BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New World Order- The best way to stop it in its tracks- is education.

Before we continue, we must first make sure that several words and phrases are defined. NWO - "In conspiracy theory, the term New World Order or NWO refers to the emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government. " [1] My goal in this debate is to show that there are better ways of halting and even defeating the NWO than by simple education. In this debate, we are not allowed to challenge the existence of the NWO, so I won't go there, however, we can challenge whether or not it is a good thing. But regardless to if it is good or not, the debate is about stopping it. I will begin my arguments, first, on why education is not an effective means of halting or stopping the NWO, then I will go into better options. 1) Education may bring people to the NWO's side. We have to remember that according to the conspiracy theorists, that the NWO is filled with the Grand Elite, individuals that hold practically limitless resources [2], including most of the media. Should they be publically outted, they will likely shift their goals from staying secretive, to manipulating the mindless public into supporting them. This can have dire concequenses to those opposed to the NWO. Rather than appearing as crazy people that we shouldn't make eye contact with and walk past as quickly as possible without making it appear as though that is what you are trying to do, the public will view them as terrorists, trying to take down a global government that only wants to help all the suffering people of the world (that is certainly one of the lines that they will pitch and spin). 2) Education is easily prevented It would not be difficult for the NWO, with their vast resources, to flood the education with so much fake news about the NWO, that the sheeple cannot discern fact from crap. A bunch of fake storys that are anti-NWO, will make people think that all the "education" is rubbish. This will prevent any education movement from gaining any traction, except with those that already see the light. I'll just start with those, and address anything else that my opponent brings up. Now, on to a better solution. Kill every living person that is supporting the NWO. No amount of money can make someone's face bullet proof, without horibly disfigureing it. And since the leaders of the NWO need to be able to control the public, part of that is looking the part. They can't do that if they look like Leonardo DiCaprio from Man in the Iron Mask. This means that they will always be exposed to some degree of danger and risk of assassination. So it is possible. If all the members of the NWO are killed, it will obviously collapse, since there are no members to sustain it. Obviously if the NWO is completely collapsed, then it will not only have grinded to a halt, but been completely destroyed, thus preventing it from ever regaining momentum again (at least in the foreseeable future). For now, I will end my round and allow my opponent to post his argument and rebuttal. Thank you, [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(conspiracy_theory) [2] . http://www.udel.edu...
The New World Order- The best way to stop it in its tracks- is education.

The impending NWO is not a debatable in its existence. It is obvious that it is happening, so please do not make this an argument debating on whether this is a false "conspiracy". I believe that the best way to hault this conspiracy is through educating the American public of its existence. Knowledge is power. 1st round- opening argument2nd round- Rebuttles3rd round- Closing argument.
The Christian God Does Not Exist

My proof, or evidence, of the non-existence of God is completely overwhelming and I will choose to save the rest for the following arguments. I will, however, respond to the questions that you asked. The conditions here one Earth truly are extraordinary, it is amazing that we find the conditions that we do. However, this does not point to God. What would be truly extraordinary is if life arose in a place where it SHOULDN'T. The universe is a very big and very old place, so improbable things happen all the time. If it is the case, which it is not, that we are here by intelligent design, it still doesn't prove that it was the Christian god. Why was it not Allah, or Zeus, or Ra?
The Christian God Does Not Exist

Where's your proof that god doesn't exist? Theres plenty of evidence supporting the existence of god.For example, the earth in orbiting the sun departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every 18 miles"a very straight line in human terms. If the orbit changed by one-tenth of an inch every 18 miles, it would be vastly larger and we would all freeze to death. If it changed by one-eighth of an inch, we would be incinerated. The sun is burning at approximately 20 million degrees Celsius at its interior. If the earth was moved 10% farther away, we would soon freeze to death. If it was moved 10% closer, we would be reduced to ashes. Are we to believe that such precision "just happened"? Think about it: the sun is poised at 93 million miles from Earth, which happens to be just right. Did this happen by chance or by design? It"s no small wonder that the psalmist alludes to God as the grand designer: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. . . . [The sun] rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other" (Psalm 19:1, 6).
Corporal Punishment be Brought Back to Schools

