BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bible canon didn't originate in the church

Here are all the things my opponent fails to address " Scripture dictates which books are canonical. The Torah has been authenticated in other books (Ex. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24; Ezra 3:2; 6:18; 7:6; Ps. 103:7; Josh. 8:31, 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3, Hos. 12:13). Joshua saw Moses as inspired (Joshua 1:8,23:6). Joshua's worked was seen inspired (Jud. 1:1, 20, 21, 2:8). Ruth authenticates Judges (Rut. 1:1). Samuel is inspired (1 Sam. 10). The list goes on." "The DDS manual of discipline declares the writings of Moses and the prophets (same phrase Jesus used)" The Zadokite document also does the same. Other prophetic writings were also seen as divinely inspired by the Jews" "Writings such as the Apocrypha were not seen as inspired by the Essenes" Josephus said " For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have), but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind until his death. This interval of time is little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artexerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured to add, or to remove, or to alter anything, and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as decrees of God" Based on what we've seen, one man did not decide the canon of the Bible. There is a strict method in finding out which books belong to the Bible without being biased: 1. Did the book indicate God was speaking through the author? 2. Was the author authoritative? (sometimes, the author isn't a recognized figure in the Bible) 3. What does it say on God? (If it doesn't help us spiritually, it's not divinely inspired) 4. Is it historically accurate? 5. Who was the author? (Often times, the Apocryphal writings don't come from the author it claims such as Enoch based on scholarly research) 6. Does the literary style of writing match with it's time period? (Some of the Apocrypha does not match with the rest of the Scripture's style of writing) With that being said, my opponent failed to clearly present evidence on this debate proving that the Bible's canon was decided by the church.
Bible canon didn't originate in the church

"Universally accepted" Yes, like I showed you, AFTER one man decided that those 66 were inspired. His analysis led others to follow his words. It's safe to say that humans simply observe flickering lights & objects in the sky and can distinguish between real light sources & UFOs. Not. Everyday people mistake a flashing light or obscure jet in the sky as a UFO. Some people go as far as to invent an encounter, making up their own alleged truth. Canonization of the Bible is no different than an enthusiast claiming a revelation. Other than the Timothy verse that has him declaring "all scriptures are inspired by God" there doesn't exist internal evidence of the books establishing their divine origin. "...the literary or historical analysis of these [books], if left to its own resources, ignores their divine origin." http://www.newadvent.org... Canonization, that is, which books are the human standard in determining which books are divinely inspired.
0.999.... (recurring) = 1

You already agree with me, but hey.P1) If two numbers have different values, there is an infinite number of numbers between them.J. For example, 1 and 1.1. We can just keep adding another zero, 1.01, 1.001, etc.P2) There is no number between 0.999.... and 1.J. 0.999 has an infinite number of nines, so you cannot increase it and get a number below 1. You cannot add another 9 because a) infinity represents the biggest number possible and b) The number of nines before it never ends, so you'd never get to that extra nine and so the number wouldn't get any bigger.Conclusion: 0.999... and 1 are equal.Thank you.
Embryonic stem cell research and the Constitution are in conflict with Roe versus Wade

Justice Blackmun wrote in the majority opinion for Roe versus Wade, decided on January 22, 1973 (https://www.law.cornell.edu...), "Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, (https://www.law.cornell.edu...) life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [p160]" The question that has to be asked is, "What is the truth regarding when life begins?" Should physicians, who benefit financially from performing abortions, determine when life begins? Should philosophers determine when life begins? What role does a religious individual have in determining whether a member of our species is alive, or more importantly to them, contains a life-giving spiritual components such as a "soul"? The debate before us is have we reached that point in time where man's knowledge can address this issue? I propose that human embryonic stem cell research(http://stemcells.nih.gov...) and the United States Constitution (https://www.law.cornell.edu...) are a way to answer the topic in the affirmative.
C. J should have followed the damn train

