BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The bible is false because jesus is false thus jesus was not the messiah

Ok, I looked at your comments, I am sorry to say but I didn't understand which comment was the argument. I believe that this shouldn't be a problem for people. Ok? You, In the perspective of an atheist, Doesn't understand the perspective of a Christian. I have gone through many problems and all of it got solved because of God so there, This is the final. But I have to agree with u DDO is f***ing s**t.
Anti-Islamic movie "innocence of Muslims" should be censored.

Well, this is rather unfortunate. I suppose I am left with no choice but to extend my argument and ask for support mentioning each of the six categories up for a vote (at least that seems to be the tradition here): 1. Who you agreed with before: That is entirely up to you now, isn't it? 2. Who you agree with now: Also up to you, although I hope to have been able to convince any who disagreed 3. Who had better conduct: Saule forfeited, although she was quite polite while she was with us. 4. Better spelling and grammar: I believe some mistakes were made on Saule's side, although I am not altogether sure I didn't make any myself. I will leave that to greater experts than I. 5. Who made more convincing arguments: Well, I really don't think it is becoming of me to say. I obviously prefer my own arguments, otherwise I would not have made them. 6. Most reliable sources: Neither of us used any sources, as the arguments used did not seem to require any. Unless an appeal to Nickelodeon is to be considered a source, in which case that's one for me. It seems that begging for votes is an exercise in futility. Most of the matters up for voting are entirely subjective and the rest make you seem a bit cheap or rude if you do much advertising. I think I rather don't like this particular tradition. I thank the readers for their attention and Ms. Saule for her kind invitation to debate this topic.
Anti-Islamic movie "innocence of Muslims" should be censored.

My opponent wants to know why this movie outweigh the freedom of speech's right. Today a lot of countries have freedom of speech and these countries try not to censor anything. Even though, these countries agree that freedom of speech have confines in order not to put rubbish into television. The movie "The Innocence of Muslims" has gone to the limit because of enormous scenes that are disgusting and doubtful. This movie would make the audience believe into the unauthentic historical events. First of all "Innocence of Muslim" offends Muslim people. I was born in Muslim family, all my relatives and most friends are Muslim. According to this movie we believe in something bad and inferior. Second, movie "innocence of Muslims" contains a lot of violence. It was really difficult to watch. This movie made me feel terrible and would happen with children? Third, it is like a provocation and feed to terrorist movements to make evil things.In conclusion I want to write that all the reason that were mentioned outweigh freedom of speech.
Anti-Islamic movie "innocence of Muslims" should be censored.

In another debate I have made explicit my view that the movie "The Innocence of Muslims" is not beneficial to society. I nevertheless believe that, however little good can be drawn from the movie, the principle of free speech that protects it as a form of expression is of sufficient value that censorship should be out of the question. Rather than provide more extensive rationale in this opening round, I will give the floor to my partner in this debate so we can hear the arguments that she believes outweigh freedom of speech in this instance.
Abortion Is Not Birth Control.

It's nor murder. Murder is different than killing. Are the doctors who inject the convicts murders? In the pureste sense of the word, yes. Now I'm not comparing unborn children to convicts. That was just an example. But we're getting off topic. My debate is that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control like it is for most young women who have unplanned pregnancies. I am not debating the rightness of abortion just it's uses. Young women stupid enough to get pregnant don't seem to understand what they have created. A baby is not a consequence. It is a life. Now I understand you don't think abortion is right. That is your opinion. Good for you. Its not mine. Abortion should not be an easy way out but it should be a choice for someone who emotionally or physically need it. If they don't want the baby then give it up for adoption. I have an aunt who cannot have children so she and my uncle adopted two beautiful boys and I think the Universe for them every day. The oldest one was the son of a young woman who made a mistake. She chose to live with that mistake and have him. This is my point. She made the choice. Despite the long standing taboo, sex is not wrong. But if you are going to have it take the time to make sure you don't screw up someones life or soon to be life. There are other, preemptive choices.
Abortion Is Not Birth Control.

