BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mormons are Christians

I will be arguing that Mormons, or more accurately, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christians. I feel like this is a very simple debate, and that there shouldn't be conflict about it, but the belief that Mormons aren't Christians still persists. So, I leave the debate open to anyone that can argue otherwise. The definition of "Christian" is very simple and straight forward. According to Merriam-Webster, it is, "The religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ". This definition clearly includes Mormons, so I will allow my opponent to submit an alternative definition, which we will debate. The rules are that the first round for arguments and definitions, and that the second round is for rebuttals. It's very easy, and shouldn't take long. As far as conduct, just keep it clean and straightforward. I'm only here to answer one question, not decide if Mormons or another religion is better.
Mormons are Christians

Okay, so Im no expert in mormonism or christianity, but from what I do understand, Mormons believe that Jesus and God are two seperate gods. Christians believe in ONE god in three forms. Father, son, holy ghost. I did a bit of research and I found out that by your own beliefs, you all are going to end up going to hell. Mormons believe that the only way to get into heaven, is to spend all of the possible time that you have evangelizing. So basically, while you are having this debate, you could have been evangelizing, so that means that you are going to go to Hell. That is not a christian belief.
Photography: The Bastardized Child of the Arts

I deeply regret forfeiting a round, but some things came up. Here we go. you said: "The question remains, how much of the artists' spirit from the mind gets separated from a mechanical tool such as a camera, how personal is it really? When we consider these questions raised by Nietzsche, Mallarmï¿½, Heidegger, and the hermeneutics, and poststructuralism and " It was once said that a camera will do alot of things for you, but two things it wont do is decide whats in the frame and when to press the shutter. I believe that this proves that there is still much artistic integrity to photography, as the subject is pretty much what all art is about. Take portrait painting, or even still life. The subject of the painting (as simple as this concept is) is what the people look at, it is (frankly) THE SUBJECT. now, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that what the photographer puts into the frame/ what they "point the camera at" is all up to them, all artistic talent. I also feel it is necessary to revive the point that all photography is not meant to be art; take newspaper photography, mug shots, yearbook photos and the like. Final Statement: all photography is not art but photography is considered art.
Photography: The Bastardized Child of the Arts

You stated, "The stance that I will argue is that all photography is not meant to be art." This argument has yet to be supported with any evidence. I will await a response of the round 2 argument that was presented. The argument about whether photography is a valid art form or not is an intriguing one. There are certainly different levels one can delve into when analyzing this matter. The question remains, how much of the artists' spirit from the mind gets separated from a mechanical tool such as a camera, how personal is it really? When we consider these questions raised by Nietzsche, Mallarmï¿½, Heidegger, and the hermeneutics, and poststructuralism and the deconstruction studies of Walter Benjamin, Danto etc. we may then question a photograph, and how much is revealed about the object represented in it, or about something exterior to the thing itself?
Photography: The Bastardized Child of the Arts

Photography as a pure art form has been debatable from its earliest days of existence. That fact remains that there are different types of photography that serve different purposes. The quote in which you invoke from Mr. Adams offers an opinion on photography from a photographer. What it also does is reference one of the most renowned fine art photographers in photo history. Adams' photographs are pristine in there state of exactness, particularly those of the Yosemite and Yellowstone series. In those series of photographs, the aesthetic perfection and mastery of the field camera render nature in an astounding way, the likes of which have never been duplicated. These images of nature represent the epitome of beauty in art, and should not be mistaken for being only photo documents, and NOT art, even though documentary photography is in fact art. The works by Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Steichen, John Szarkowski, and Edward Weston, just to mention a few, all lend truth to the belief that documentary photography is art. If the ideas of formalism in aesthetics as defined by Emmanuel Kant in (Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, 1764) are in place at the inception of the creation of art, then such is the case that the product created is art. My contention is that photography is one of the mediums of expression that most removes the artist from the true spirit of art, which is the catalyst for creation by the artist, visual or otherwise. The technological aspect coupled with the purpose of the photograph are what potentially separates the photographer from the spirit of art, like a child snapping a picture of kitten. The overall value in the example of the photograph in the aforementioned scenario lies in the memory of the moment and holds no true artistic value. The stance in which Randomknowledge takes is that "photography is not meant to be art." In other words, this statement is claiming that photography holds a universal property to not represent art in an absolute sense. While there is a gray area that is accepted in analyzing the authenticity of photography as an art form, it would be difficult to define photography as an absolutely non-artistic form of expression. My opponent proposes a daunting task for himself.
Photography: The Bastardized Child of the Arts

