BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The God of the Jews exists, and Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy, is the correct religion.

I'm not entirely sure what my opponent dislikes about my arguments. I have proven that God exists because there is no other explanation for the creation of the universe. If my opponent disagrees with this, he must either offer an alternative explanation, or prove why mine cannot be true. I reaffirm my previous arguments. My opponent says: "God can not be proved in man's eyes. It even says so in the old testament. ‘Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. '" I find it interesting that in a debate about Judaism, my opponent uses a Christian website as a source. [1] Here is a Jewish translation for that verse: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not rely upon your understanding. " [2] A small difference, perhaps, but vital. It means that lack of understanding God is not an excuse to lack belief. It does not mean that person cannot use natural science to bolster his beliefs, and it certainly does not mean that "God can not be proved in man's eyes. " A simple look at context will tell you that this is written in the form of advice, anyway, and not as a commandment or statement of fact. Additionally, Jewish philosophy books traditionally hold that a person is required to investigate to his greatest ability the existence of God through natural sciences and logic. [3] Clearly, this would not be the case if the author knew the Bible said that's impossible. [1] . http://biblos.com... [2] . http://www.chabad.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The God of the Jews exists, and Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy, is the correct religion.

I am not joking around, but my argument is going to be very short. Burden of Proof. You must prove to me that Judaism is the correct religion. You just gave simple statements that does not prove anything. God can not be proved in man's eyes. It even says so in the old testament. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." I look forward to your response. Sources: (1). http://bible.cc...
The God of the Jews exists, and Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy, is the correct religion.

The entity described as God in Orthodox Judaism is real, and has all the qualities attributed to Him by Orthodox Judaism, and Orthodox Judaism, with all its doctrines, laws, and practices, is the only true religion. 1.There is a God of some sort, because there is no other explanation as where the world came from. All scientific evidence points towards a creation point of the Big Bang, but science is at a loss to find a cause for the Big Bang. Logically, something not bound by the laws of cause-and-effect e.g., God, caused it. 2.Assuming God is benevolent (we can assume this because a supreme being would have no other need for us than to show us his benevolence), he would give us happiness. 3.True happiness cannot be given, because then it is charity, and the happiness would be marred by the lack of comfort that is universal with the acceptance of charity. Therefore, a system would have to be set up in order to earn happiness. 4.The happiness would be most effective in a place that is dedicated to happiness. This place cannot exist on earth, if only because the suffering of others who have not earned happiness would mar the happiness of those who did earn it. Therefore, an afterlife would have to be created, and happiness would not necessarily be given in this world. 5.A benevolent God would give instruction as to how to earn this happiness, because creating a system which no one knows how to use is as cruel as not creating one at all. 6.He would give it an extraordinarily large amount of people, and not one person, because one person, even a person demonstrating miracles, can be conceived as a hoax. However, a very large amount of people, all stating God spoke to them, cannot be conceived as a hoax, because it is impossible to convince thousands of people a) that God spoke to them when he didn't, or b) to lie to the rest of humanity and claim that. It is equally impossible to claim that God spoke to thousands when he didn't, because one cannot produce the thousands or their descendants. (Obviously, the thousands must survive for this to hold true.) 7.The only religion to claim this is Judaism. 8.If God changed his mind about how the system works, he would have to hold another event to rival the original. Since neither Christianity nor Islam nor any other religion based on the Bible claim this, they must all be false. 9.The Old Testament's (according to Judaism, the only testament) laws and statements cannot be followed as is, since it is written in a highly esoteric and poetic form (e.g., "thou shalt bind toetafos [Hebrew] between thine eyes…" what are "toetafos"? How does one make them? Where between the eyes do they go? None of this information is given.). Therefore, there must be an accompanying oral explanation handed down with the original written Bible. 10.Orthodox Judaism is the only branch of Judaism that possesses such an explanation, handed down through the generations, and considers it completely valid.
I think you, the contender, suck

"I think you, the contender, suck" that's mean! Ya know what? now that I think of it why the hell is this a thing? I think you ar--- HOLD IT!! http://prntscr.com... what if I show that to you... how do you feel now? pretty bad I assume... >:D HAHAHA OH!! YEAH!! BEAT THAT ONE FOR THE RECORD! YOU THINK YOU WIN BUT YOU SURE CAN TRY! OH OH OH! I'M UNBEATABLE! what was the point of this debate anayways? suck in what way? TELL ME!
Christians should say the Pledge of Allegiance to America.

