BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God was justified in exterminating the Amalekites.

Thanks for accepting Keith6544, and welcome to DDO. I'm not a stickler for form, so don't worry about that from me. I would have advised you to look up the subject before accepting though. Why Amalek deserved to be destroyed: Amalek was apparently not a descendant of Canaan, but did dwell near them. In Genesis 15:18-21 God promises Abraham the land of the Canaanites, and lists the tribes to be displaced. Amalek is not among them, nor is Amalek mentioned in the genealogy of Canaan in Genesis 10. The Amelikites were under no particular curse like Canaan was from Genesis 9:20. Edom, Moab, and Ammon were closely related to Israel, so God specifically forbid Israel from attacking them (Deuteronomy 2). Since no order was given to attack Amalek, but only to pass by their territory, the Amelikites would have been safe if they had ignored the large group of escaped slaves passing through a desert region outside their borders. (They had not even reached Mt. Sinai yet.) But Amalek chose to attack. There was no evidence at this point that the Hebrews themselves would have presented any kind of a serious threat to Amalek, but they were the very first nation to attack Israel once they crossed the Red Sea. (Exodus 17) Not only that, but Amalek was an ancient, established regional power that stood tall along side its Canaanite neighbors (Numbers 24:20, Genesis 14:7, which was 400+ years earlier than the Exodus) that should have easily annihilated and plundered a group of oppressed refugees. So Amalek was cruel and violent, attempting to destroy and plunder refugees without provocation. To add to that, they allied themselves with the Canaanites, who regularly participated in infant child sacrifice to fertility idols(1), and treated their captives to cruel and unusual humiliation.(2) 1) http://christ.org.tw... 2) Judges 1:1-7 I do agree that all humans have equal right to survive, but with people who steal, it's only just to demand restitution. To people who take other's freedoms, we take their freedoms. And traditionally, life was held in such high regard that those who dare to take life without just cause would pay with their own lives. If Amalek had left Israel alone, they would have been left alone. That's why they deserved to be destroyed.
God was justified in exterminating the Amalekites.

Hi this is my first time debating here so apologies if I get things wrong or don't present my arguments well.. I'd like to start by saying I'm an athiest and one of my beliefs, relevant to this argument is that all humans are equal and deserve life. I'd also like to say I entered into this debate with no knowledge of the amalekites or what they had done to justify their extermination but I will start doing my research. However on the belief that all humans are equal and have an equal right to survive and thrive I'll try my best to argue against the justification of their extermination. I'll wait to hear the arguments from pro before I properly engage in the debate and use the next rounds to throw my own arguments in defence of these people into the debate.
God was justified in exterminating the Amalekites.

Amalekites: An ancient tribe that occupied some of the Sinai peninsula and up into Canaan South of Gaza. (Approximately) God: Living God of the Bible. Justified: With good cause, appropriate measure. In line with moral and legal law. Extermination: Executed by King Saul as described in 1 Samuel chapter 15. For this debate, you don't have to believe the events occurred, but you must argue about the justification of the events, not the existence of the events. If you want to have the debate that X event in the Bible didn't occur, we can do that in a separate debate.
We need to do more to stop Global Warming.

Contention 1: Sea Level The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. (http://joannenova.com.au...) The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all. This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...) The source is the PDF within the link. My opponent states that my source for the artic ice growth is not creditable, but prehaps an almanac is. In the graph bellow is showing that the Artic ice is actually regained in the winter! (http://www.almanac.com...) The above graph is a sea level graph from NOAA and this shows that if the current study holds firm that the Sea Levels are to be near a zero change by the end of the century. (http://www.c3headlines.com...)Contention 2: Hurricanes and naturual dissasters. In the graph above you can see that tornados are at an all time low in the past 60 years! (http://wattsupwiththat.com...) But what about Hurricanes? Here is a graph showing the number of days between hurricanes and this shows that the number of days between hurricanes is greatest at 76 days between hurricanes.The slope of this line is zero showing no trend of a massive storm increase.Contention 3: GoreThough I agree with my opponent that one person disagreeing doesn't prove a fact, but the last quote I gave by Al Gore showed that the warming graphs are distorted due to the cities being warmer and such. He also admitted that the data he made for the Inconvient Truth was fudged.
We need to do more to stop Global Warming.

