and some are more likely to succeed solo while they still esteemed be 'hot'.
Mario Mendoza was a good baseball player.

That's not the resolution. The debate is whether or not Mario Mendoza was a good baseball player, plain and simple. When judging whether or not someone is good at something, we look at how he does compared to any other person doing that thing. As I showed in Round 1, using low estimates, Mendoza is still far superior to the vast majority of baseball players. If we only judged a baseball player by how he does in his own league, and we suddenly put Mendoza against a bunch of Little Leaguers and he crushed home runs in every AB, would we call him the best baseball player ever? No. We need to look at the talent he's facing. The better the talent one faces, the better he looks if he does well, and the less bad he looks if he doesn't do well. Again, as I showed, Mendoza is superior to an incredibly large number of baseball players just by virtue of his playing in the Major Leagues. Thus, he is a good baseball player. The resolution is affirmed.
Mario Mendoza was a good baseball player.

First, I'd like to welcome my friend for creating her first debate, despite her making her account so long ago. Second, I'd like to own her in this debate. The resolution is "Mario Mendoza was a good baseball player. " I have to argue that Mario Mendoza was a good baseball player. This is just obvious. Mendoza's reputation is as one of the worst MAJOR LEAGUE baseball players of all-time. However, as we all know, the Major Leagues are most likely the most talented baseball league in the world. As of today, there are 30 teams x 25 players/team = 750 Major League players at any one time. Compared to the average citizen–no, even the average baseball player, any Major League player is a beast. Only the best of the best of the best ever sniff the Major Leagues in their lifetimes. Let's shoot low and say there are 1000 high schools in the nation with baseball teams (obviously, there are far more). Then, there are at least 9 players per team. That means there are 9000 high school baseball players. Now, let's say there are 100 colleges with baseball teams (obviously there are far more), and they have 9 players per team. Now, let's say there are 3 minor league teams (each organization actually has 4 or 5) and that each minor league team has 25 players. 3 minor league teams/major league teams x 30 major league teams x 20 (again, the typical professional roster has about 25 players, so we're shooting low) players/minor league team = more than 1500 players. Add all those up, and with ridiculously low estimates, we see more than 10,000 baseball players at levels less talented than the Majors. Clearly, even if a player is horrible in the Majors, like Mario Mendoza, he is better than 10,000 other baseball players–99.99th percentile, about. Keep in mind the unbelievably low estimates I used, and Mendoza is still better than 10,000. I'd say that makes him a good baseball player. The resolution is affirmed.
Apple VS Microsft!!!!!!

sorry about the grammar. my point is that apple mocks it customers with a simple scripted OS and it has never been proven to be a valuable system considering the poor security and the costs of the systems where as only the people on top can own one. my point is that Microsoft being a top company in the computer world and being customize to a fine point gives any one a opportunity to make something like a super computer with the easy to use OS windows unlike apply because last i checked you cant balance your CPU usage on apple systems.
Young Earth Creationism is a False Theology

In other words you are not a scientist. I will treat your scientific claims accordingly. As to Gen 1:1, "bara" does not imply a need for pre-existing material and the context is to the contrary, for it we are dealing with the beginning, there would be nothing to create out of. And no, rejecting your nonsensical claims does not mean one is not taking Gen 1:1 literally. And it I necessary if that is what the text says, which it does. No question begging. It does align with God's character, your silly understanding of that character or justice not with standing . God is perfect just in punishing the children for the crimes of their ancestors and even says He does this in Ex 20:5. History is not relevant to the issue. The issue is does the Bible teach it or does it not, a Q you are doing your best to dodge. Now, about those dates?