BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Clippers(yes) or Miami Heat(no)

ok first of all i disagree with your argument. Yes it is true that the Heat have a very talented big 3 in a Lebron James D Wade and Chris Bosh. However, the Heat do not have any other players to make them a good team. Ray Allen's age is finally getting to him as he is shooting his career's worst shooting percentage this year. The Heat do not also have a strong bench. Their bench is just absolutely awful. Pg: Norris Cole Sg: Ray Allen Sf: Udonis Haslem Pf: Joel Anthony C: Greg Oden. The Heat dont have a bench to back up their starters. The Clippers on the other hand are completely stacked. They have one of the best backcourts in the NBA with a Chris Paul and a JJ Redick. Furthermore, Blake Griffin and DJ have stepped up completely on the defensive end. Blake is 1 of only 4 players in the NBA to average 20 ppg and 10 rpg. DJ is a huge candidate for most improved and defensive player of the year. His numbers are just ridiculous. He leads the NBA in rebounds with a ridiculous 13.5 rpg and is 3rd in blocks with 2.44 blocks. The heat would have a lot of trouble with the Clippers because when the second quarter comes the Heat are in trouble. The Clippers bench ranks 3rd in the NBA and would absolutely crush the Heat's. The Clippers are better than the Heat
Clippers(yes) or Miami Heat(no)

I believe that Miami Heat is better than Clippers because they have a lot or NBA All-Stars. Miami Heat has some of the really good players like LeBron James, Ray Allen, Chris Bosh, and Dwayne Wade. Even though Clippers have some good players like Chris Paul, DeAndre Jordan, Blake Griffin, and Jamal Crawford; Heat's really good players would beat them if each do a one on one. Thank you.
The 10 commandments newly set up on the grounds of the Oklahoma City capitol building is illegal

There have been numerous court cases over the years over very similar contexts allowing for us to understand why this would be considered to be unconstitutional under Federal law. This statue was enacted by the "Ten Commandments Monument Display Act" and directed the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission to "permit and arrange for the placement on the State Capitol grounds of a suitable monument displaying the Ten Commandments." As seen in the supreme court case: Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971) the Supreme court created the Lemon Test. The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion which would be deemed unconstitutional. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. The three parts are as follows: First, the statute/law must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." -The state assembly of Oklahoma is clearly violating the first part of the lemon test as this is NOT a secular legislative act as it allows for the certain teaching of a certain religion to be placed on display. -The state assembly of Oklahoma is clearly violating the second part of the lemon test as this is clearly an attempt to advance the teachings of Christianity in a place that is supposed to be secular. -The state assembly of Oklahoma is clearly violating the third part of the lemon test as it is placing a specific religious text on government property where it is supposed to be purely secular. This is then relating a certain religion to the government again fostering "an excessive government entanglement with religion" which is unconstitutional and goes against the lemon test. A very similar case arose in Florida with the case American Atheists v. Bradford County Fl. In this case, Bradford County, Florida unveiled a five-foot-tall, six-ton granite monument to the Ten Commandments in front of the Bradford County Courthouse. This monument was a gift from the group "Community Men's Fellowship" and cost $22,000. This ultimately ended with the Community Men's Fellowship settling out of court and American Atheists winning the case. There are numerous if not hundreds of other cases in which the Lemon Test has been applied in a similar fashion and ending with similar acts being unconstitutional.
God didn't really sacrifice his son. (short debate)

No. Just as the atonement covered the sins even of people who did not yet exist (and therefore had not yet sinned), so also did the atonement cover those who already lived and sinned in the past. According to Revelation 13:8, the lamb (i.e. Jesus) was "slain from the foundation of the world." Although Jesus was literally slain in the middle of history, that slaying applied to the whole spectrum of time, which is how I interpret Revelation 13:8.
God didn't really sacrifice his son. (short debate)

To be a sacrifice, you don't have to give something up for good. For example, when people fast, they are sacrificing meals. The fact that they eat later doesn't mean going without food wasn't a sacrifice.Likewise, just because Jesus was raised from the dead doesn't mean his death wasn't a sacrifice. Dying on the cross required a lot of suffering. It was a sacrifice because Jesus didn't have to do it, but he did it anyway to save people.
should the U.S . make cheap laser weapons

Whether or not cheap laser weapons exist right now and whether or not the US has access to designs for these weapons, the resolution centers around whether or not the US *should* manufacture them. The answer is clearly no. In fact, the idea that cheap laser weapons do not yet exist and that it would be hard to obtain the plans for them works for me. This means that the US government would be compelled to spend large amounts of resources on manufacturing. This would take time and energy away from more important projects like green energy (see my second contention from Round 1). My opponent did not refute my case, so it stands. He has not as of yet provided any reasons why we should produce cheap laser weapons. For the reasons I discussed in Round 1, I urge a negative vote. -- I do not really want to debate compulsory immunization. Sorry, but I don't do LD. -- Actually, I think the topic is interesting.
should the U.S . make cheap laser weapons