Pro says that "we pledge allegiance to our flag (or to the nation it represents) only to the extent that the civil government does not require us to disobey God"s laws, either deliberately or inadvertently (Acts 5:29)." This, however, is not true allegiance. Pledging your allegiance means pledging your self COMPLETELY to something. The Bible says "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other." (Matthew 6:24) This means that you can not split up your devotion between a country and Yahweh. The allegiance of a Christian, by definition, has already been given to Christ and can therefore not be given to anything else. If a person is true to his or her oath of allegiance to America (which the average person has given dozens of times), then no matter what America decides to do, that person must support the decision or break their oath. The person that breaks the oath has, consequently, been living a life of deceit towards America. However, if that person had followed the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew, then their life of lies would never have been. Instead, they would have been living a life, not drenched in deceitful pledges, but one dedicated to Yahweh.
Christians should say the Pledge of Allegiance to America.

The Bible commands Christians to be good citizens of the country in which they live. He has set civil governments over all people. In Romans 13:1, the apostle Paul stated that every Christian should "be subject unto the higher powers." However, we understand that our foremost allegiance is to God. We pledge allegiance to our flag (or to the nation it represents) only to the extent that the civil government does not require us to disobey God"s laws, either deliberately or inadvertently (Acts 5:29). A related question arises, concerning whether it is proper to salute the flag. Some consider this a form of idolatry. Saluting the flag is merely a way of showing respect, and is not of and by itself an act of worship. God commands us, in Romans 13:1-7, to show honor and respect where they are deserved. We salute the flag not because it represents another god, but because it symbolizes the many blessings"freedom being just one"that the Eternal God has bestowed upon one"s nation. It is not wrong for people to pledge allegiance to their nation, as that nation attempts to provide for the security and general welfare of its citizens (however imperfectly), and strives to foster international peace. Again, Christians are to be subject to the laws of the higher powers (Rom. 13:1), as long as such laws are not in conflict with God"s laws. Just as we pay taxes and comply with the laws of the land, we should also render honor and respect where it is due.
Christians should say the Pledge of Allegiance to America.

Firstly: whether or not this debate is entitled 'Christians should not say the pledge' or 'Christians should say the pledge' does not, in fact, change the scope of the debate. I would still be arguing against Christians saying the pledge and 1970vu would still be arguing against me. Anyway. .. On to the actual debate! I'm going to start by defining some of the terms that I will focus on. (All definitions from . http://dictionary.reference.com... ) 1) Pledge- A solemn promise or agreement to do or refrain from doing something 2) Allegiance- Loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like. 3) Oath- A formally affirmed statement or promise accepted as an equivalent of an appeal to a deity or to a revered person or thing; affirmation. As I stated in round one, I will be using the Bible as my main source. The first passage I would like to bring up is Matthew 5:33-37 in which Jesus says: "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn. " But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply "Yes" or "No"; anything more than this comes from evil. " We see here that Jesus clearly says not to take Oaths. A Pledge, as seen in the definitions, can easily be called an oath and have the same meaning. Based on this, a Christian should not pledge themselves to any country, which, of course, includes America. SIDE NOTE: I want to make it clear to everyone reading this debate and to my opponent that I believe in supporting your country. I believe that Christians are supposed to support their fellow humans, which includes supporting the societies/countries in which mankind exists.
Ethics can be defined apart from God

Is there a definition of Ethics that can be put away from God? Can we say that Ethics has nothing to do with a divine creature? Firstly we need to define Ethics, according to Aristotle, which was the first one to introduce the concept (however no the first one to talk about it), ethics is the seek of a greater good, a good that is seek for itself, some may call that greater good later "happiness". This greater good assumes there is an objective good (a truth), and according to other philosophers before Aristotle, there is no such thing as evil (just as there is no such thing as darkness, just the absence of light), These philosophers would relate knowledge with the greater good, using other words. They used to say there is an objective truth to find, and once you find it and know it, you can act towards it, and then achieve the greater good, this truth can also be known as education or knowledge, and in fact, according to these philosophers (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, sorry if i miss someone) knowledge leads you to the greater good, because if you don't understand or know the truth you can't achieve goodness. If what i just wrote is confusing, let me explain it better with an example but before i start let me clear out something. I mentioned an objective truth, and it is truth that for several anthropologists, even Aristotle mentioned it, all the actions human being takes reach a good purpose, meaning human being is always tending to goodness however Aristotle explains that this is a mere consequence of ignorance, if i don't know what the objective truth is, then i can't reach the greater good. I might think I'm doing good, but there is an objective good that if i dare to learn the truth i will recognize as the objective good and therefore accept my mistakes. For example, a drug addict is doing no good to himself when using drugs, he however doesn't intend to harm himself while doing this. The idea of greater good for him is to feel pleasure that comes from drug use. This idea of goodness, make us wonder about the objectiveness of the greater good that's why Aristotle explains ignorance, the drug addict will remain relativist about goodness until he educates himself and finds out what the real truth is. So if Ethics is the seek of the greater good, which is objective and constant. There should be something greater that guide human kind towards it, is it god? I'll take a catholic position for the purpose of this debate and i will say God is that objective truth that exists, and is limitless therefore can't be reached fully, to go towards god is to try to know the truth therefore to seek greater good. Having said that you can't put aside God and Ethics, no matter what religion you profess.
one plus one equals two

