BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islam should be banned in the United States on the basis of being a death cult, not a religion.

the last little Girl who wanted to argue for Shar'ia law in the United States of America rather than our constitution, ran away when I challenged her to a debate on this singlularly most important issue facing the free world. Flat out, Islam promotes the insurrection against and take over of governments with politics lawyers and then violent force to implement Sha'ria law. It should be immiediately banned in all free nations. today. anyone who wants to argue FACTS on this issue, and not YOUR FEELINGS about it Feel free to take me on Any muslim "scholars" out there?
I want to debate whether Jesus is the God of the Bible.

Jesus said in Matthew "go ye therefore unto many nations and make disciples of many nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost". My folloup question to you is that only God Himself is important name, so Jesus must be God. Id like to revisit this scripture if I may: Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
I want to debate whether Jesus is the God of the Bible.

Agreed, but I was proving your source wrong. No harm, no foul. Look, I'm sorry for being rude. I just really love Jesus. He has done so much for me when I don't deserve it. He saved my life. I was going to kill myself until He saved my soul. I guess my point is that I remain unconvinced at your lack of evidence. Why aren't you going to blueletter bible.org and posting your own evidence?
I want to debate whether Jesus is the God of the Bible.

I feel like I made a mistake. I am presuming that Jesus is the God of the Bible, but not yet ready to debate anything else. Does the Bible say Jesus is God in human flesh? Yes, let's review my evidence, if you please. The Scripture: John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. I AM from the Greek Ego Ami from the Hebrew YHWH is a claim to be God. There's more: John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus never refused worship. Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: The Firstborn of all creation is a Hebrew idiom. Philippians 2:6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: John 10:30 I and my Father are one. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? https://www.gotquestions.org... https://www.gotquestions.org... Please watch:
2016+ Dodge Challengers are better than 2016+ Ford Mustangs

Challengers are more expensive for a reason. 2016 v6 Challenger MSRP is $26,995 19MPG city/ 30MPG hwy 2016 v6 Mustang MSRP $24,145 17MPG city/ 28MPG hwy I was wrong. You pay more for a mustang if you factor in gas. So you pay more for a slower car. 👍 Also Challengers have more hp not just in the v6 but all other sub models too.
A Christian can not lose salvation

Annanicole and myself have discussed this topic at length in the forums. This has resulted into this debate at hand. The object of this debate will be for us both to bring forth our interpretation of scripture to determine who is more convincing for readers. Resolution: A Christian can not lose salvation! This resolution maintains that a person has become Christian by salvation through Jesus Christ. That because of that salvation they have eternal life and can never lose it by any actions that comes forth. I shall show that if one refuses God, they have never received salvation from Jesus Christ. I think I should define what a Christian is and what salvation is right now. Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. Not just a member of a Christian church or born into a Christian family. One who believes, has faith and received Jesus Christ. One who has been baptised and born again in the blood of Christ. Salvation: The act of grace from Jesus Christ by protecting one from harm, risk, loss, destruction, in eternal damnation. To gain eternal life through Jesus Christ. BOP is upon both. I must show hat salvation is eternal and an not be lost once it has been given. My opponents must show that one who has receive salvation from Christ can lose it. Rules: 1. No semantics 2. Must stay on topic 3.
The current method of determining debate winners is extremely flawed.

That's not true at all. It is a widespread, incorrect belief that debate requires a judge. Debate only requires judges when one or both participants have no idea what they are doing. Debate is supposed to be a tool to uncover truth. It's supposed to be an exchange of arguments in order to validate or falsify a belief. Two people state their arguments, and try to find error in what they believe. It was never meant to be a competition, but a method of self-check. With all this focus on competitions and winning, this is commonly forgotten. And now, the obsession with winning a debate has completely clouded over the true essence of debating: to test and strengthen one's beliefs. As I have said before, judges should only be part of a debate in order to catch logical fallacies and error in argument, not to pick a winner. The winner of a debate should always be apparent based on whose arguments remain standing after the smoke clears. In addition, judges are not supposed to be biased. All judges rule for a particular reason. Right now, there are many good arguments and participants who are treated unfairly because of this "voting" system. "An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."" This logical fallacy is the basis for the voting system. Is this not ironic that a site seeking ti improve debate is in and of itself logically flawed? I've more than addressed your concerns, but I do not feel that you have been giving me the same amount of respect. Your last response was a single statement and did not address any of my prior points.
The current method of determining debate winners is extremely flawed.