I see you are debating about important topics. It is not C. J's fault. Big Smoke is quick to blame C. J for not following the "damn" train, When in reality, Is it really C. J's fault? I believe it's Big Smokes fault for not doing his job properly. Let's evaluate; -Big Smoke was using the Tec-9. -With this weapon, It takes about 25 shots to kill each Vagos member. There are 3 Vagos members, So it should take on average 75 shots. -The Tec-9 has 50 bullets in it, And it takes ~ 9 seconds to fire 50 rounds. This means Big Smoke should theoretically be able to finish off the Vagos in less than 15 seconds. -If we watch Big Smoke, He shoots at a very inconsistent rate. He will shoot a little, Stop, Then shoot a little. He is very inefficient with his shooting. -Taking the average, Big Smoke shoots about 50 bullets every 24 seconds and has a 75% accuracy, But this is still being nice to him because he will miss many of his shots. -At this rate, It should take him about 100 shots to kill all of them, Which is about 48 seconds. This is over 3 times the amount of time it should take! The problem isn't his accuracy, But rather his slow shooting. You are literally better off shooting the Vagos yourself than relying on Big Smoke shooting.
Zoos should be banned

Thankyou. Zoos on the whole should not be banned. The definition of a zoo is "Any place where animals are kept and displayed to the public." In no place does this mention cruelty. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with zoos, they can work. Most modern zoos are primarily for conservation and conservation research. This shows a definite upward trend and I feel that this shows that Zoos are improving. There may be cruelty in some zoos, but that doesn't mean that all zoos as a matter of principal should be shut down.
Libertarians have it right on education-school ouchers people, school vouchers.

I'll first extend all of my first points, and continue on with another argument: Another flaw to this plan, people that are paying for private schools, are going to have to pay more, if this plan is implemented, because the reason private schools perform so well, is because of the money they get. They have to fund better professors, better textbooks, and better technology. There are so many flaws to this plan, and it will hurt more then it helps. You're going to eliminate the people that might actually perform better in the adult world, those that know about being impoversihed, those that get education for free. With this resolution, you're eliminating that, and just putting more people in poverty, and making us look bad as a whole. Thank You
Libertarians have it right on education-school ouchers people, school vouchers.

It seems as if your solution to this "problem" is to just redirect money. You think that simply handing out a tax credit that is equal to what one pays for school will be a good enough answer to the falling test scores. This couldn't be further from the truth. First of all; there is one major flaw in this plan. If you re-implement all federal funding to those that pay for school, you will simply be keeping more and more from school. What about those that can't afford public schooling? The ones that the government pays for? Certainly, these people are in the minority, but, you are basically doing the same thing for the millions that can afford to pay for school. With this refund, people will barely lost money, if any. This also will hurt test scores even more, because it takes away the reinforcement that a middle class American will have for school. The real reason that private schools perform better, is because the ones that partake in those endeavors know that if they perform poorly, it's there money that's going down the drain. Sure, there are still bad scores, both in private, and in public, but this logic can still be utizlized. By implementing this plan, you are essentially making school free for those that can normally afford it. I understand that school is free for most underprivileged, but this is also quite different then making it free for those that are, in fact, privileged. Throughout history there have been people that come from poor backgrounds, that become successful in the world. Why? Because they know how it feels to be at the bottom of the barrel. Those in the middle class don't know this, and could, and do, let their education fall by the wayside, because they have a false sense of security. In conclusion, this plan is flawed on many levels. It could take away the education that matters, from those that will actually use it, I.E. the under-privileged, and it also will hurt a lot more then it helps, by giving the current people that pay for school no reinforcement to perform better. I thank you for opening this debate, and I look forward to your reply. -BBE
Libertarians have it right on education-school ouchers people, school vouchers.

American high school SAT scores fell by an average of 50 points between 1970 and 1995. During the same time, the federal education budget nearly doubled from $19 billion to $35 billion. In other words, private schools are rewarded when they succeed. Government schools are rewarded even when they fail. Libertarians don't think we're getting our money's worth from the government-run school system. We believe that a dollar-for-dollar tax credit should go to any individual who pays for a child's education. We also believe that the federal government needs to get out of education. The decision-making and money matters should be returned to the states, communities, and parents. Private schools get better results and there is a reason.
Humans should eat eggs.

