BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich

You have a sound proof for your argument - which is for economic growth only without taking into consideration equity or morality. If you abandon the needs of the people, and only work to serve the "engine" of economic growth as I've mentioned in my last post, then the needs will focus on the economy rather than the people within the economy. A great example of a country following your ideals for "economic growth" above all other considerations is China. China has had a major shift in economic philosophy over the years - the "opening up" policies in 1978 let private industry maximize market share without the government regulating the economy [1]. Fast forward to China today: Capitalism is destroying the country economically and ethically. The environment is in China is utterly destroyed [2.] - factories sought profit without regard to paying for their waste, so they did not have reason to change their ways as long as "economic growth" was being achieved. There are terrible labor laws - child labor, no workers rights, working in dangerous environments, working in crowded environments, and working with little or no pay at all. It did not change because "economic growth" was being achieved by taking advantage of them. As a result of this booming economic growth, the Gini Coefficient, which is a standard measure of inequality [3], is estimated to be above 0.60 (one of the highest in the world). The worst of all, China's government sees no need to change the increasing output of pollution, worker discrimination, environment degradation, and rising inequality because it is attributing to "economic growth." This is your major argument: economic growth should be our main focus because you believe that economic growth alone translates into a higher quality of life for people. I argue that our focus should *not only* focus on economic growth, but on sustainability and quality of life as well. Sustainability in regard to the environment - we should not just exploit the resources of our finite environment to achieve economic growth. The environment provides us with not only resources, but with fresh air, beauty, and scenic value. Quality of life - this is affected by equity and the environment. In regard to to equity in America, there is an increasing rate at which the gap is widening between the middle and upper class [4]. If people have less and less social mobility, what is the point of solely focusing on economic growth to help only the richest of Americans and push down those who try to rise up? Economic growth is focusing on growth only. Economic development is a balance of economic growth, sustainability, and quality of life. We should focus on economic development. SOURCES: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://topics.nytimes.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.forbes.com...
Civil Unions

I agree that LGBT epole should have the right to partnership and the same rights as heterosexuals. You still have not stated: Why should the government control marriage? Marriage is a bond between two people. For many it is a religious institution, and for others it is not. Marriage should not be a legal contract the way it is now. If LGBT people want to live together, they can. Government should not be able to recognize any marriage, they should stay out of it. Without government in marriage, Civil Unions is useless. Good day.
Masterful is a complete psychopath

"Its amazing that you recognize your mental disabilities"Sorry, you'll have to point them out to me, as I am not aware of these mental disabilities you speak of. However I'll help you out here, you needed a comma in the "Its" because it's an abbreviation for it is. While I appreciate your attempt at constructive criticism, you haven't given any examples of me demonstrating psychopathic behaviour and to that end, I am not convinced. If you are going to do this properly then you need to begin by providing links to definitions and symptoms of psychopathic behaviour and then associate those links with cherry picked quotes that I have said in the past. With 100s of potential religions out there and without there being any evidence of you being Christian, I was still able to guess your religion. How else could I have done this unless your agenda here was so obvious?(Both debaters have agreed that Djksp cannot vote on this debate)
Masterful is a complete psychopath

Its amazing that you recognize your mental disabilities, but you still may not be convinced that you are a psychopath. I have even come to believe that you are a sociopath as well. Some symptoms of being a sociopath include Anger, Not much care for the misfortune of others, and general discontent, All signs you have proven to show in your previous and maybe upcoming debates. But now lets get to the title You are a psychopath masterful. Symptoms of being a psychopath includes lack of remorse or guilt, shallow emotions, and even lying pathology. which you have again proven to show in your debates. Now my rebuttal to your rebuttal :) I am Christian but i'm not arguing for Christian faith. I'm debating with you because you fail to see how many people's days you ruin due to your lack of sympathy. Another symptom of a psychopath is attacking someone physically/ VERBALLY and finding joy out of it or finding it humorous .
The earth is spherical