I understand your point, but the judges really aren't supposed to be there to be "won over". It isn't about who has the most compelling, dramatic, or popularly accepted stance. The judge should only be there to catch errors in logic. Debate used to be a tool to discover truth, not a competition in which the best speaker wins. I think we've all lost sight of why debate is important and got caught up with the "WIN! WIN!" mentality. Ideally, the winner of a debate should not be a person. It should be the arguments. The winner should be the one whose arguments are the most valid. If a person loses, he/she must have lost because there were logical fallacies in his/her argument. In such a situation, it should be impossible for that person to win because the conclusion is arrived at through improper means, rendering the entire argument void. There should be no need for anonymity because the comments that people leave should explain why they voted for this person or that person, and that reason should be objective. "I voted for Pro because Con's argument in the second section was circular, making the proof invalid" How can there be any hurt feelings from that? Allow me to explain why I feel the comment/vote issue is important. I myself understand how nice it feels to have a high win/lose ratio, but at the end of the day, what matters isn't the declared winner, but WHY the win occurred. If I lose and see a whole bunch of comments telling me where my weak points are, I can breathe a sigh of relief and correct myself. If I lose and see a whole bunch of comments that are meaningless, I'll know that I was beaten in a popularity contest and that my argument was actually valid. But if I lose and see absolutely nothing, I'd be left dazed and confused.
The current method of determining debate winners is extremely flawed.

i disagree with you because i would have to say that the voting needs to stay private and that you do not need to post a reason with your vote on why you voted for that person. i feel that way because when you debate it is in the hands of the judges or in this case the people who choose to vote on this debate. you said that people who didn't know how to debate should not be able to vote, well if they dont know how to debate how does that make a difference. debate is all about convincing the judges.....at least as i have been led to believe so what is the difference if the judge or as i stated earlier the people who choose to vote on this debate know how to debate or not convince them not to vote
The current method of determining debate winners is extremely flawed.

The current method of determining the winner of a debate is essentially a popularity contest. Though we are supposed to be neutral in voting for a winner, focusing on the validity and strength of the arguments, this probably is not the case. Voting is anonymous and done only through the press of a button, but each vote is as important as the arguments presented. I believe that a more efficient way is to mandate that each vote come with a suitable response as to why a person has chosen to vote for that particular side, visible to both candidates, and that only registered members of debate.org can vote. This will limit the number of people voting purely to support friends, and votes by people who don't know how to debate.
Once a photograph is manipulated, it's no longer a photograph.

First off, my opponent has dropped all of my points. His response to my definitions that I "only reference definitions." He has failed to notice that my definitions refute all of his points. He thinks that I think that you can use Photoshop on a camera. I don't think that Photoshop is accesible on a camera any more than you can paint a frame on a painting. However, these two situations are very similar. A photo is made with a camera. If it's edited on a computer, so what? It still fits the definition of a photograph. He used 3 examples of pictures edited using Photoshop. However, if you look at the first and third pictures closely enough, you can see that they are actually illustrations. The second one is two different pictures stitched together. However, they were both made with a camera and the combination is therefore made with a camera. Here is another example of this with the app "Pic Stitch": http://www.sohomarketer.com... I have won this debate. Voters, here is the reason for your decision in my favor: 1. I refuted my opponent's sole point in the first round. 2. I refuted any and all other points my opponent has made. 3. I have provided more points such as photography being art just as much as Photoshop. 4. My opponent has yet too legitimately respond to any of my points. 5. I have won on sources as he has provided none. 6. I have won on conduct as he made ad hominem attacks. 7. I have won on spelling and grammar as he made many grammar mistakes while I made none. (End of his second round, for example.) 8. I have disproven everything he has said and made points disproving the topic, none of which have he addresesed. Thus, I negate.
Once a photograph is manipulated, it's no longer a photograph.