Counter Rebuttals My opponent's argument is highly irrelevant to the resolution and therefore it can be easily dismissed without a link to the resolution the argument makes no sense in regards to the resolution and voters (and I) am not obliged to infer what I wish from this argument. On a side note, I agree that not all Americans are the same and that they shouldn't be classified separately by this. They should be classified by their beliefs ideologies, appearances personality, DNA etc. 1+1=11 because 1 and 1 are equal to eachother and in physical appearance are also the same. Thereby, we can use logic to determine that two of these added together would equate to 11 because two of the physical forms of 1 are added and 11 consists of 1+1. ConclusionMy opponent has not been able to present ANY arguments at all to support the little burden that they have. Nor have they been able to provide me with any rebuttals apart from a strange comparison that makes little - no sense in regards to the resolution being discussed. I have met my BOP due to the fact that I provided many arguments all of which have been dropped. My opponent has simply presented me with extremely poor conduct to make up for the lack of arguments and rebuttals on their behalf. My BOP is met. The resolution is negated.
one plus one equals two

NoteThere may be something unclear here which I am just going to quickly clarify. The resolution never said whether we are physically adding numbers or whether we are adding the digits. I look at definitions when making my case and as stated previously the definition of plus is defined as a physical addition and therefore we can get the number 1 (physically) and get another one and join them together. This joining makes two 1s next to eachother which makes 11. Note To Voters I'll just like to make a few things clear. Voters should be voting without looking at this in a bias manner because it may seem obvious that 1 add 1 is 2 however judges must impartially judge debates without actually using your opinion when deciding the matter. With that said, you can use your opinion to determine the burdens but your overall analysis should not be based on what you believe. It should be about how arguments contribute to the burdens being met and whether or not they have been fulfilled. Also I'd like to make note of poor conduct: "you maybe too stupid enough to think that 1+1=11 in which it isn't."It doesn't matter how obvious that you think that this notion is, the fact is that it offensive and rude and voters ought to presume Con on the conduct point at the very minimum. BurdensMy opponent has not fulfilled his portion of the BOP. Whilst I agree that the burdens lie heavily on Con (ie. me), they are not completely on me and since my opponent agrees with the notion that the resolution presents, my opponent is obliged to prove this notion to be true. My opponent's position may be a lot easier to affirm however without a valid response to the negative case and without a constructive case on their own, my opponent cannot affirm and win this debate. ArgumentsAll arguments are extended due to the fact that my opponent dropped all of them. Rebuttals"1+1=2 simple math"Where is your proof for this claim? This is under your burden to prove. Not mine. It bares little weight upon the resolution unless it is actually proven with sourcing or alternative means of evidence. "it's not about adding digits" Really? The definition of plus allows me to rationally come to the conclusion (and assume that) we are referring to the numbers as in their physical form and therefore my addition of physical digits is justified.
one plus one equals two

My NotionIf you have a 1 and you have another 1. This makes 11. Therefore 1 plus 1 is 11. My Proof The definition of plus is as follows: "with the addition of" [1]'1 with the addition of 1' means that you must add a 1 onto a 1. Adding a 1 onto a 1 means that they must be combined to make one number [2]. Therefore, that one number is 11. As you can see, the two 1,1s make 11 which is the answer to the problem that you claim to know the answer to. Sources[1]https://www.google.co.uk... [2] https://www.google.co.uk...;
Swearing is, on balance, a negative influence on society

"And on swearing, let us be abundantly clear that we are not talking about swearing an oath or promise"This is about f*cking swearing, loud and clear."Due to the nature of this debate though Con is allowed to use swear words (I will ardently refrain from doing so), although I don't want an excessive degree of swearing."Loud and clear, I will try to not f*cking swear so much like I do in other debates. F*ck, I just swore.....Aw sh*t....Arg, Let the debate begin!!!!
Swearing is, on balance, a negative influence on society

