BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christian Pacifism is incoherent

Since my opponet seems to be unable to respone I will just restate my pervious conclusions (and correct a really bad typo) and hope he responds in the next round. One final note of importance is that none of the church creeds such as the Apostle's Creed claim that followers of Christ must be pacifistic. The Church creeds are silent on this issue. This shows is that even the early church fathers (who were on average more likely to be pacifistic) did not see pacifism as essential to following Christ.At certain points you seemed to concede that some violence is necessary for the state to function, or did I misunderstand you there? It seems that if you concede some limited amount of violence is necessary then the argument stands. Conclusions on your objections.I hope I haven’t misunderstood you at any point and if I have please correct me, but it seems that you did not address my reasons for premise 1, you did not dispute the logic of my argument, the examples of Christ's teaching you cite miss the thrust of the argument, and upon close study those same teachings do not hold up as pacifistic in nature. So for the moment, I conclude my original argument stands.
Christian Pacifism is incoherent

I contend that any version of Christianity that requires Pacifism of it's adherents is incoherent. By Christianity, I mean the most general type that affirms that Christ is God, and that he died and was raised from the dead for the forgiveness of sin. By Pacifism, I mean the adherence to non-violence. The challenger must take the opposite position that following the teachings of Christ requires Pacifism.
Children *need* exposure and interaction with electronic media.

I highly disagree. As a child, I rarely watched TV, played video games, or did anything electronically. My family was so poor that we could not afford a telephone or even a refrigerator. Currently, at the age of 29, I graduated from Harvard University Business and Wharton School of Finance as valedictorian. Now I work at Morgan Stanley, and I have a monthly income of $750,000 to$1,000,000. I can assure you that I am a very active member of our "media saturated society."
Children *need* exposure and interaction with electronic media.

You don't distinguish between different forms of electronic media, nor between the genres of a specific form. I assume you are referring to television, and since you refer only to 'celebrities' I assume you are totally unfamiliar with educational children's media. I abhor celebrities (and all celebrity 'gossip') and no young children I know watch them on television in those absurd E! shows or what have you. It's ridiculous to judge all media based on some of it's worst examples. It's like judging all people based on the example of Charles Manson. A wealth of educational programs are thriving on a number of networks aimed at children. Dora the Explorer, Blue's Clues, Pinky Dinky Doo, Little Bill, Sesame Street, Baby Einstein, Jack's Big Music Show, the list goes on and on. I maintain that children *need* exposure to these types of shows in order to fully live up to their potential as members of this media saturated society. Certainly ALL media is not created equal. In my initial post I was clearly writing about specific, child-oriented media of all sorts.
Children *need* exposure and interaction with electronic media.

Despite the pediatric 'laws' against permitting children under the age of two any screen time (be it computerized or televised) many parents continue to purchase and show their very young children electronic media aimed at their age group(s). I am one of those parents. In my opinion, educational electronic media teach narrative, image and symbiotic literacy to young children in ways traditional text-based media do not. These skills are a necessary aspect of 21st century life. They help children discern between flashing trickery and real information, they allow for cultural fluency that promotes relationships (i.e. - 'have you seen Cars?' 'Yeah! I Love Lightening McQueen!') and many are simply unbelievably fun. I have noticed that my children are no less active than others whose parents are not as screen-time positive. I also seek out and encourage play with more activity oriented electronic media, such as Nintendo's Wii. Ultimately, however, it is the very nature of screen time, which encourages a kind of focused attention and unique immersive thinking, that I think really benefits children whether or not they are standing up to play. Children *need* exposure to electronic media. Rather than we wary of it, parents should actively seek out innovative and educational forms of screen time and encourage children to use it. It is only when we truly and emphatically embrace electronic media that it can live up to its potential as a medium.
designer babies

It can't help to try can it? my opponent may be correct about them being made to help their siblings, but isn't that a risk to take? after all, we're already preventing life from being born, why not use that life to cure other people, people who really need THAT babies DNA or parts to survive? Embryo screening, for example, is sometimes used to create a genetically matched "savior sibling" -- a younger sister or brother whose healthy cells can be harvested to treat an older sibling with a serious illness.It also is increasingly used to weed out embryos at risk of genetic diseases -- such as breast cancer -- that could be treated, or that might not strike a person later in life(An embryo is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks after the last menstrual period or LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus). PGD is a technique whereby a three-day-old embryo, consisting of about six cells, is tested in a lab to see if it carries a particular genetic disease. Embryos free of that disease are implanted in the mother's womb. Introduced in the 1990s, it has allowed thousands of parents to avoid passing on deadly disorders to their children. Does this really sound like such a bad thing? It seems to have help before...
designer babies