Eggs have many health benefits. Eggs are a very good source of inexpensive, high quality protein. More than half the protein of an egg is found in the egg white along with vitamin B2 and lower amounts of fat and cholesterol than the yolk. The whites are rich sources of selenium, vitamin D, B6, B12 and minerals such as zinc, iron and copper.(www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/ingredient-focus-eggs) And while boosting your health, the eggs may also taste pleasant, given that you can fix them any way you like.
Waterboarding is torture and anyone who allowed it/executed it should be prosecuted

Sorry for taking so long! I was slightly preoccupied with my bad sinus infection and a faulty power jack on my computer. "It's obvious, looking at the legal system, that waterboarding was accepted as a legal method of interrogation at the time." Actually, that's kind of what we're debating. Besides, just as federal law overrides state law, international law overrides federal law (that is, if you signed the resolution, which we did). "All three instances where waterboarding was used for terrorist interrogation were authorized and preformed by CIA agents, which, in case you "live under a rock", as my opponent put it, are pretty high up on the legal chain." First of all, there were way more than three instances in which waterboarding was used. While it was only used on three people, it was used multiple times on each person. In fact, it was used 183 times against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (http://today.msnbc.msn.com...). "Even if waterboarding was criminalized by the current administration, the Constitution prohibits the government from punishing or rectifying past cases "after the fact"." I noticed that you have not made a single mention defending that waterboarding is not torture. This hurts your argument tremendously, because unless you discuss it, the voters would have to assume that you conceded that it is, in fact, torture. As such, I could go on to make the argument that torture was already illegal, and what you're saying is basically that since it was a while ago and that administration thought it was okay (did Congress approve it? I don't think so), they shouldn't be punished. Well, if a guy murders someone, does it exempt him from punishment because it happened so long ago? You can't prosecute someone for doing something illegal before it was illegal, that is true, but torture was already illegal. As you made no contention to address your position that waterboarding is not torture, one can only assume that it is; therefore, it is illegal, and was as much during the Bush administration as it is during the Obama administration. I am looking forward to your response!
Waterboarding is torture and anyone who allowed it/executed it should be prosecuted

My thanks to my opponent for providing an opportunity to debate. My opponent argues that waterboarding is torture and that parties affiliated with waterboarding should be charged under the legal system. Because we are dealing with legal repercussions of the said act, we must look to the laws in place at the time of the incident(s). It's obvious, looking at the legal system, that waterboarding was accepted as a legal method of interrogation at the time. All three instances where waterboarding was used for terrorist interrogation were authorized and preformed by CIA agents, which, in case you "live under a rock", as my opponent put it, are pretty high up on the legal chain. Even if waterboarding was criminalized by the current administration, the Constitution prohibits the government from punishing or rectifying past cases "after the fact". After the decision Roe v. Wade was passed, those incarcerated for preforming illegal abortions were not released from prison. Likewise, many states have criminalized the ownership and breeding of pit bulls, an especially aggressive breed of dog; however, those currently in possession of a pit bull are neither made to be criminals nor required to put down their dogs. This is because the American justice system is built upon consideration of an objective set of laws, not an subjective set of moral principles, though the two are sometimes related. We charge criminals with respect for the law in mind, and putting people on criminal trial for acts that were or are not criminalized at the time is both unconstitutional and unjust. As it stands, we simply cannot prosecute individuals for actions that weren't illegal at the time the act was committed. The structure of the American justice system prohibits the affirmation of the resolution and as such, you must vote in opposition of the resolution. Thank you.
Waterboarding is torture and anyone who allowed it/executed it should be prosecuted

Hi! Recently you may have heard about detainees being waterboarded. If you have been living under a rock for the past couple months, this might help: http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... Now, for this debate, you get two for the price of one. Not only are we debating that Dick Cheney and Condi Rice and all those other mother firetruckers should be prosecuted, but also that waterboarding is torture. If you aren't convinced of that, try this: http://www.vanityfair.com...... Now, I'm pretty sure torture is illegal. That's a given. We are not debating whether it works. I'm sure it does in some conditions. Doesn't make it right. Shooting someone in the head always gets them to shut up. So does that means you should always shoot people in the head when they annoy you? Didn't think so. I would request that you do not debate this if you believe that these tortures somehow never happened (I know a few), but other than that, this is open to all who want it! And if you lose, I promise I won't waterboard you :-)
Political Correctness on college campuses

"Euphemism" comes from the Greek for "fair speech." A good definition borrowed from a literary handbook is "the substitution of a mild and pleasant expression for a harsh and blunt one." Euphemisms have traditionally been common in subject areas that people do not like talking about directly. The most common of these involve death, sex, and bodily functions. For instance the word urinate/is harsh or disgusting whereas, tinkle, potty, pee, golden showers etc. are more pleasing to the ear. Employment is another area affected by euphemisms. Here is an example the original title for a position described as someone who empties your garbage cans into a big truck especially designed to do to haul tons of trash to the dump. The past before us Garbage man Here and now is Trash Collector, Refuse Collector, Sanitation Engineer, in addition to other replacement titles. Political Correctness, and euphemisms some would argue make the world a better place to live. In that, people would be more considerate and less offensive. This seems logical to many new and young parents. A dream or idea of living the perfect life in a great world. The perfect parents to the perfect kid, family, friends, job, home, etc. Reaching for the stars and having it all begins with Political Correctness and Euphemisms
Political Correctness on college campuses