Ok, yes, killing is necessary, but only because we have cold blooded killers out in this world. Let's look at simple logistics here for a minute. Why is there a death penalty set down in our court systems? Because yes, killing is necessary for people who for example are serial killers. They should be killed off instantly. That is why killing is necessary. But not for a poor little baby who has no choice in the matter whether or not they were created. Just for example, what would happen if every single person who murdered someone was instantly put to death themselves? That would mean that every single abortionist would be put to the death penalty because what are they doing? They are MURDERING innocent little humans who cannot even attempt to get away. There is no way to get around it, abortion is murder, period. I guess the only thing that kind of does not make sense about your last argument is that you said that "[a life] should not just be cast aside like nothing." Well, in the scenario with the teenager, your basically saying that should happen. But in the case with the woman who gets rapped, your saying that the alternative other than "casting it aside" should be ultimate death? Besides the fact that there are many adoption agencies out there, how would that be casting them aside? There are plenty of couples out there who would love to have a baby, but for one reason or another the woman can not get pregnant, so therefore thier only option is to adopt. That is where the children should go if their birth mother does not want them. Not to mention, how do you know for a 100% fact that a teenager amy not understand just as much if not more the decision about abortion? Yes, the children we bare are the future. But how do you know that that one child put to instant death before it even left its mothers womb was going to come up with the cure for the common cold, or for cancer, or HIV and AIDS? Yes, you could also say "well how do you know that maybe they would be the next Hitler?" The answer to both those questions is you really don't know until you let it happen. If one of those babies would have been the next Hitler, then yes, ultimate death, but only IF it would get to that point. It is our right as women to choose, but it should also be our JOB as mothers, the PROTECTORS of out babies, to protect them from harm-----including death.
Abortion Is Not Birth Control.

I believe life is precious but I also understand that killing is necessary in life. Life. Not every life but life itself. It shouldn't just be cast aside like nothing. A woman who is raped and decides to abort understands the choice she is making. A teen oopsie does not. My point is that though it is a woman's choice it is not a convenience. To many people see it that way who are pro-choice. I don't. The children we bare as women are the future. We must understand that like the children we raise the choice to have a baby or not is part of what will become our future. It should be an easy way out but it is a way out. We have the right to choose as women.
Abortion Is Not Birth Control.

To start out with, I will say that I am completely anti-abortion. Believing that teenagers should not be having sex period, therefore not getting themselves in that position, I do agree that abortion should not be offered for anyone that young. I also believe that you saying that "every life is precious and we should be thoughtful of how we treat it" and when you said that you "believe in using abortion responsibly" sounds like you are contradicting yourself. When you look at it simply, abortion is murder. Period, there is no way around it. It is killing a living human being, and it makes it worse since this little human had no choice in the matter. Take for example a woman who is rapped. She had no choice to get rapped, but if she did get pregnant, why should she put the baby through the same exact pain of having no choice in ANYTHING? At least the woman has a fight she can put up, but what does the baby have? Nothing. I think about the only thing that is really confusing about your argument is that you said you were for abortion, but then your last sentence said that every life is precious. First you basically said murdering was ok, then your saying every life is precious. I really don't see how that fits together.
Abortion Is Not Birth Control.

Though I agree with Abortion I do not agree that it should be used as a form of birth control. If some idiot teenager forgets to use a condom they should not have the option of abortion. They can keep it or give it away. Now if a woman is raped or there are special circumstances then it should be an option. I know I am straddling the fence on this issue but this is how I see it. I believe in using abortion responsibly. Every life is precious so we should be thoughtful of how we treat it.
Foreign Intervention in Syria

Entering Syria would be very bad for the US. Either they would end up helping the Wahabbi funded rebels who are bound to become terrorists, or they could support Assad who is internationally unpopular and his days are numbered anyways. Which would put us even more at odds with the radicals that will take over. Supporting Assad would also make the US more unpopular in the international community. For these reasons, and the many domestic problems it faces. The US should not get involved in a war that's not theirs to fight.
Foreign Intervention in Syria

Foreign intervention in Syria will do more harm than good as shown above. Allowing the regime to be toppled could create a violent anarchic state like Somalia which has spawned Al-Shabaab one of the most dangerous terrorist groups. Look at what happened in Libya and Egypt and in Iran the 1970's with the toppling of the Shah. To protect human life and rights it is paramount that the international community work towards stability in Syria, not an overthrow of Assad, however distasteful he may be. Some countries simply are not advanced enough for government without brute force. Syria needs a powerful regime to prevent the more dangerous, more radical elements from gaining power as they often do. Look at the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan after we defeated the Communists. For these reasons, there should be foreign intervention is Syria.
Foreign Intervention in Syria