First of all, not all children can run, thus it would make any form of punishment unfair. 1 mile for a fit student is not the same punishment as 1 mile for a overweight student, but giving a child a larger punishment for being physically fit is also discrimination. Secondly, teachers would need training in this area which would cost money. Third, If a student had an injury or anything went wrong parents could sue costing schools more money. Fourth, just because rules are in place doesn't make it impossible for abuse of laws. Teachers hit students all the time. As a student who has to do 16 hours of service for texting while on a school sponsored volunteer trip, I know that schools can abuse the punishments, but imagine having to run 16 extra miles or something that could put your health at risk. The system that we have now is not perfect, but there is not a cure all for punishment and detentions and suspensions are the only way for schools to enforce rules with out putting the school or the students at risk.
Corporal Punishment be Brought Back to Schools

Before I start, let me just say this much: I'm against corporal punishment, this is just for fun since we just did this debate at school. Corporal punishment is when a teacher punishes a student physically for a mistake, and it needs to be brought back to schools. It is true that it has been misused in the past, but with new rules, corporal punishment would be a new and healthy part of a student's life. In this case, the ruler shall not be used, or any other tool used to strike the student, including the hand of a teacher. Instead, the punishment will be carried out in the form of running. Depending on the severity of the student's mistake and his/her physical status, the student will be required to run a certain distance. By doing this, it will not only ensure the student will not be abused by a teacher, and it is also good physical excersize. According to http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au..., running will help build strong bones, strengthen muscles, improve cardiovascular fitness. burn plenty of kilojoules. and help maintain a healthy weight. This way, not only is the student punished, it also helps maintain a student's good health. This form of punishment will also avoid missing classtime, which is a problem caused by detention or suspension. The running will be done before or after school, therefore no classtime will be missed, allowing the student to learn everything he/she is supposed to learn. It also costs no money to use this form of punishment. It is efficent both time and money wise. Therefore, corporal punishment should be brought back to schools in the form of running.
World War II and / or The New Deal ended the Great Depression

definition of CATALYST 1 : a substance that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate or under different conditions (as at a lower temperature) than otherwise possible 2 : an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action The war was a catalyst, because it provoked or speed up economic development. Notice the word has two definitions. So, yes i do know what a catalyst is, thank you.
World War II and / or The New Deal ended the Great Depression

While i do agree with your first point, that is in no way did the New Deal end the Great Depression, but your second point is absolutely wrong. For one the armed forces created millions of jobs for American men, who would not be able to find a job otherwise. World War 2 provided American Men with roughly 16 millions jobs. 16 million is an astounding amount of employment for a country that seemed to be on the edge of collapse. Not only did it create jobs in the Navy, Army, and Marines, but we saw the creation of the Air Force. Not to mention the manufacturing jobs that were created provided jobs on the home-front. The business that benefited most was the newspapers, their sales increased four fold during World War II. Finally, and I know this has been a short opening statement, but my opinion on the war being destructive to the American home land diverges drastically. Besides Pearl Harbor and a failed Alaskan campaign by the Japanese we had no home front battles, we brought the fight to the enemy. After the war the GI bills saved the economy by giving jobs to soldiers like my Grandfather. The fact of the matter is the capital which was being invested in America, would have kept failing the economy if not for the war. The New Deal prevented any serious business growth during the Great Depression. Do you really think it was a waste for America to defeat Hitler?
Mecca described in Isaiah

I think it describes the Holy Temple 3 that will soon be built by the Jewish Anointed One. Even among all of this impending chaos, The Lord says through me to build the temple remove all the pagan nabatean unholiness tell them to stay in their holy lands for their prophet himself stopped directing himself towards the Israealite temple and he told his followers to change the direction to that of Ishmaelite Allah Let them move back to their holy lands and let us build Our Holy Temple There is still hope If we turn back to YHVH Jerusalem is the holy site for the sons of Isaac Makkah is the holy site for the sons of Ishmael For even Jesus was a son of Isaac Give them proper warning Let the American believers of God help you out Let America not follow Azazel and his devils There is still hope BUILD THE THIRD TEMPLE BRING YHVH BACK INTO THIS FALLEN WORLD Let all sin disappear and ungodliness http://destructionofzion.blogspot.jp...
Mecca described in Isaiah