Hello paul, and being an amateur photographer myself this will be interesting. You said: "I contend that the validity of photography as an art form tends to waver between true art, and false art. Some photography is art and some is not. What is in between, and why it is there is the crux of this debate." If i put that all into one sentence it would be somewhat like this: Some photography is art and some is not, and it tends to waver between true art and false art. The stance that I will argue is that all photography is not meant to be art. National geographic photographers are not looking to give art, they are photojournalists, in a sense. Yes, alot of photography is meant to be artistic, and thus making photography an ART FORM, of which you find the definition muddled. I leave you with a quote from the great Ansel Adams: Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs. Thank you.
Spinko Tournament - Conservative Showdown - Smoking Rights

I'm looking forward to a good debate.Some clarifications:As was made clear in the comments, the debate is about regulating the activity of adults who voluntarily subject themselves to tobacco smoke. An example is the operation and patronage of cigar bars, private establishments that facilitate smoking tobacco.Because semantics are inherent in word use, "no semantics" means no interpretations of the words or f the meaning of the resolution that are inconsistent with common usage in the context of the debate. Much of the context was teased out in the debate comments made up to this point.Let's have at it!
Spinko Tournament - Conservative Showdown - Smoking Rights

Resolved: On balance, the US government should regulate smoking.==Definitions==1. regulate: enforce policy to fight and prohibit the use thereof 2. smoking activity: anything that involves the use of smoking tobacco==Rules==1. No semantics2. No new arguments in the last round3. Forfeiting will result in a loss4. Drops are concessions5. BoP will be reciprocal I look forward to a good debateArgumentation will start Rd. 2
The US-Mexico Border Fence is a Good Idea

The US-Mexican border fence is a practical way to help stop illegal immigration and the problems it causes. The border fence has:- Reduced illegal immigration rates - Helped defend the economy of the United States- Reduced the influx of drugs and crime across the border- Strengthened national security- Maintained American sovereignty and bordersAlthough there are objections to the border fence, they are mostly based on weak evidence. For example:- The cost of the border fence is around $3 billion dollars. Some object that this price tag is too high, but the fact is that illegal immigrants cost US taxpayers more than $100 billion dollars every year[1]. Even when you factor in the costs of maintaining the fence, it still cost much less than the impact of illegal aliens on the American economy. - Others object that the border fence will be ineffective. The border fence has already been built, and statistics show that it has been effective, reducing apprehensions by 72% and decreasing the total illegal immigration population by 7% within 2 years. The fence reduces illegal immigration, deterres it, and encourages lawful immigration into the US. - There are also objections over the environmental impact of constructing the border fence. As the old saying goes: "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs", but the impact can be minimized by moving affected and endangered species out of the area and into specially protected habitats. And the border fence also helps reduce the 25 million pounds of trash discarded every year by illegal immigrants. In the end, the US-Mexico border fence provides more benefits than drawbacks, and above all, it has already been built and it has shown results. The fence is part of a solid solution to a major domestic problem, and it has effectively accomplished its goal: Reducing illegal immigration.
The US-Mexico Border Fence is a Good Idea

To challenge my opponents points:1) "Here's an example: In the early 1990s, the amount of people crossing the border in the San Diego region illegally every year was estimated at 600,000. After the construction of a fence and increased border patrols, that number dropped to just 153,000 in 2007."Although the number of immigrants crossing the border in certain areas may have decreased, the overall number of immigrants has done quite the opposite. In the year 1992, there were an estimated 3.4 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, or 1.3% of the American population. By 2011, the number had increased to 11.5 million, or 3.7% of the population. Meaning, there were more than three times as many illegal immigrants in the United States in 2011 than in 1992. [1] Clearly, the border fence is failing to actually stop illegal immigration, and is simply making it more costly and more dangerous for Mexicans, and increasing taxes for Americans.2) "Illegal immigrants are estimated to cost the US millions in lost income tax revenue, and they also overburden welfare and healthcare programs, draining government funds. They also affect employment rates of native low skilled workers by increasing competition for certain jobs."A good deal of the money that illegal immigration drains from American taxes is used in order to maintain and upgrade the various barriers along the US-Mexico border, as well as pay the salaries of border patrol agents. Much of the rest is due to the use of welfare, free school lunches, and other social programs, many of which are used by legal immigrants as well as ordinary American citizens. Illegal immigrants also tend to be willing to do jobs that would be harder to fill otherwise, many of which are important, although undesirable.3) "Harmful effects inflicted on the environment are another result of illegal immigration. The average illegal immigrant crossing the US-Mexico border leaves behind 8 pounds of trash, which translates into 2,000 tons of trash dumped by immigrants every year."According to a study by researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2009, the average American throws away 7.1 pounds of trash everyday. [2] This means that the average illegal immigrant only leaves behind about 0.9 pounds of trash more than the average American, and while they're crossing the border. The interruption of the natural habitats and migrations of native animal species are a larger concern, greatly disrupting the way the animals were used to living.[1]: http://immigration.procon.org...;[2]: http://www.govtech.com...;
The US-Mexico Border Fence is a Good Idea