The US should not intervene in Syria because it is not our place to act. In addition both sides of the civil war have committed many atrocities, which makes it morally wrong to support either side. The Free Syrian Army, the main opposition in Syria is also affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Supporting them with weapons would be like repeating our mistake in Afghanistan where we supported the Mujaheddin. If Assad falls in any case, Syria will collapse into sectarian chaos like post-Saddam Iraq.There will be brutal persecution of the Alawite group that Assad belongs to. For all these reasons, the US should support a diplomatic solution rather than a military intervention.
the catholic church officially teaches that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

you can easily double check the wiki article with other internet sources. wiki may not be a definiitve end all be all source, but it's almost always accurate, and always able to be doubled checked. that was an extremely weak argument. neither that document about infants who die, or the catechism are considered infallible. they are not official teachings. a past catechism said they go to limbo. limbo is considered a part of hell. again, to be official, it has to the pope intentionally binding the church, on faith and morals. that is not present in those sources. as to the vatican II stuff, as ive already mentioned, you have to read those in the vein of a political statement. for catholics, the only way to reconcile the past and present teachings is to consider it political only, cause past statements say it's not possible for them to be saved. for noncatholics, i admit it's easier to argue there's a contradiction or that there's more than one official teaching, but given the weight of rigorist quotes, and the hippie days of vatican ii, we could say it was political only. see my first post for more reasoning on this point. the florence quotes surely have to do not with teens and adults. anyone other than an infant has actual sins, they have more than original sin. the flroence quote says those with original sin go to hell. ergo, unbaptiazed infants go to hell. it may hve been a council about the east and the west, but the writing is explicit... "we define... " and then gives a list of teachings, including the original sin teaching. it even says right after that teaching 'we also define...." which bolsters the idea that it should be considered an infallible statement. Obviously, you're not educated enough on this topic to be able to intelligently discuss it with me.
the catholic church officially teaches that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

First of all, all your resources are not proper sources, they are only things that any random person could have made up. Especially the Wikipedia link, I went to look at it, and there is a link to edit the quotes that were said. Not even the slightest bit trustworthy. First, on the topic of Unbaptized Infants, the Church published a document ("The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized") on April 20 (very recent!) that the traditional concept of limbo reflects an "unduly restrictive view of salvation." In the document, the Church said "God is merciful and wants all human beings to be saved,". Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from Heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for "the little ones," it said. Their conclusion was "the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision". In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it tells of how "unbaptized infants are entrusted to God's mercy". (Heaven) On Non-Catholic's, every religion believes that their religion is the only religion for salvation. From Protestants to Muslims. Every religion was intolerant of other religions. Over the years, religions have become increasingly more tolerant of other religions. The Catholic Church officially teaches (in Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium) that "Followers of the Catholic Church, Members of other Christian denominations, and Believers of Non-Christian religions all have the potential for salvation". It also tells of "The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." Also, the Council of Florence was called to discuss the Great Western Schism, not unbaptized infants. The views that the Council declared have changed since the 1400's, when the Council was called. Neither of your Council of Florence quotes do anything for your argument, but tell us when infants should be baptized, and tell us what baptism does. Infants cannot be held responsible for their parents' actions. The Session Six quote only relates to those Catholics who are able to make their own choices (Teen's-Adult's), then they are held accountable for not going to receive the sacrament when they can. Obviously, you're not educated enough on this topic to be able to intelligently discuss it with me. You want sources? Unbaptized Infants: http://www.catholicnews.com... (Actually Trustworthy) Non-Catholics Go to Heaven: http://www.religioustolerance.org... (Another Trustworthy Site) Official enough for you? (Actual teachings of the Catholic Church, not weird quotes that do not support your argument)
the catholic church officially teaches that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

you have not shown any official teachings that noncatholics can be saved, you merely present assertions. on the other hand, i did provide a ton of evidence that says they are condemned to hell. same goes for the unbaptized infants stuff. you say it was never official doctrine of the church, but if you read the quotes, you can see they are from the council of florence, a dogmatic council. and within the text it says 'we define...' and right after the quotes in question it says 'we also define...' which shows a continuity in thought about defining dogma. again you are just making assertions and providing no actual evidence.
the catholic church officially teaches that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