I contend that the US should not make cheap laser weapons. -- -DEFINITIONS- "Laser weapons" : a weapon that fires a concentrated beam of light, or a laser, with the capability of inflicting harm "Cheap" : Relatively inexpensive -- CONTENTION 1: Cheap laser weapons will make the US vulnerable to terrorist strikes and crime. Clearly, a high-powered laser beam can cause more damage than a traditional gun. Laser beams can cut through almost any substance and are not limited by distance as is a gun. Therefore, if the US produces cheap laser weapons and sells them on the markets, terrorists and criminals will have access to very powerful tools. This will allow them to carry out attacks and illegal activity more easily. Even if the US does not sell laser weapons on the markets, a single of these arms that is snuck into the black market could still bring about enormous damages. This is a serious problem because the production of cheap laser weapons would facilitate attacks on American citizens, which is harmful to the US. -- CONTENTION 2: The production of cheap laser weapons would drain resources away from more valuable projects. Laser weapons have not yet been perfected. They are still in the early stages of development and would need an immense amount of funding in order to be successful. At the same time, laser weapons are not crucial to our future, and never will be. It follows that we should instead spend our time and energy working on more important projects. I propose that the resources destined for laser weapon production instead be diverted to the green energy industry. Developing environmentally friendly energy sources is crucial to the future success of the US, not only because we will be able to achieve energy sustainability, but also because we could then make a fortune marketing these technologies to foreign governments. -- For these two reasons, I urge the voters to support the Negative side in this debate.
Perilla's Spirit had Entered Jyk

Finally the last debate. You claim that Perilla's Spirit Entered Jyk and that is how he was able to use the cymbolar on Lynn. Easy debunking right here, Perilla was a Lorvark. Lorvarkian myths suggest that their spirits carry on to a new dimension once their lives end. Perilla would have needed to travel through dimensions to get to Ultaniax. But we both know that in order to transport yourself to the new dimension you must use demonic power. Perilla would not have done that.
People should stop eating meat

There are a lot of benefits of meat, but here i will be mentioning some of them. 1 ) Human beings by evolution are designed to eat meat. a) That is the reason we have canines. b) Humans have much shorter digestive systems than herbivores and don"t have the specialized organs to digest cellulose, the main fiber in plants. 2) Meat is Incredibly Nutritious a)A 100 gram portion (3.5 ounces) of raw ground beef contains large amounts of Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and plenty of other vitamins and minerals b)DHA and EPA are the active forms of Omega-3 in the human body and found primarily in animal foods. The body is inefficient at converting ALA (the plant form of Omega-3) to the active forms. 3) Meat Contains High Quality Protein, Which is Crucial For The Function of Muscles and Bones a) Not surprisingly, consumption of animal protein is associated with increased muscle mass and people who eat an omnivorous diet have more muscle than people eating a vegetarian diet. b) If you want to prevent osteoporosis and fractures in old age, then animal protein should be a regular part of your diet. 4) Meat is calorie dense a) Vegetables lack calories, example Spinach contains only 23 calories per 100 grams broccoli contains 34 calories per 100 grams etc Even if we are to assume an average of 30 calories per 100 grams in vegetables An average person who requires 2000 calories per day will have to eat around 7 kg of vegetables. Of course vegetable are not bad, but when combined with meat they serve us best. Some people argue that killing animal is cruel and inhuman. Well that is how it works, you kill to survive, this is how nature works. Remember that even tress and plants are living things. When we take fruits such as apple, we are killing a chance at life. The fruit is just a soft casing for all of these seeds. This gets really heavy when it's ripe and would fall to the ground, rotting away, allowing the seeds to grow right underneath the parent plant. What do we do, eat the outer casing and throw away the seeds in garbage. Another benefit of eating meat is that, when we eat animals like goat, sheep, beef, we are indirectly consuming grass. At the same time we are helping to control the animals population, animals such as goats reproduce very quickly, if people were to stop eating them, these large number of goats would die due to lack of sufficient food to feed their growing populations. And there will be an increase in number of people dying due to lack of food. Since the demand for veg would increase drastically and the prices would shoot up. And yes consuming large quantities of meat will cause you to get fat and leads to whole lot of problems. 3 to 4 serving of meat per week is best. Balanced diet is the key to healthy life, not a vigorous veg diet. sources: http://authoritynutrition.com... http://authoritynutrition.com... http://meatandhealth.redmeatinfo.com...
Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels

I thank whoever accepts this debate. As the pro side, I define nuclear power as power generated as a result of nuclear fission and fossil fuels as coal, natural gas, and oil. The job of my opponent is to provide a suitable alternative that is more viable than nuclear in substituting fossil fuels. My first argument is nuclear power's ease of location. A nuclear plant can be built anywhere on land (and possibly sea) which could provide power for more desolate places or places which have temperature extremes. While the sun may be shining for the day, there are many places where solar panels are not cost effective. Geothermal energy is self explanatory as it can only be done where there is sufficient warmth in the ground. Wind energy has to be put in rather desolate places that have seasonal temperatures as the cost of maintaining wind farms in a blizzard is tremendous. Hydro has to be near water and cannot be inland without rivers. Nuclear plants can be built anywhere and the energy can be generated at a rather low cost which will later tie into my second point. Nuclear power can be in all temperatures and can be provided to every place in the world. Even coal, oil and natural gas have to be reasonably to a mine or well or the transportation cost would be too high. As shown in the following website, the cost of uranium needed for nuclear does not really affect the price. Logically following, the location of the uranium that it uses does not have to close to the plant. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...
Is the bible corrupted

You didn't provide evidence for the Oxford dictionary having their own agenda, but made a pre-conceived ideas that they are corrupt. We know which books are divinely inspired because they are already established. Each book in the Bible confirms the authenticity of the others. The Torah is validated as inspired (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). Judges confirms Joshua to be inspired (Jud. 1:1, 20, 21, 2:8) and Ruth mentions Judges (Rut. 1:1). David claims inspiration (1 Sam. 23:2). Isaiah wrote of Uzziah and Hezekiah (2 Chron. 26:22, 2 Chron. 22:22). Jehu (1 Kings 16:7) wrote about Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20:34). Daniel verified Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2). Ezra viewed Jeremiah a prophet (Ezra 1:1) and cited his prophecies (Jer. 25:11-12, 29:10-14, 2 Chron. 36:21). Isaiah accepted Micah and vice versa (Isa. 2:2-4,Micah 4:1-3). Ezra accepted Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 5:1,6:14). Ezra accepted Moses (Ezra 7:6). Jeremiah accepted Micah (Jer. 26:18) and cited him (Mic. 3:12,4:1). Solomon was verified (1 kings 3:5, 4:32,11:9). Nehemiah validates Moses (Neh. 13:1). Finally, Jesus validates Moses (John 5:46) and other prophets (Matt. 24:15, Eze. 14:14, 20,28:3). On top of that, the Essene community has left us with further proof that the canon was already set. The manual of discipline regards Moses, servants of God, and his prophets as divinely inspired (1). The Apocrypha and other extra-biblical writings were always seen as non-inspired by ancient Jews (2). Therefore, there is powerful evidence that we can know which books are divinely inspired and which aren't without man deciding what is divinely inspired. Sources: 1. Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures. Greenville, SC, 1995. 140-141. 2. Emphasis mine. Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures. Greenville, SC, 1995. 141.
Is the bible corrupted

"You did not consider the fact that people might simply want to introduce their own corruptions into the text, but with studying them more, more direct conclusions can be made. " Oh but i did, your are supporting my point. In this text its what you are saying seems to be rather ambiguous so i am interpreting it as what you meant was that god did not write bad things but the people altered it." "There is no evidence that such a council existed to decide what books in the Bible were divinely inspired. According to the Oxford dictionary of the Christian church" of course there is no evidence if you try to search from the christian church the people who ruled the church during the middle ages were corrupt but not stupid they knew they had to get rid of the evidence or else the church would be unable to control the people anymore. (Basic middle age history) You also have still not defended why there is a dispute with the 43 bibles on which one is correct or not. If i threw all the bibles in the world to a black hole no one would be able to rewrite it as there will always be disputes on which one is right and wrong isn't that enough evidence to show the corruption in the bible because no one knows how which one is correct and how the bible originally was leading to eternal feuds on which one is right. Unless you can answer this question and provide a solution i win.
Is the bible corrupted

Having 43 books of the Bible doesn't imply that the Bible itself is corrupt. It simply means there is a disagreement over what is right and wrong. The church lying for the purpose of money doesn't imply that the Bible is corrupt as the authors and people of the Bible are not the more modern church. Do you have evidence that the Bible was altered? People pray to Jesus because he is God in the flesh. He is the son of God meaning that he is of God's divinity and his Messiah. In comparing the Old Testament manuscripts together, there hasn't been a single alteration of the Old Testament found that would affect major doctrine.
Is the bible corrupted

I think the bible is corrupted because first, there are 43 different bibles in the world and all of the christians in the world are disputing wether which one is right and which one is wrong. Also if you have studied history class there was a period where the church was extremely corrupt, they had indulgences and they would tell the people lies for the purpose of money. Also to become a pope you could just buy your way. Only the nobles and the church knew what it actually was in the bible and they just changed a lot of the bible making the 43 different bibles which no one can agree today which is correct.Also another thing i would like to point out something that is confusing me. Also why do christians seem to pray to Jesus and worship him more then god. Some say he is the son and some say he is god you people contradict your own teaching. So please enlighten me with your teachings and explain how the bible is correct.
No body really deserves arbitrary respect.