Political Correctness on a college campus has gone too far. I now cannot refer to anyone without worrying about offending them or "hurting their feelings," in some way. Is this really necessary to come up with a euphemism for every race, gender, religion, ability, disability, or mental state? Americans are plagued with hypersensitivity and in my opinion, this is weakening the strong backbone of this sovereign nation. The use of excessive political correctness is threatening the thought of the individual and is creating a gray society of conformity. What ever happened to "sticks and stones?" Please respond with your opinion/argument. I am open to both sides and need both sides' views because I am writing a paper on this topic and would like to collect as many thoughts and opinions as I can.
The death penalty should exist

I would like to challenge Lannan to this debate.Resolved: The death penalty should exist in the United States.The onus is shared between the two of us, I must prove that we should not have the death penalty whereas my opponent must prove that we should have it. My reasoning for the sharing of the onus is because both sides call for a change in the status quo in the US.Rules:1. No forfeiting2. No semantics/trolling/kritiks/etc3. My opponent must start their constructive case this round and waive the final round saying "Round waived in accordance to rule 3" or something similar4. Keep appropriate conduct, people!5. Do not reject definitions/structure or anything otherwise laid out in this debate. If you reject please do so in comments so I can change it.Structure:Round X: What pro does | what con doesR1: Create debate | Provide constructive caseR2: Provide constructive case | RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals | Defense to rebuttalsR4: Defense to rebuttals | WaiveVoter ELO is set to 2500. If needed I can change this.Votes are on a pick winner basis so we can get more in depth RFD's as opposed to just explaining specific points.Definitions:Death penalty: the act of legally executing a prisoner because of a breaking in law by the US governmentshould: ought to; mustexist: be in practice/be made into practiceThanks to Lannan if he accepts this debate, good luck! PS you get bonus points if you use puns.
Resolved: Summer is the best season

The first mistake was that you were supposed to argue that summer was the best season, not winter. But that has changed so never mind that. The second was that During round 2 we were supposed to have Cross Examination in the comments until the time for round 2 expired. Then we would both give our concluding remarks. As that did not happen we will just have to continue. - - - My opponent brings up a good point, saying that summer vacation is less enjoyable due to Summer school. How ever I must disagree, Summer school is cause by failure to do well the rest of the year. Doing poorly the rest of the year reflects either lack of caring or anxiety. 1)If there is a lack of care about grades during the school year then summer school must not be so unenjoyable, or else a person would work just a little bit harder in order not to fail a class just in order to avoid Summer School. 2)if there is anxiety causing grades to slip then the rest of the year isn't full of enjoyment either. Therefore I refute that point. Sure, as was established, Christmas and Kwanzaa exist in Winter, New Years and MLK day do as well. But other major holidays, such as Independence Day (for many different countries), chanukah, Yom Kipur, Halloween, Easter and so on, show that holidays have no particular preference toward winter, but are merely randomly distributed throughout the year. (and a side note, Jesus was not born in Winter but in Spring, the date was later changed to the date of a pagan holiday to make conversion easier. ) And lastly I, Living in Park City, Utah (a ski resort town in northern Utah), know what snow is. Sure maybe in warmer coastal regions a couple inches or so may fall, but where I live it comes in feet. Sometimes the snow and ice has been known to freeze power lines and trees, snapping them with the weight of the ice. Avalanches are not un-common in the ski resorts nearby. And I plowed into a snow bank on the way to school last Friday, getting quite stuck and needing to be towed out, this was caused by black ice in the roads. During the summer it might get a little sweaty, but that is nothing like driving on a snowy road at 6:30 in the morning. I use to live in Tucson, Arizona (before I moved to Utah) and back then I remember the heat. It was bearable, but often I found it quite fun. - - - My opponent never touched on my suicide argument, therefore conceding it to me. Other than that I feel it was a good match. I am sorry that my format was confusing. I was simply trying to be ambitious and make the Spar format work here. I am sorry that that could not happen.