My opponent failed to miss the point of this entire debate and only references definitions. My opponent stated that " if a photograph has been "manipulated," , it is still being made by a camera" when the topic of this debate is "If an image is photshopped, the image is comprised and no longer a photograph, rather, it is "art". Photoshop being a keyword. 2nd, my opponent stated in round 1 that "If a photograph has been "manipulated," it has still been made using a camera". This is false, cameras do not posses many of the elements that are in photoshop. I asked my opponent to look at 3 different photoshopped works taken by a camera, and then processed. None of these examples I provided can be manipulated using a camera alone as my opponent seems to think, My opponent doubted whether or not the last image was at one time a photograph and understandably so, do any of them look like a photograph? In good faith, below is a link, the author will even give you a tutorial. http://slodive.com... Again, the very definition of photoshop is as followed. Definition of PHOTOSHOP transitive verb : to alter (a digital image) with Photoshop software or other image-editing software especially in a way that distorts reality (as for deliberately deceptive purposes) My opponent quoted "If a photograph has been "manipulated," it has still been made using a camera" The very definition of photoshop states software or other image-editing software" Thus making photoshop a separate entity from the camera and not a necessity Thank you opponenent and thank you everyone who engaged. I leave you with this, is this what you call a photograph? http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
Once a photograph is manipulated, it's no longer a photograph.

My opponent has brought up an interesting question: If a photograph is modified, is it still a photograph. The answer, as I have already proven, is yes. In fact, my opponent made no attempt at all to refute my point, which, incidentally, disproves everything he has said. "A photograph represents a moment in time, an event as it happened." My opponent seems to have forgotten the actual definition of a photograph: a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally [1]. He calls photoshop "art." It doesn't matter if Photoshopping is "art" any more than it matters if it's gotten photojournalists fired. Photography is art too. Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power [1]. Yes, this classes Photoshopping as art. But it classes photography as art just as much. Human creative skill and imagination show up in photography ALL THE TIME. Then he went on to rant about whether revered artists "would have been graphic designers." Does this really matter? No. His "closing" consisted of 3 "pictures." I put quotations around pictures because I doubt the last one even is a picture. So, in closing, I ask you, the voters one question: Do the pretty words my opponent use prove the resolution true versus the facts and definitions I have provided? The obvious and inevitable answer is no. I have indisputably won here. Sources: 1- New Oxford American Dictionary
school attendence should be voluntary

School attendence should be voluntary because kids who don't go to school will do crimes and it will grow rapidly. The tax will increase because the government would have to pay for the activities. Without education, people cannot get jobs which makes them rob to survive. Moreover, kids do not know the purpose in their lives which leads to suicide. Attending school would make the students concentrate on their studies and succeed in life but without education, they will be in big trouble later in their life. Also, there would be lower level class not as big as the higher class. This will lead to a huge gap. Kids cannot make their own decisions so they realize that they don't have education later in the future. They become and idiot.
Religion is the biggest scam ever made.

Ok, Let's begin on the burdens of this round. As the negative all I have to do is prove one religion is not a scam in order to win this debate. As I am a Christian, I will be defending that religion as not being a scam. I would also like to point out that this debate has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, As the resolution does not ask the negative to justify that. That being said, Let me begin. I have an issue with the statement when you said, "So he created a new religion. " By applying this statement to Christianity, There are at least two problems with it. First, Someone didn't just decide to create Christianity, Neither was it created by just one person. All scriptures in the Bible are God-breathed, Meaning everything single word in the Bible is directly from God. He used men in order to write the scriptures, But he told them exactly what to say. In addition, There were 40 authors that God used to write the Bible, And the fact that they are all consistent with each other should say something. Nevertheless, This does not necessarily prove Christianity is the right religion, Thus not proving it is not a scam and this is where my main argument will be. There are 3 main reasons I believe Christianity is the right religion and these 3 reasons will prove that it is not a scam. First, It is historically accurate. The Bible has 100's of prophesies made ahead of time and you will find that they have all been fulfilled. Here is a sample of a few. 1. Jeremiah: 11:12 prophesies that Babylon will rule over Judah for exactly 70 years, And they did. They ruled over Judah from 609 B. C to 539 B. C. 2. Nahum 3:15 prophesied that Ninevah would be destroyed by fire and sure enough, It was. 3. Isaiah 13:19 also prophesied that Babylon's kingdom would be permanently overthrown. This also came to pass. There are many, Many more but as this debate only has 4, 000 characters for a limit, I can't go over too many. Second, The Bible is scientifically accurate and everything claim in the Bible in any field of science is right. Astronomy Stars are innumerable (Genesis 22:17; Jeremiah 33:22) Stars differ in glory (1 Corinthians 15:41) Stars follow a predictable pattern (Jeremiah 31:35) Earth hangs on nothing (not built on pillars) (Job 26:7) Earth is round, Not flat (Isaiah 40:22; Psalm 103:12) Note: This claim might not sound significant, But in those times, Everyone believe the earth was flat. Geology Water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10) Sea currents (Psalm 8:8) "Fountains of the deep broken up" (Genesis 7:11) Biology Blood circulation (Leviticus 17:11) This is of course, Just a sample. But perhaps the most substantial claim the Bible made on science is the claim in Genesis 7 that there would be a global flood. There is overwhelming evidence of this from both geology and archaeology. When you compare Christianity to all other religions, You find that it is the only one that is accurate scientifically and historically. It cannot be dis-proven in any way. All other religions however, Are not accurate and unique like Christianity is. Sources in comments
Religion is the biggest scam ever made.