Well first of all I should have defined arbitrary respect. I think its when people gain respect because of status. For instance there seems to be a lot of people who demand respect just because they are in the army. I don't think its wrong for people to not respect people in the army based on their beliefs. I'm not sure that we are debating the same thing but thats how I feel about it. I also think people who are of a religious faith also demand a respect that is not deserved. What I'm saying is that people should be judged on their beliefs and it shouldn't be taboo to disrespect what you think is wrong, like religion or army, but people cannot do so because of the preconceived notion that these organizations are sacred and should be respected no matter what they do.
No body really deserves arbitrary respect.

The problem with this argument is how you define arbitrary respect. Since you did not define it in your own terms I will use this definition: arbitrary- subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion respect- deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment Besides the actual subject of your premise you stated "nobody really deserves"... So if I wanted to I can actually attack this argument on the premise that you don't have the authority over everyone to say "nobody" deserves "arbitrary" respect- which is respect at one's individual discretion. I can even use a different definition to point out a possible contradiction in the statement "nobody DESERVES arbitrary RESPECT". The Army definition for respect is "treat people as they deserve to be treated". How people "deserve" to be treated can be defined in many ways, but given a set standard of morals there is a definite standard in society for how people should be treated. Unless you were born without the knowledge of right and wrong, compassion for your fellow human beings, and the logic to apply knowledge and compassion, then you can't possibly say "nobody" deserves "arbitrary" respect. Even your invalid arguments contain an acknowledgement that "If any one deserves respect without action, it is children who show no fear of questioning society and give respect only when they feel like it." Thus admitting that your premise is wrong. Your arguments for demanding that people "build" respect is a request for respect- a very hypocritical philosophy to have. The mere fact that a person you are approaching is a human being is a reason to have some kind of respect for that person. I doubt you would actually put your arguments into effect and walk around arbitrarily DISrespecting people, but here we are on this website debating it so you can be as "tough" as you'd like. None of what you said is an argument for "nobody really deserves arbitrary respect". You have named situations in which you feel someone might not deserve the respect someone else requires from you, but you nonetheless showed one person or another respect in all those situations. You are griping, and you are complaining, and you have every right to do so- but the fact that you are upset because you feel some people don't deserve arbitrary respect does not prove that "nobody deserves arbitrary respect".
No body really deserves arbitrary respect.

People always say that everyone deserves the utmost respect. When someone speaks in class to present their work, it is a given that they get respect. Teachers always tell their students to treat each other with respect. Yet if every one gave and in return got respect, what is the merit of even having it. Like money and power, respect is something people earn rather than deserve. It is apparent that today's society has grown so sensitive that criticism is often misconstrued as an insult. Many times too much respect is handed out to people who don't deserve it. Sometimes people need to stop being politically correct and express their honest thoughts. Why should a poorly made, uninteresting, and uninformative presentation in class get the respect of its audience? Why can�??t the students comment on how bad something is if they see major flaws in it? Chances are the presentation wasn't made with much effort and the presenter probably is better to experience failure instead to getting the feeling that a lacking effort can sufficient. There is no plausible reason for anyone to "have" to give respect to anything. If somebody doesn't respect the fact that another person is of a different race, so be it. It is their loss to exclude the rich culture of others but in no way should that be "offensive." Students should also never be forced to respect their teachers. Why can't the teachers instead build up respect from their students through interesting and informative lesson plans that make the students want to learn? There is also another conscious that the elderly deserve respect. Yet many elderly citizens are just as immature and ignorant as the rest. If any one deserves respect without action, it is children who show no fear of questioning society and give respect only when they feel like it.
God exists

The existence of God is possible, but has not been proved. My opponent admits that "God cannot be proved by scientific experimentation". Faith is not proof. Faith is an excuse to believe something without evidence. My opponent wants to assert, without evidence, that the "universe is created by someone and now it is controlled by someone, otherwise there going to be a chaos" According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe came into existence on it's own. To quote Stephen Hawking, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going." There is also no evidence that can prove that God controls anything that happens. Forces, such as gravity help provide order and avoid chaos". My opponent has not been able to prove there is a God and admits it is impossible to do so. My opponent has not met his burden of proof.