To start you stated that sea levels aren't rising, but then what happened in 1960 to cause the sea levels to decrease their rise and you state that from 1970 and on their has been no change at all to the sea level, I find this hard to believe. Your source for your graph doesn't even open.This graph shows how much the sea has risen in the last century. http://www.epa.gov...As for your second argument the graph you showed are no evidense to support its claims and your source is not trustworthy and has no facts to back it up.For your third argument that their are less hurricanes that could be true, but climate related natural disasters aren't just hurricans it also includes floods, storm surges, and coastal flooding.This graph shows the increase. http://www.accuweather.com...You said I said, "just because Al Gore said Global Warming doesn't exist does not exist."While I said, "Just because Al Gore said it wasn't true doesn't mean that it isn't"As if i'm impling that Al Gore said that it wasn't true, but that doesn't mean that it is not true.What i'm saying is Al Gore doesn't know everything. Finally if your not convinced just look at the reports that the CDC, EPA, and even the white house has addressed this problem and if you read these articles you'll see that they agree with my facts.http://www.whitehouse.gov...http://www.cdc.gov...http://www.epa.gov...;
We need to do more to stop Global Warming.

Sea Levels My opponent claims that the sea level is rising, but the real fact is that it is not. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...)From the period of 2007 to 2008, the Artic Ice sheets grew by 30%. (http://ginacobb.typepad.com...) HurricanesMy opponent is claiming that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false! The hurricanes since the year 1900 to 2008 have actually been decreasing. The slope of this downward slope is .0016. Though it is small the hurricanes are still in a downward trend. As a matter of fact not only are Hurricanes on a downward trend, but they are at an all time low as in the year 2010, there was only 68 Hurricanes Globally, which is an all time low in the past 40 years. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...) GoreMy opponent said just because Al Gore said Global Warming doesn't exist does not exist. Thought I agree with that statement let me give you a quote from Al Gore:“When we talk about Earth’s temperature, we are really talking not about overall temperature but about our cities’ temperatures, as that’s where the vast majority of people live. The fact is: cities are in fact hotter now than they were 40 years ago. This is true. The higher temperatures in recent decades is the direct result of ‘urban sprawl’.” Gore stated. ”Take a city like Los Angeles which has urban sprawl in all directions, sprawl that has tripled and quadrupled over the past 50 years. The vast networks of roads, concrete, glass, steel, and other raw materials now covering this once arid landscape create the temperature rise. Simply put: concrete, tar, metal, glass, steel, heat up far more during the day than fields, valleys, rivers, and forests, thus increasing temperature in the most densely populated cities. If temperatures were measured in the middle of nowhere there would be no significant increase.If we were to return Los Angeles today to the rural landscape, as it was in say 1880, the temperature in the middle of the day would be 5-10 degrees lower than it is now. So, the bigger the urban sprawl, the higher the temperature. We have used these alarming statistics, that this city, or that city has posted the highest temperature, or the hottest month in the past 100 years to scare people and manipulate statistics to support our hysterical viewpoints.” (http://www.thomaspeep.com...)
We need to do more to stop Global Warming.

Global warming isn't climate change it is the gasses trapped in the atmosphere and it could be possible that the climate could lower because of small differences in Earths orbit. Even if we have another ice age it will still be slightly warmer because of the gasses trapped in the atmosphere. The sea level is also rising, in the last century the sea levels have risen 6.7 inches, but you look in last decade, the decade where we have more cars, factories, and natural gas burning. The rate that the sea level has risen in the last decade has doubled from the last century. According to NASA the ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic have shrunk about 36 to 60 cubic miles of ice. The main types of gases the are trapped in the atmosphere are C02 and Methane gas. From the years 400,000 to 50,00 the CO2 has never been above 300 parts per million. Our current CO2 level is almost at 400 parts per million. http://www.epa.gov... http://climate.nasa.gov... http://data.giss.nasa.gov... If you look at this graph here you will see that the average temperature on Earth has risen by about .8 degrees Celsius since 1880. Finally if you look at the amount of natural disasters from the 1950's their has been an 80% increase in natural disasters due to climate-related change. Climate related disasters include floods, storms, and coastal flooding. In the 1950's their were less then 50 climate related disasters then we look ahead to 1980 their was about 150 incidents, then in 1990 their was around 300 incidents, and finally you look at 2012 you see that their was about 350 disasters. http://www.accuweather.com... Just because Al Gore said it wasn't true doesn't mean that it isn't. Their is data that shows the Earth has warmed up at an accelerated rate in the last 30 years, (http://data.giss.nasa.gov...) and sea levels have doubled their rate of increase in the last 20 years. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com...
We need to do more to stop Global Warming.