The perpetuation of ball earth theory, just like Evolutionary Theory and the Big Bang Theory, has become more of a religion, an orthodoxy, than a science. People are expected not to question it, no matter what, at the risk of losing their job, breaking their careers, losing friends, being shunned by family, and being ridiculed by anyone who refuses to think for themselves. If anyone attempts to present scientific evidence contrary to the popularly held view, it is immediately dismissed as "conspiracy theory" or a "crazy religionist". Anytime anyone refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever, even more than other views. Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis. However, it is usually the views that cannot be supported by evidence that choose to take more of an ad-hominem attack by questioning the person's character rather than the evidence presented. My opponent insists that we are living on a ball moving at 1,000 miles per hour. I insist it is impossible, and the earth is relatively flat, minus mountains and other unlevel surfaces. Since con will be arguing against the whole of mainstream science, sources will be sparse, and may include empirical observations filmed by independent sources on sites such as but not limited to YouTube. Any source may be used by either side, until that source or it's claims are proven fallacious. Evidence should be examined with scrutiny. There are two types of evidence, subjective and objective. Below is an explanation with examples of each type. SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence that you cannot evaluate -- you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it. For example, Fred says "My foot hurts a lot." Is he lying? How much is "a lot"? What is Fred's idea of "pain"? ... a sharp, stabbing pain, or just his foot "fell asleep"? Harry says "That was a hard test!" Compared to what? Did he study? Is this just a subject he finds particularly difficult? Bill says "Boy, that was a great football game!" Compared to what? Who was playing? ... his son, the team he coaches, him, two pro teams? OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is evidence you can examine and evaluate for yourself. If Fred walks in with a cane, and a knife stuck in his foot, you can make a decision without hearing Fred's opinion! h If you read the test Harry talked about, you can decide for yourself whether it's hard. If you see a video of the football game, you might see great plays, high scores, a last-minute win, etc. Subjective evidence can be useful in a dichotomy, especially when there are several subjective points. However subjective evidence should be secondary to objective evidence. We will find that the majority of the ball earth theory is based on subjective material, while just the opposite holds true for flat earth evidence. When the evidence for spherical earth is not subjective, that evidence is often inconclusive, completely unrelated or simply misunderstood phenomena.
Morality is Objective (Tournament Debate)

As this is the last round I will rebut his arguments but not present any new ones. My opponent claims the definition given leaves objectivity up for debate. However I think e. is a pretty solid objective statement. In any case however tearing apart a given definition as long as it adequately defines the topic is just semantics and that is really not the point of the debate. My opponent continues to assert that because societies have different ideas of what morality is that it therefore follows that proves morality is subjective. That is just bad logic. The reason I brought up the Math analogy to begin with was to prove that asserting something is right and even having a majority agree with you does not make it so. My opponent brings up consequential loopholes. This again doesn’t prove his point, just because there are circumstances where it is acceptable to kill someone doesn’t make murder relative. Self defense for one thing isn’t murder. Killing someone in the same way and circumstance is always wrong. Killing someone who is going to kill you is not morally equivalent actions. It is the intention that makes an action immoral. Accidental death is not the same as murder because there was no intention to kill. There are times where there is a choice between two moral wrongs, that doesn’t make either tight and in fact there may be another option. My opponent has also ignored a few points that are vital to my argument. For one thing he hasn’t explained how his view is consistent with the law of non contradiction. If he cannot prove this his whole argument falls apart. There was also my point about a lack of actual justice in a morally subjective worldview, wouldn’t the judge just be forcing his subjective morality on others? This relates to what I mentioned a few paragraphs up in regard to killing, the difference between innocent and guilty plays into intentionality. I pass it back to my opponent for his final remarks.
Morality is Objective (Tournament Debate)