I thank Imabench for agreeing to debate this interesting topic with me. It is a controverial topic which I'm quite sure would rouse many a rabble, many a believer in free speech etc. I intend to show though that swearing is, on balance, a negative influence on society. On another note, this debate is part of MIG's temporary debate tournament, round 2. Resolution matters With regard to the resolution I wish to have no semantics games or stupidity. Readers, assume typical definitions where required. For instance, let's not argue what ‘on society' constitutes – it's obvious. That said, let's be clear on a few matters:‘On balance' refers to a weighing of positives and negatives. Basically, ‘on balance, a negative influence' refers to the negatives outweighing the positives. While the word ‘influence' is used, which tends to imply a factor into actions taken, this debate will also discuss the actual impacts of swearing and how this is bad for society. ‘Influence' therefore will refer both to actual impacts and how one's mindset is changed. More on this later. And on swearing, let us be abundantly clear that we are not talking about swearing an oath or promise. Chivalry is indeed a fascinating subject, yet we are not discussing oaths here. To outline a suitable definition for swearing, I sourced this . http://www.pement.org......: "By swearing, we mean the use of profanity, obscenity, or coarse language. .. To use biblical terms, swearing includes "corrupt words" (Eph. 4:29), "filthy language" (Col. 3:8, NIV), and "cursing" (James 3:10)"One might consider ‘to swear at' to mean:"To use abusive, violent, or blasphemous language against; curse" - . http://www.thefreedictionary.com......I think however that readers have a general understanding of what swearing is, so we needn't go be too specific about it. This debate is not intended to get stuck in a quagmire over specifically what constitutes swearing, although that is an issue at hand. Debate StructureRound 1: Definitions, resolution matters and acceptanceRound 2-3: Advancing of arguments, clash etc. Round 4: Final arguments and conclusionsIt should be noted that both debaters should not bring up entirely new arguments in their final rounds, although rebuttals and the introduction of supporting evidence is permissible. Basic debating rules of conduct and such apply. Due to the nature of this debate though Con is allowed to use swear words (I will ardently refrain from doing so), although I don't want an excessive degree of swearing. ..
Commercial Debate

This debate is a commercial debate. We will show each other commercials that we deem effective in showing their main goal. Effective - producing a result that is wanted : having an intended effect (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) The only rules are that the round 1 is acceptance (no posting commercials yet), limitation of two PSAs, and you do not need to post a commercial that tackles the same topic as your opponent. You can write some text talking about the commercial if needed. Good Luck!
it could never de determined through votes who won a debate

yes, and me being right proves my case, where as your oppinion stands negated on its own and me beating you down with ease without you even fighting back proves your non existence in the debate all togeather.. besides, political correctness is like children getting raped no votes can never be a tool to determine who won a debate.. argumentum ad populum.. its a fallacy.. impression means nothing, this is no singing contest... i am aware people see this as a kinder garden club
Environmental sustainability & public health are more important than short-time profit

One last G"day, its my last argument. I'm going to only enhance this last argument, because Con hasn't responded. My whole debate was a little pessimistic, so I'm going to point out the more positive facts. Especially the growth of the production and the fall of the price of renewable energy. China is in lead, that is a good thing since China"s the worst polluter. We could invest in Sahara, Outback, Gobi desert and in the Nevada desert. About inequality, there is some hope, because more and more countries are getting developed and people will fight for better life standards, however the inequality is growing. Compare the UK in the 19th and the UK in the 21st century.Many countries are slowly developing Eco- technologies, but too slow. For instance,even if we start doing everything to protect the environment, stop the Global warming and similar, we still will experience some extra warming until the climate will start stabilising.But we´ve got to do something to stop the growing population. The most effective way is to improve human condition, wealth and education. The emergency way is to regulate/limit the number of children per family. India is a country that has to do something about their population. Very soon India is going to have a larger population than China. If we wont control the global population, then we´re about to experience economical, environmental and social dangers. The human population growth is worrying,isn't it: Nordic countries if compared to Russia, have a different way of industry. Russia has a higher environmental and health pollution causing shorter life, meanwhile countries that took care of how the industry develops, especially f they were concerned with health, made a better future, that is also more healthy. Environment can fix it self, Aldus it takes much time and many loses can be observed. We´ve made a lot of problems that future generations will have to take care of. Its worrying, but there is a possibility that future technology´ll help to solve the problems.Well, thanks for the little debate.