I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (http://www.cnsnews.com...) If you gaze at the image I had provided you. You can see that Earth is in a pattern and currently cooling off and the IPCC is incorrect with their predictions. We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier this year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (http://www.nytimes.com...)How about Al Gore. The man who brought Global Warming to our attention? In 2009, the man breaks down in tears stating how it's nothing, but hot air and how he fabricated everything just for the money! He said the arctic sheets are not melting and CO2 is not responsible for depletion of the Ozone. (http://www.thomaspeep.com...) Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare. 1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice. 2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago. 3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (http://www.newsmax.com...)
We need to do more to stop Global Warming.

To start global warming is doing more damage then you might think, it is causing more floods and droughts, which besides the injuries and deaths leads to the government paying for repairs and taking money away from more important matter such as our governments dept. To stop global warming we need to lower our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% and to do this we need to have new laws and restrictions along with just day to day tasks to help stop it. While we might not be able to lower it by that much, we still need to lower it some or we will have bigger problems in our future. Sources http://geography.about.com...
Abortion is murder and wrong

You are restating what you have already said in almost, if not every, round. You are not proving anything new. At least I'm bringing something new to the table. I thought that the video would convict you, but it obviously did not. I would like to ask what you would say to questions. By the way in round 2 and 3 I mentioned Steve Jobs. I asked a question to go along with it. I would like you to answer it. Also, I asked if the mother on a whim should leave her child just because she uses her body irresponsibly. An infant depends on the mother for their health and nourishment. Should we just abandon it because we feel like it? Because we don't want to take responsibility? Do you see where I'm going? I would love it if you answered all these questions with, of course, your opinions. The essay I don't have access to so unfortunately you won't be able to read it. I hope this subject you have been pondering about.
Abortion is murder and wrong

Con again presents no argument in round 4, again using 'Appeal to emotion'. Since Con has made no arguments nor rebuttals the last two rounds, I can only conclude that I have won this debate. I will now restate my arguments. The abortion of a human fetus is not murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. A fetus is not a human being, it does not yet exist as a human. A fetus is a human embryo. Abortion is a safe medical procedure, with the rare death of the woman resulting in 1 in 160,000. This compared with death in childbirth which is 13.3 in 100,000. The U. S. Bill of Rights guarantees that religious beliefs will play no role in abortion. "the Declaration of Independence. .. states 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" Con argued that this applies to a fetus, which is not yet a human being, nor has it been created. However, in this same quote, the Declaration of Independence guarantees Liberty. Obviously included in liberty is Self-ownership, which is the right of the person to be the exclusive controller of his or her body and life. Therefore, women have the right to abortion. "Also, I hope that you are against what Hitler did to the Jewish people. If you don't then I have an essay in the next round to give to you. " Of course I didn't like the holocaust. I'm not sure how this is relevant, or what is intended by this. I would ask that you remember this is a debate about abortion.
Abortion is murder and wrong

Please understand that this is a debate. These are not personal attacks. You have completely ignored the basis of the debate and are now resorting to providing your personal opinion. From skimming this, I see that, you are in fact, still using logical fallacies. This entire paragraph is an example of 'Appeal to emotion'. Now that you have essentially forfeited round 3, I'll explain. I never said that you are approving rape. I said that your logic could equate to approving rape.(Which it still does) I never dismissed your information as viable. I did however, prove that it is exaggerated. Abortion is still safer than childbirth. "You don't believe in God.. That's a completely different issue" This is completely off topic, but you feel the need to keep bringing this up. I am simply saying that the basis of your argument cannot be "abortion is bad, because god says it is". That is not a logical argument. "No I haven't proved anything and neither have you" Now, I will tell you what I have proved and disproved. I have proven that abortion of a human fetus is not murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. A fetus is not a "being". It does not exist as a human yet. It is a developing human embryo. Abortions actually can be performed while the fetus is still in the embryonic stage. Abortion is not murder anymore than masturbation is. To consider abortion murder we have to define murder as: an act that would directly impede the result of a woman being impregnated and giving birth. So now we have to think of everything as 'potential humans'. Rape is forced sex, if vaginal would result in pregnancy.(assuming the woman is fertile) So, if you were to stop a rape, you would be a murderer. We can also extend this to, if a time becomes available that you could create a human, not doing so would be impeding pregnancy;thus it is murder. Therefore, if you do not rape a woman, you are a murderer. As I had pointed out, this obviously does not make sense. That is why you should question the logic. I have proven that abortion is a safe medical procedure, and in comparison with childbirth, is safer. I have proven that the U.S. Bill of Rights protects womens' rights to abortion. I have proven that a human fetus does not equal a human being. I have proven that Con has no valid arguments, or counterarguments. In regards to one argument, Con actually said "there is proof that god exists, I believe god exists. Read the bible", as an attempt to enforce his personal religious views and beliefs on me. I have now won this debate, but the next two rounds will be interesting.
Abortion is murder and wrong