I'll start out with some facts about illegal immigration from Mexico to the US and how it creates problems for Americans: - The US"Mexico border has the 2nd highest number of illegal crossings of any land border in the world, with an estimated 500,000 entries each year. - Illegal immigrants are estimated to cost the US millions in lost income tax revenue, and they also overburden welfare and healthcare programs, draining government funds. They also affect employment rates of native low skilled workers by increasing competition for certain jobs. - Illegal Mexican immigration has also caused an influx of crime, especially drug trafficking and gang violence. Quoting US government officials: "Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling"* - Harmful effects inflicted on the environment are another result of illegal immigration. The average illegal immigrant crossing the US-Mexico border leaves behind 8 pounds of trash, which translates into 2,000 tons of trash dumped by immigrants every year. These numbers and effects can be greatly reduced by constructing a fence along the US-Mexico border. Establishing a physical barrier and using high-tech surveillance and patrol methods don't only decrease the number of illegal immigrants; they also deter them. The border fence isn't just a dream. It has already been constructed in many places along the border and have generally proven to be successful. Here's an example: In the early 1990s, the amount of people crossing the border in the San Diego region illegally every year was estimated at 600,000. After the construction of a fence and increased border patrols, that number dropped to just 153,000 in 2007. Sources: http://www.wikipedia.org... http://www.migrationinformation.org... *http://commdocs.house.gov...
The US-Mexico Border Fence is a Good Idea

To start out I would like to make a few points. 1) The Mexican government, as well as the majority of the population of Mexico, are opposed to the barriers in place along the US-Mexico border. 2) The barriers along the border make it more and more dangerous for illegal immigrants to cross into the United States, but yet fail to stop them. It only leads them to take more risky actions, such as cross rivers and gain assistance from smugglers and drug dealers, which can easily go badly. 3) The fences along the border interrupt the movement of wildlife within its natural habitat. Two species affected are the Reticulate Collared Lizard and Coues' Rice Rat in Texas. [1] 4) Lands belonging to several Native American nations are split by the border, and any barriers along the border would isolate the Native American communities on one side of the border from those on the other, separating friends and families from each other. [2] 5) The barriers make it harder for those who simply want a better life in the United States. With the fences in place, any who want to immigrate to the US have to go through much more difficult, and sometimes dangerous, paths to escape from drug-related violence, poverty, or whatever it is that has motivated them to leave their homes. [1]: http://www.utexas.edu... [2]: http://www.thenativepress.com...
Nuclear Disarmament

Very valid points my opponent has left me, but the round is not over. My opponent's stance is a seemingly open stance. "I too wish the world had not discovered nuclear weapons". "there is nothing the US can do about it. Iran is also highly suspected to be enriching uranium for a nuclear weapons program" My opponent says that since US can't do anything, than if nuclear war happens. US just can't do anything. The UN can't do anything. No, it is not that the US can't, it is because we won't. We just won't do it, because of the stress and spending and time going into it. Also, lists of countries that have nuclear weapons is irrelevant to my case, because I am trying to prove why nuclear disarmament is viable. If nuclear war was going to happen in 10 years, I bet the UN would do everything possible to try and prevent it. I realize that I cannot un-invent technology that has been around, but that doesn't been we can't disable it. So, what if hostile countries get conquered by Isis. Isis already has enough power to conquer countries. Which scenario would you as the voter like best? Isis has acquired the Pakistan army or Isis has acquired the fastest growing nuclear program. Also, Isis is not scared of death. If they blow up Israel, and they get destroyed too, that still won't get them to stop thinking of heaven. The reason why you should vote for pro is because Pro had scenarios which were probable. My opponent never pointed out the probability argument, therefore he agrees that it is probable. If there is a probability of nuclear war, than we should do the steps to insure that the probability is very low. The risk of humanity extinct is a world that we do not want. We want our children, grandchildren to live an prosper on this Earth.
Nuclear Disarmament