Isaiah 56:7 "These I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." The meaning of this verse is very clear. Let's analyze those key words: Holy mountain, Sacrifices, Nations. - Holy mountain: Standing in the mount Arafat is one of the pillars of pilgrimage in Islam. Mount Arafat: https://en.wikipedia.org... . - Sacrifices: During Hajj ( Pilgrimage) animals are slaughtered to commemorate the story of Abraham and Ishmael. Hajj Sacrifice: https://en.wikipedia.org.... -Nations: The Jews are just one nation, unlike Islamic world. Therefore. This prophecy is about the pilgrimage in Makkah. Isaiah 60:6-7 6 The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD. 7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory. - Makkah exists between Midian ( North Saudi Arabia ) & Sheba ( Yemen) - Kedar & Nebaioth are sons of Ishmael: According to Genesis 25:13, Kedar was the second son of Ishmael, the ancestor of the Prophet Muhammad. Nebaioth is the firstborn son of Ishmael. Nebaioth: https://en.wikipedia.org... Qedar: https://en.wikipedia.org... Makkah is pronounced "Bakka" in one of the Arabic dialects. Thus, the Holy Qur"an mentions "Makkah" by name in one passage (48:24) and as "Bakka" in another verse, which reads, "The first house (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka ; full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings" (TMQ 3:96). Psalm 84:5-6 provides the remarkable link between Old Testament and Qur"an: "Blessed is the man whose strength is in You, whose heart is set on pilgrimage. As they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a spring "" The sacred "spring" of the well of Zamzam in Bakka/Makkah is well known. Additionally, as noted in the form of an editor"s comment in Edward Gibbon"s work, "Mecca cannot be the Macoraba of Ptolemy ; the situations do not agree, and till the time of Mahomet, it bore the name of Becca, or the House, from its celebrated temple. It is so called even in some parts of the Koran."
Divorce is the greatest evil

Your argument in this round in no way contributed to justifying your claim of "Divorce is the greatest evil." So I'm confused as to why this argument is posted. But for the sake of finishing the debate I'll continue for the heck of it. Since you are using the bible as your source I'll accept your claim of Men coming before Women. However your claim of marriage results in government I'm have to disagree with that. You did not make your claim of what the definition of a marriage is and how it contributes to formulating a government. I will use the definition of marriage as defined by the Oxford Dictionary. "NOUN 1The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:" Marriage is a concept generated by human beings. Because the legal union of two people do indeed require verification by authority to be effective and in nature there exists no such term as marriage to begin with, acts of mating, reproducing, and raising younglings do not equal to marriage. The key term here is Legal Union. Now the definition of Government from the Oxford Dictionary: "NOUN 1 [TREATED AS SINGULAR OR PLURAL] The group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office:" Applying the definition of marriage from above we can clearly see that marriage requires authority to complete the process. Having a form of authority would mean there is government. This will invalidate Pro's claim of Marriage > Government, as by logical deduction if marriage requires authority to complete then authority should come first. Additionally there is no logical connection in Pro's argument of: "Government does not decide what Marriage is. It is the other way around- Marriage decides what Government is. No Marriage. No Government. And if a nation is not Married to God then there can be no nation." Why is it that if a nation is not married to God then there can be no nation? How does this phrase connect with Pro's argument in this round? As the Con I accepted the challenge with the fact that Pro is using the bible as a valid source, however Pro did not succeed in making a convincing argument. No convincing evidences were provided, no effective reasoning were made, and no logical deductions were to be observed.
Divorce is the greatest evil

Man > Woman Father > Son Here the greater-than sign only means that the Man came before the Woman, the Father came before the Son. Applying the greater-than sign to divorce we must first understand the order of events- Marriage > Government Where Marriage came before any other form of Government. If the greater-than sign holds true what the last equation means is that there can be no Government if there is no Marriage. So then Divorce is an attack against all Civilization, an attack against all Mankind. Government does not decide what Marriage is. It is the other way around- Marriage decides what Government is. No Marriage. No Government. And if a nation is not Married to God then there can be no nation.
Divorce is the greatest evil

Ok.. to be honest I don't quite understand your argument about how divorce was evil. Israel committed adultery, which lead to the divorce and broke God's heart? That's what I'm getting out of this so far. But wouldn't those quotes be backing up adultery is evil instead of divorce is evil? Also maybe I'm missing something but how is this all tied to divorce is evil?... Please do keep in mind I'm not a Christian so I don't know too much about the bible, all this is foreign to me. The answers to your question, "When did the Kingdom of Judah serve God with the Bill of Divorcement?" I seriously have no idea and how that is relevant to this argument. And... "And what is the meaning of the Bill of Divorcement?" To file for a divorce obviously?.... So back to the divorce matter, whatever Israel and Judah did that led to a divorce that reason would be adultery and that doesn't apply to all cases of divorce. So in hinge sight what you should be stating as the topic of this debate is "Committing adultery is the greatest evil" and not "Divorce is the greatest evil".
Divorce is the greatest evil