You say that I'm approving rape. This is not true. I do not believe in nor do I want it to happen. What I'm saying is once you are raped, the sperm has been sent. Fertilization may have begun to take place. If rape was stopped, this wouldn't be a problem. It would've been better without the rape so the mother would not have to put into his type of situation. Killing the wrong person isn't or shouldn't be a solution though. No I haven't proved anything and neither have you. It's hard convincing some of their wrong thoughts. You don't believe in God.. That's a completely different issue. Anyways, abortion should not be a solution of rape Then, you say that all of the data of mental and physical damage are not true. I stated very worthy sites and am wondering if you checked them out. Don't put words in my mouth either. Debate fairly. I would like you to go onto Google images and look up aborted children. There you can see their head, eyes,feet, and hands. It's very saddening that people would pay at least $1000 to get rid of a kid that could go to a right home where they could be loved. Steve Jobs could have been killed but his parents gave him a chance and look where he went with it.
Abortion is murder and wrong

You started with my first argument that whatever has a heartbeat is living. This is true. True, animals have heartbeats and I find it terrible to kill them, but it still has a heartbeat. When you have an abortion it cuts off the heartbeat thus, killing your own child. Even in the situations of rape the man should be the one to blame. The child, on the other hand is simply a consequence of the man's actions. This child is innocent and had no part in their mother's rape. No baby is unwanted. Steve Jobs was adopted and obviously was a wanted kid by a family because he was adopted into the family. If his mother decided to abort instead of adopt, where would Macintosh be today? No where. I probably wouldn't even exist and it's one of the most used computers. You then stated my next point. Abortion is not safe. It's not "meerly a hypothesis." Many studies have proved that many women after aborting their child have had a higher chance at cervical, ovarian, and liver cancer along with miscarriages. Also, many women after aborting have tried committing suicide and have had physiological complications like: post traumatic stress disorder, increased smoking, use of alcohol, and drugs. It also shows that the mother starts to neglect or abuse their child due to depression and other mental issues and the mother is more prone to an unstable marriage. They become emotional unstable. So with all these medical issues, how can you say that abortion is safe? Abortion could, perhaps, not only be fatal to the child, but the mother as well. Then, you said that your "final rebuttal" was that there is no proof that there is a god and thus, you are not disobeying anyone. This would be shown in a different argument that we can make later, but I believe there is a God. Read the Bible. And the things you are doing to disobey him are that you are murdering and you are destroying the plan God already had made for the child that you just killed. In "the Declaration of Independence...states 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." Allowing abortion directly contradicts the Founding Fathers' intentions for an inalienable right to life in this country." You say that "abortion is a medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy at any stage that does not result in birth." It terminates a life. No, the fetus cannot maintain life on it's no, but that's no reason to kill it. It has a heartbeat and is a living being. Born babies cannot live without their parents either so does that mean if one day on a whim, we leave them to die just because you don't feeling like being a mom anymore? That's wrong. It's the mother's choice to have sex (unless it's rape) and she has the choice to take some birth control which works 99% of the time. The mother shouldn't be able to kill her child for her irresponsibility. Check out these three sites: http://abortion.procon.org...- look under both sections http://afterabortion.org... http://afterabortion.org...
Abortion is murder and wrong

Abortion is wrong for so many reasons. Firstly, it is killing an innocent child. When many women kill their child, their kid has a beating heartbeat by then and whatever has a heartbeat is living. Also, people think it's safe. Think again. Anyone can do some research and see the amount of things that can go wrong after an abortion. Another thing is that it's completely disobeying God. Abortion is thus, wrong. This country outlaws murder, but yet they make some exceptions. Abortion is murder and should be outlawed.