Ever dreaming of your child having blue eyes? Or green eyes? Well this is a process called designer babies. Designer babies is when you get to pick the traits of your baby. I think that making designer babies is bad, they can cause diseases and may not even work. Doctors use designer babies for transplants and people with cancer or diseases that need an extra body part (like for an organ or for bone- marrow transplants,) the doctors make a kid that is a genetic match to the sibling. When making designer babies, you use a technique called PGD when the embryo of the child when it"s 3 days old is tested to see if it has a genetic disease. Scientists don"t know if making designer babies is even safe. My opponent probably believes that it is good to make designer babies because it can help people with diseases get better. However, I think we shouldn"t be allowed to make designer babies because of the risks it can cause and of how little research scientists have.
designer babies

I believe that scientist and biological specialist, should be able to make 'designer babies' if the parents are willing to. It's a completely necessary step, into creating a world of stronger , and more intelligent people. Not only is this a discovery ,that could very well not only change the world, but with minds like theses, it could change the way we think as well, stopping war, economic problems, theses kids could make something better. There is nothing wrong with a little enhancement...
designer babies

Overall, I just think that designer babies shouldn"t be allowed, scientists don"t know that making designer babies is safe. My opponent may think it helps the designer babies suffering sibling but the process called PGD can cause diseases. Making designer babies may not even work, scientists need more research to find out more about the process. I think we need more research and find more about the technique called PGD and find a way to make sure it won"t cause diseases. Designer babies can cause diseases that can risk your life. Do you really want to waste money on making a child that could die? I don"t think you do. In conclusion, I think that making designer babies shouldn"t be allowed because of the lack of research and the risk of diseases and I think you should think that too.
designer babies

basically we need this, it can be used for health and improvement in society. i say we should do this because it's just, worth it. People need a boost, we need to figure this out now, because we never know what gonna happen, men or women could loose valuable "parts" in/on their bodies, and this could be the only thing we could rely on to continue the human race.... we should perfect it now so we can use it in the future ( distant or near)
designer babies

"Because it"s an extreme technology. We"ll never really be able to tell if it"s safe without doing unethical human experimentation. And if it does work, the idea that it could be accessible to everyone is specious. We can"t even get universal childhood vaccinations. We hope now that we"re going to get expanded coverage and health care, but to think we"ll supply fertility treatments to everyone, not just people with infertility problems " that"s going to break the bank in a hurry." Keim, Brandon. "Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?" Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 09 Mar. 2009. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. Scientists don"t even know if designer babies are even safe. Scientists don"t even have the research for making designer babies so it may not even be safe. Some people think that making designer babies is safe to do but others think it might not even work. I just think if you don"t even know if its safe, that we shouldn"t be putting lives into risks. If scientists had more research, making designer babies would be safer and wouldn"t put anyone into risks. I know making designer babies can help kids but it can also put the designer baby into risk.
designer babies

According to Hughes, using reproductive technologies " in this case, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), in which doctors screen embryos before implanting them " for cosmetic purposes is just an old-fashioned parental impulse, translated into 21st century technology. If nobody gets hurt and everybody has access, says Hughes, then genetic modification is perfectly fine, and restricting it is an assault on reproductive freedom. "It"s in the same category as abortion. If you think women have the right to control their own bodies, then they should be able to make this choice," he said. "There should be no law restricting the kind of kids people have, unless there"s gross evidence that they"re going to harm that kid, or harm society." Sited from 'Keim, Brandon. "Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?" Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 09 Mar. 2009. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.'. "Hughes" makes a good point and says there is nothing wrong with the fact if it it's the women's right to choose, it's not like we're forcing them. Women need more rights, and is it fair to take this decision away from them? i don't think so ...
designer babies

"While PGD has long been used for the medical purpose of averting life-threatening diseases in children, the science behind it has quietly progressed to the point that it could potentially be used to create designer babies. It isn't clear that Fertility Institutes can yet deliver on its claims of trait selection. But the growth of PGD, unfettered by any state or federal regulations in the U.S., has accelerated genetic knowledge swiftly enough that pre-selecting cosmetic traits in a baby is no longer the stuff of science fiction." Naik, Gautam. "A Baby, Please. Blond, Freckles -- Hold the Colic." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Jan.-Feb. 2009. Web. 27 Feb. 2014. This technique called PGD can cause diseases that can be life threatening to the child you are having. I really think that if something can risk your life then why do it? I know that making designer babies can help siblings but why would you have a baby just for your other kid if you won"t even take care of it? They are some benefits from making designer babies, you get a baby how you like it and it can help another child get better but how do we even know if it will even work? I just think we shouldn't risk peoples lives. Do you even know if your information is reliable?
you are not the best debater ever.