"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also." (Jeremiah 3:8) Now I want you to know that these words of God written by Jeremiah are on top. And if we go a little deeper we will see that God's heart is surely broken. And that any suffering that any of us might have gone through or any suffering that any us are going through or will go through, He has already tasted of such suffering. God knows our pain even before it has been inflicted upon us. "Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away." (Isaiah 50:1) The actual fact of the matter is that Israel and Judah did it to themselves. God did not divorce Israel or Judah. It is the other-way-around. Israel and Judah did divorce God. And they both of them sold themselves. "Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;" (Hosea 2:2) We all know when the Northern Kingdom of Israel got a divorce from God. It was when the Northern Kingdom went into captivity. What we now want to know is exactly when the Kingdom of Judah got its divorce from God. When did the Kingdom of Judah serve God with the Bill of Divorcement? And what is the meaning of the Bill of Divorcement?
Divorce is the greatest evil

Getting married and divorcing is a process, there is no evil in this process. When two people fall in love and getting married, it's a ritual that signifies their love for each other, while divorce is the opposite of that. As for the greatest evil in mankind I personally would say it's murder, but that's irrelevant for now. Let's take a look at a source for divorce rate. From apa.org "Marriage and divorce are both common experiences. In Western cultures, more than 90 percent of people marry by age 50. Healthy marriages are good for couples" mental and physical health. They are also good for children; growing up in a happy home protects children from mental, physical, educational and social problems. However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher." - Encyclopedia of Psychology Will that make the 40~50% of the Americans evil? I'd like to say no. To take this a step further, a human being is blessed with choices, however many that would be. A marriage is not a dead end for love. If a man or woman falls in love and gets married with say a murderer but he/she found out that he/she's been lying to him/her and files for a divorce will that be considered evil? There was true love but also lies built into the marriage. And how about two people who truly loves each other but cannot get married? They are committed to living the rest of their lives together and love each other forever. What would that be classified as? How about the people who practices Polygamy, if one of the wives decide to get a divorce is that evil? She does love her husband and her husband loves her as well, just along with a couple other women. Also if one looks at a case where the man and woman have different views on love but did not discover that difference initially when they decided to get married and later on they had no choice but to get a divorce due to the indifferences between them. Would that be considered as evil? Now you're using the Bible as a source for your argument and stating divorce is the greatest evil I'd like to understand why exactly that is the case? The bible says many things and people all interpret them differently so that's why there are various religious branches. I'd like to understand the reasoning behind your statement please. Thank you.
Divorce is the greatest evil

This debate is not about all those fake marriages that we read about in the public media. Fake marriages such as those between rich old, (almost dead) men and those young blonde gold diggers. Fake marriages like those between pro athletes like Tiger Woods who may well be just another sex addict and those nice girls that he shacks up with. These kind of marriages and these kind people don't count. This debate is about real marriages between a guy and a girl who fall in love and commit the rest of their lives to one-another. Real marriages that fall on hard times- The Pro position, (mine) is that divorce is the greatest evil known to mankind. As always my main source is the Bible but Con is welcome to do whatever Con wants to do such as- 1 Cuss me out 2 Take up the challenge and then quit 3 Lie and cheat 4 Beat me up In other words if Con wants to get a divorce during this debate I don't care. I am going to stick it out and fulfill my obligations, all of them even to my own detriment. Opening argument: "If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." (Jesus of Nazareth)
The Problem of Evil (LPoe will be addressed, not the EPoe)

emoI'm sorry but I'm going to have to formally forfeit this round. You see, I live in New York and I have lost power due to the second storm following Hurricane Sandy. I have not had internet access. Right now I am typing this by using the wifi in a Panera store, but I have to get to school. So you may naturally extend your arguments to the next round and hopefully I will get power back to respond in the next round. Maybe you should wait until the end of your 72 hours to submit your extension of arguments, as this will allow me more time before my 72 hours for the next round starts. Thank you.