Hello. My name is Alex, And I believe that religion is the the biggest scam ever made. First, Let's start off with some definitions. When I say religion, I mean Christian, Muslim, All those types, Including sub divisions like roman catholic. Also, When I mention the word "scam", I am talking about an untruthful event, Or a big lie. PS. I don't mean to offend anyone in this debate. So let's start this short debate! So for my first argument, I would like to start of with a story. Once upon a time, Long before the Catholic faith, There was a small civilization called the Greeks (~400 BC). They were very curious, So they tried to explain the natural events. They made up people like Zeus, Who controls the weather, Poseidon, Who controls the seas, And when they're angry, Bad things start to happen. And this worked. Everyone believed it. Until one day, A smart little man said to himself, "Hmm, Everyone is worshiping the gods, The people seem to offer their crops and livestock to please the gods. Now what happens if I take the gods, And replace them with me? " So he created a new religion, And he told the people about the dangers of Hell, And how if you worship me, A descendant from god, Then your afterlife will be awesome! Soon after other people started to copy that man, So then sprang fourth religions like Muslim, Catholic, Buddha, Etc. And all these religions, I believe are made to control people. When you tell someone about the dangers of Hell, They will start to fear it. Why? Because they don't understand it. For example, Spiders. Spiders rarely bite, And most of them aren't even venomous. So there should be no reason to fear them. But religion is taught at a young age, And when the children grow up, They will teach their children and so fourth. No one ever dares to step put of line to ask, "How do you know God is real? ", Because that is what was cemented into their brain at age of 3. In the next round, I will be talking more in depth about this, And some scientific answers will start popping up from me. I hope someone responds and I look forward to their argument very soon. Thank you.
My reasons why Obama should be impeached

Hello to ever my opponent is, I am going to state my reasons why Barack Hussein Obama II the 44th president of the United States should be impeached. You have probably noticed that this is a one round debate, I am going to state my reasons and you will have to rebut them the best you can. I look forward to the rebuttals to see your take on these issues. Thank you. 1. Signing the annual National Defense Authorization Act it authorized, at the request of the president () the indefinite military detention, without charge or trial (http://www.nytimes.com...;), of any person on U.S. soil including American citizens. Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments. 2. Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration " Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress 3. Barack Obama signed the 2012 Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act (FAARA), which authorized 30,000 drones to begin flying over U.S. soil by 2020. These drones can spy on American citizens (http://www.wired.com...), thus violating the Fourth amendment right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures. 4. One of the key tenets of President Obama"s first election campaign was closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Once he got into office, he claimed closing the facility was "more difficult than I think a lot of people realize." (http://abcnews.go.com...) More difficult, indeed. It is now January 22, 2013, and the president has officially made it impossible for Guantanamo Bay to close under current law. 5. President Obama swore (http://www.factcheck.org...) he would repeal the dangerously named USA PATRIOT Act before his election, which allowed for the limitless, and warrantless, wiretapping of anyone considered a suspected terrorist. The wiretapping provisions of this act, which were used in 1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases, and violated the Fourth amendment entirely, were due to expire on May 27, 2011. President Obama signed an extension just in time. 6. Congress did not approve Obama"s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4.
God is real, and watching over us.

So, sparking up another religion question. I would love to have a nice debate with someone who believes in God(s) about his being without truly offending them. So heres how it'll be planned out:Round 1:Con's ExplanationPro's AcceptanceRound 2:Con's ArgumentsPro's ArgumentsRound 3:Con's RebuttalPro's RebuttalRound 4:Con's Final WordsPro's Final WordsVoting.