C1: your win loss ratioIt's 0%. How is that the best? Also well, your percentile is low last time I chacked. C2: Just cause your name says so it doesn't matterJust because your name says so doesn't mean it is true. My name is 16kadams but that is not my name. It doesn't imply everything. So don't use that argument/ C3: lolYour losing that debate, by a lot. Also many of your debates have the same out comes and you have been dubed a noob and a troll. C4: your debates. http://www.debate.org...Here you dub him a noob and a fail. You say "GTFO" And provided no arguments. You are losing 45-0. Th wil change layer to more vs 0. You are not a good debator. . http://www.debate.org...here you dub the same guy here "stoopid" and you only argument was your awsome. Which dosn't seem the case. Also you FF'd 2 rounds there. Also you ail to understand the hillarius pun of a name. So you ar a bad debator. . http://www.debate.org...Here you argue prositution should be allowed for minors. Which is odd. Your argument where "sex is good" and "I win no need to explain" and " everyone has equal rights" and those argments are weak and are refuted. C5: You insultI have examples above. Insulting doesn't improve your case most of the time. C6: your argunts hereYou say I will not argue and here will be arguments. Your opponent did so for me. Also I ope you get punished. You also spammed one of my debate comments saying "shut up hardcore or i'll hardcore your mother" sthe debates to hardcore. pwnogoraphy. That is hugly inapropriete and I hope you are punished by :a. losing this debateb. getting bannedc. being loked down uponbeter yet all 3. You can see his gross comment here: . http://www.debate.org...==conclusion==If you saw his debates he is not a good debator and he is rude and self promoting for no reason. He also had a gross argument (which I reported btw) and hope he gets punished. For those reasons he should lose this debate, and he is not a good debator. I have proven him worse then the people he has debated, 45-0. So he s at least worst then a few people. Therefore i have fufilled the BOP.
National Security is more important than privacy.

This debate shall be about whether or not National Security is far more important, than privacy. I am Pro meaning that I am on the side that "National Security is far more important, than privacy". My opponent shall argue the opposite.Rules:1st Round: Acceptance and any needs of clarification2nd Round: Opening Argument (Try keeping it short)3rd Round: Rebuttals and any new arguments4th Round: Rebuttals and Closing ArgumentDefinitions:National Security: A concept that a government, along with its parliament(s), should protect the state and its citizens against all kind of "national" crises. In this case, giving up privacy for security. Important: A great significance or value of an idea.Privacy: The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. Any need for clarification, or questions can be inserted within the Comment Section, or first round of the debate. I will answer in the comment section. Good Luck to whoever accepts the challenge!
National Security is more important than privacy.

For this round, I will keep my opening argument short. In today's topic, we are arguing if National Security is more important than ones privacy. The definitions have been defined in the first round, and me and my opponent both agree with the definitions. To begin the argument, I will discuss on how privacy is not really worth it, compared to National Security. Privacy, like defined before, is "The state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people". I admit we need our privacy at times, but the safety of ones country is much more greater. Think about it like this, do you have anything to hide? Are you doing anything illegal? If not, then why worry? Secondly, the National Security did work until Obama enlisted the use of Government Transparency. Government Transparency is defined as: "Government's obligation to share information with citizens". It can be good and bad, depending on how one looks at it; but I will prove on how its bad. Stated under the article "The Truth About Transparency - Why Wikileaks Is Bad for All of Us", it states that the reasoning it is bad, to have Government Transparency, is because of us, the viewers, learning what the Government is doing; and have many disagreements with their actions. In fact, it actually takes away the Governments privacy, which is way more important than an unknown individuals privacy. And the benefits within the privacy of the Government is the allowance to do missions, and accomplish those missions which protects society; with no interference. And well as the fact that the Patriot Act is actually being wanted to be renewed. Stated under the article "Americans Say They Want The Patriot Act Renewed ", it states that 61% of people want the act renewed because of the safety it has promoted within the country. Sources: http://www.shaheen.senate.gov... http://www.dhs.gov... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.npr.org...
The Christian God probably does not exist