I too wish the world had not discovered nuclear weapons, but if we examine the facts it will become clear they they aren't going anywhere. As you say yourself Pakistan is rapidly developing nuclear technology and there is nothing the US can do about it. Iran is also highly suspected to be enriching uranium for a nuclear weapons program. And they are not exactly friendly with the US, UK or any other "western" country. http://www.nytimes.com... I believe that with all this acceleration in nuclear weapons in the world it would be a wise idea to keep our own, if we have nuclear weapons then countries that could be wanting to attack will have to re-think as a retaliation is inevitable. You also state the world does not want a nuclear war, I agree with this to some extent as civilised western countries can see the implications and will only be possessing nuclear weapons as a deodorant. However unfortunately idealists like yourself seem to underestimate the intentions of some world leaders. Here is a link to the wiki showing how many countries possess or are believed to possess nuclear weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org... You also cannot un-invent the technology as it has been around for 70 or so years, and as you say Isis is growing in power and wealth. So while the west are disarming all of our nuclear weapons this is opening the opportunities of the power vacuum to hostile countries and organisations such as Isis. Why would you weaken yourself to other countries? this to me seems very illogical. This is why I disagree with the idealistic and potentially naive Nuclear disarmament viewpoint. ~Some of the figures from my first argument relate to the UK as that is where I am from. Also please do not judge my argument simply because I am 14 years old. I aim to debate with people of any age.
It is illogical to choose birth as the milestone for attaining rights.

"A quote from the Declaration of Independence states that men are created equal, and that they receive certain rights. It is unjust to deny a human these rights at birth because they do not classify as a person, which is a way of interrupting what my opponents believes. I feel strongly that fetus is not a human until the act of the birth occurs." Okay, first, just because the Second Continental Congress holds that all men are created equal does not mean they're right. This can't prove your case. Anyways, when are men created? At conception. Or if we take men to mean person, when they meet those qualifications, which is not at birth. "Does a fetus NEED rights? If so, when would they be exercised? Does the mother who is bearing the fetus have basic human rights over the fetus? Is a fetus entitled to rights? When does the fetus attain these rights? Does a human NEED rights?' A fetus needs one right, that is, the right to live. Also, fetuses are entitled to life, as otherwise, they could not have FLOs. At birth however ask yourself this question: Do infants need rights, if so, when would they be exercised? The answer, I would think would be that they need the right to live, same as a fetus. Other rights clearly must come later. For example, I'm 14, so I don't have the right to vote, drive, or drink. These are rights that neither fetuses or infants need. "If you read the whole part that he used, it is not stating what a person is at all, but what a human is. If you read further after the numbered points, it states..."The point is, however, that a being lacking all five couldn't possibly be human, and having (1) alone ---->(like a fetus)<---- is not sufficient." The document also goes on to state that, "A more highly-developed fetus is 'not significantly more personlike than is a very small embryo,' so we should not think late-term abortion (at 7, 8, or even 9 months) is more evil than very early abortion. '...In the relevant respects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less personlike than is the average mature mammal.'" Well, babies don't meet all the criteria either, so this could be used to justify infanticide, as could all of the other arguments in that document. Either way, birth is still an irrational point to give rights at. Take it how you will.
It is illogical to choose birth as the milestone for attaining rights.

My opponent believes that not all humans are persons, in a mental or moral sense, and that humans may not be the only persons. I have something to say towards my opponents beliefs... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (SOURCE:http://www.ushistory.org...) A quote from the Declaration of Independence states that men are created equal, and that they receive certain rights. It is unjust to deny a human these rights at birth because they do not classify as a person, which is a way of interrupting what my opponents believes. I feel strongly that fetus is not a human until the act of the birth occurs. My opponent feels that because a fetus has a "Future Like Ours", we deny it rights when wait until birth. One question: What difference does it make if wait until birth? There is none, but in my opinion it is more logical to give a human rights the moment they are born and living on their own accord, not in sync with the mother. I would like you to answer the following in your own conscience, weighing the pros and cons. Then examine where you stand in conjunction with the resolution. Does a fetus NEED rights? If so, when would they be exercised? Does the mother who is bearing the fetus have basic human rights over the fetus? Is a fetus entitled to rights? When does the fetus attain these rights? Does a human NEED rights? And now I would like to point something out from the source my opponent used to define a person. If you read the whole part that he used, it is not stating what a person is at all, but what a human is. If you read further after the numbered points, it states..."The point is, however, that a being lacking all five couldn't possibly be human, and having (1) alone ---->(like a fetus)<---- is not sufficient." The document also goes on to state that, "A more highly-developed fetus is 'not significantly more personlike than is a very small embryo,' so we should not think late-term abortion (at 7, 8, or even 9 months) is more evil than very early abortion. '...In the relevant respects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less personlike than is the average mature mammal.'"