This statement is so wrong I am scared for you. First of all, the Catholic Church teaches that anyone who believes in a form of the True God, from Allah to Yahweh, if they live a life pleasing to God and repent for their sins, they will go to Heaven. It does not matter that they are of a different religion, such as a Protestant or Muslim. Unbaptized infants, though they have Original Sin on their soul, they cannot control if they are baptized or not. Jews are not baptized ever, but they can still go to Heaven. Muhammad was not baptized, but he was a great prophet for the Muslim people and probably went to Heaven. Just as young children cannot be held responsible for their sins until they reach the age of reason (about age 6), they are not held accountable for their parents' actions. It was once believed that unbaptized people go into Limbo, the edge of Hell that the early faithful people went to before Jesus opened the gates of Heaven. This was never an official doctrine of the Church. Non-Catholics and Unbaptized Infants do not go to Hell, but can go to Heaven
the catholic church officially teaches that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

the only teachings that might say otherwise, are fallible, nonauthoritative statements. remember to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, do not count. limbo, just some examples: Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..." Council of Florence Session 6 "..the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." No salvation for noncatholics: you can find plenty of rigorist authoritative quotes here: http://en.wikipedia.org... the only authoritative type statements that i see that they can be saved are vatican ii. it could be argued that they said they didnt intend to define anything, and it's always possible to hope that noncahtolics would somehow repent or 'be shown an angel before death' or something as is traditionally the only way of getting saved. so when they say noncatholics 'may' be saved, it is a political
the catholic church officially teaches that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

Everything that I posted was actual teaching that the Pope taught and are now a part of our Catechism. If you wanted to post reliable sources besides Wikipedia, you should have posted those sources, instead of a cite where you can edit the page. You could have scrolled to the bottom, and posted a link from where Wikipedia got its sources from. That is a lot more trustworthy. Yes, the documents are not infallible, but the Pope has only declared Papal Infallibility on two teachings of the Church. I bet you didn't even read the sources, because then you would have seen how the Pope approved and taught both documents. Limbo is a part of Hell,but it is a part of Hell that all religious people went to before Jesus opened the Gates of Heaven with his Death. Mostly, Limbo was just a holding area for good people until Jesus came. The people in Limbo were never subject to Satan. They were never punished by Satan. The Church no longer teaches about Limbo, because no one goes there since Jesus came. It was an idea conceived in the Middle Ages, so it is outdated. All infants are not responsible for their actions. The Church does teach that if once you are able to make your own decisions and you are not baptized, then you will go to Hell. Infants, however, cannot be baptized unless their parents bring them to be. The Church has declared no Papal Teaching infallible but two when the Pope declared Papal Infallibility, and both concern Mary. Only the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary has been declared infallible by the Vatican. My favorite part of this debate was how you did not post anything that supports your argument over the last two rounds, but tried to prove me wrong (and failed). Also, great job being original with your comeback. You even copied and pasted it because your capitalization and spelling has been horrid over the last three rounds, and you obviously didn't write it yourself. Obviously you are not smart enough to come up with your own comebacks. You can have the last word, obviously you need it. I will leave you with a quote in Zulu that describes you. "Uyisiwula."
If a woman tricks a man into getting her pregnant, he should not be financially liable for the child

His argument is a little odd because he just lists a bunch of reasons that the man shouldn't be involved in the situation. That doesn't prove that men should be financially liable. I agree that men should stay away from unhealthy relationships and that they should use protection even if the woman says that she is. That doesn't mean that he should be liable if she lies and does not. The foundation of any relationship is trust. If your partner loves you (and you assume that she does), and you believe that she respects you and is not trying to harm you in any way, a man not use additional protection because his partner has said that she is using it. Sex is more pleasurable without condoms, which might be another reason that the man is relying on his partner's birth control. Both men and women should have a say in when they are ready to become parents, not just women. If a woman tricks a man into pregnancy, she is committing fraud and he should not have to pay for her criminal actions. Just as we would not hold a victim liable if a company breached its contract with him, so should we not hold the victim (the man) liable in this case. Weak men deserve legal protections just as much as strong men do, so my opponent might be right that SOME of the men pressured into being parents are weak, but that does not mean they should get forced to be parents when they don't want to be. Plus, holding him liable for child support incentivizes this kind of behavior because it makes the man liable and the woman not only gets off scott free, but she also gets money from the man. Why wouldn't she do it then? She gets a huge pay day