Firstly I tried to prove it scientifically , now I'm going to stand for my own opinion. 1) If there's no christian god bible must be fake cause it's a word of God and the people who wrote it must be cheaters. But it has told us about the events that really happened in future. For example: The birth of the man named Jesus was foretold in old testament 1,000 years before Christ was born! (And Jesus was a real historical person. science proved it) I mean maybe after 1000 years in a place you live will be born a man named John. But how can you know it ? There's no way to guess it correctly, somebody has to told you. Somebody who knows and it has to be a higher person cause there's no way for a simple human to know it. That's how Bible defends itself from being fake. 2) Often It's easier to prove devil's existence because he visits us much more often. You're free to call devil's possession a brain damage, but there're hundreds of stories how possessed people start to spit tacks from their mouth, how they start to talk latin (no matter that they never new this language) or how they start telling sins of a priest etc... Of course it might be fake but there're too many stories (usually they coincides) and documentaries,even videos. Devil is a biblical person, so if it's real. then bible must be real either and therefore christian god must be real. 3) My position is so easy, I can say on everything "God made that happen" but if you deny God existence and even try to ground your opinion you have to tell how everything happens by itself. For example how does the stuff I wrote about happen by itself and with nobody's will. if you're debating you can't just simply say "I have no idea how it happens but I'm absolutely sure it happens by itself lol"
The Christian God probably does not exist

Structure:1: Acceptance2: Opening Arguments3: New points/ Refutations4: New points/ Refutations5: Refutation/ ClosingChristian God: " Christians believe God is the creator and sustainer of the universe (e.g. John 1:1-3, Col. 1:16-17, cf. Gen. 1:1). God is also all-powerful (or "omnipotent"), all-knowing (or "omniscient"), all-present (or "omnipresent"), and all-good (or "omnibenevolent")" http://www.religionfacts.com...
Time is a Cube: Linear Time is pseudo-science

As far as we are aware everything has cubic dimensionality and this would seem to be a given law relative to spatial potential. Unless we have pre-creation knowledge then it would be difficult to oppose this observation. it would also seem that non-dimensionality is not consistent with creation anyway. As for time: Does time actually require dimensionality? Isn't time simply an accurate and obvious assumption relative to existence and events. I would suggest that attempting to apply dimensionality to time is simply another manifestation of human over-think.
Time is a Cube: Linear Time is pseudo-science

Evidence 1: inter-alia, Humans have front-facing sensory. Evidence 2: inter alia, A personal computer has a front facing monitor, Pins on top of a processor chip, Etc. Evidence 1 and 2 both show that objects in existence have cubic dimensions. Evidence 3: Cubic harmony was found between our Sun and our planet; day, Midday, Night and midnight are created simultaneously on Earth, By the Sun, And Earth rotates, Orbits, And tilts through these four Sunlight quadrants. Evidence 3 shows that stars and planets have a cubic relationship, And the effect of this relationship is movement into the future. There is a cube time field; the cubic harmony found between Sun and planet is the cube-time-action that creates the cube-time-field.
Time is a Cube: Linear Time is pseudo-science

It's very simple: Spatial potential allows for dimensionality and therefore the existence of matter. In even simpler terms, Spatial potential makes room for stuff. As such we are able to regard space as cubic. That is to say; three dimensional. Basic time potential allows for event and duration. Though event and duration are only possibilities, Unless acted upon by matter. Possibilities do not require dimensionality; only matter and it's subsequent processes (event and duration) require dimensionality. Spatial potential already provides the necessary dimensionality. There is space for things to happen and there is time for things to happen. Space and time are obviously relative possibilities but also separate possibilities. As far as I can make out; what Pro is somewhat over-elaborating, Is simply events occurring within the dimensionality of space, Such as the human in the room or the stars in the sky. The human walks across the room and an event occurs and that event has a duration. Time is the event possibility and space is the dimensional possibility. I would strongly suggest therefore, That Cubic time is as I previously stated, Human "over-think". An unnecessary over-elaboration of the basic realities of universal existence.
Time is a Cube: Linear Time is pseudo-science

One does not doubt the unavoidable dimensionality of spatial potential. Refer to it as "cubic" if you will, But that will not make any difference to existing, Basic, Universal reality. The proposition though, Refers specifically to time and not to spatial potential. Event and duration and consequently existence (pre-supposing the existence of matter) obviously rely on time and dimensional space (non dimensional space being something of a nonsense contradiction anyway). Time however does not require dimensionality, Or linearity for that matter. In fact the basic potential of time would be present even without spatial potential. The fact that there would be no one to regard time is wholly irrelevant, Because what we regard as the passage of time is actually events and their associated duration and not time itself. Put simply, Time is an intangible reality. In fact, Basic spatial potential could also be regarded as an intangible reality, Though spatial potential always, Inevitability conjures up it's dimensional possibilities. But of course regard is only relative to a viewer and as far as we know we are the only ones that regard time and space in such an elaborate and often over-elaborate way. I would therefore suggest that Cubic time and also linear time are both unnecessary and over-elaborate descriptions, Of event and duration relative to spatial dimensionality, Rather than descriptions of time itself. Though for the sake of the argument it could be suggested that linear time best represents progressive movement.