Just to let you know I will use the words relativism and subjective practically synonymously. Let me start off with a few questions. Is rape wrong? Is murder wrong? If there is no moral truth then how could anything be wrong? A moral relativist must say that according to someone’s personal morality, murder and rape are not wrong. Only moral objectivism can say that anything is wrong. If someone who believes that morality is subjective claims that anything is wrong, then they are inconsistent and do not truly believe morality is subjective in all cases. One common argument moral relativists make is that society determines right and wrong but throughout history societies have condoned all manners of atrocity, but moral subjectivity would tell us it was right for them. I would ask my opponent, is there such a thing as right and wrong and if so who determines what right and wrong is. What if my personal set of morals conflicts with yours who’s right? If I stole from you because my personal morality told me it was the right thing to do, you couldn’t argue with that. I don’t see how you could trust a fire fighter or police officer who truly believes morality was subjective because they would have no incentive to do their job, certainly their pay check wouldn’t justify the risk. Moral subjectivity allows for genocide without repercussion aside from a backlash based on emotion. Knowing what right and wrong is, is one major issue that separates man from animals. Sure it could be argued there might be animals more moral than humans, but that would acknowledge an objective morality, so any such argument would be self refuting. In conclusion moral relativism is an intellectually inconsistent philosophy. If they truly believe it then there is also no such thing as justice and anything can be justified. If morality is subjective the worst dictators in the world cannot be condemned beyond a personal dislike. Morality must be objective for there to be any recourse for injustice. Only moral objectivism allows for there to be punishment for crimes and indeed crimes at all. Subjective morality is an emotion because it’s based on everyone’s personal feelings, objective morality is logical and originates outside of ourselves. It is therefore necessary that morality must be objective. I look forward to my opponent’s answers.
Jesus was a real man with a real family who had a bloodline record that still continues to this day!

I accept PRO"s challenge, and thank him for the opportunity to have this debate. I just want to clear up a few things before the debate really gets underway. PRO is claiming at least three things, all of which he bears the burden of proof. In the actual topic of this debate, PRO claims that (1) Jesus existed, (2) he had a family, and (3) his bloodline continues to this day. Now I"ll just explore these three items a little, just to make sure we are both on the same page. (1) PRO has claimed that Jesus existed. then in his first round arguments, he quotes from the Christian bible. I therefore presume that the Jesus we are talking about is the Jesus from the Christian mythos, including at least virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection. (2) PRO has claimed that Jesus had a family. In his first round comments, PRO expands this concept of family to mean, "the Jews and the other sons of Abraham." While I think this is using a little too much license with the definition of the word "family," I have no problem admitting that if Jesus existed, he was Jewish. (3) PRO has claimed that Jesus" bloodline continues today. Now, a person"s bloodline refers to their ancestors and descendants [1], which means that Jesus not only had children, but that that lineage still exists. I thank PRO for this opportunity, and look forward to his arguments and evidence. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Jesus was a real man with a real family who had a bloodline record that still continues to this day!

The bible is simple and easy to understand. The bible is about one man = Jesus his family the Jews and the other sons of Abraham, and their impact on the earth. Psa_40:7, Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, Heb_10:7, Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Rom_1:16, For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom_2:9, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; Rom_2:10, But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Jesus was a real man with a real family who had a bloodline record that still continues to this day!

PRO has made some interesting comments this round, before I address them; I want to touch one other matter. I have made no claims in this debate. As I mentioned in the first round (and PRO did not object), my opponent bears the burden of proof for his claims. I am not required to disprove them, it is he that must provide evidence as to the veracity of his claims [1]. Now, to cover PRO’s points. 1) As I mentioned in the previous round, we were left with the question as to whether or not the Adam of the book of Genesis actually exists. PRO asserts that Adam existed, and that he is the “first man listed in the pure Jewish Davidic Bloodline,” but he offers no evidence. It is known that the first humans lived in Africa, not the Middle East [2]. This alone shatters any chance the Genesis story has of being accurate. It is also known that Home sapiens evolved gradually from our ancestors Homo erectus [3], so it cannot be said that there was a “first human,” let alone the man described in the first book of the bible. 2) No, I did not make the claim that King David didn’t exist; I would appreciate it if PRO wouldn’t put words in my mouth. 3) The only thing I want to mention here is that I wasn’t asking a question in order to “build doubt,” but rather to focus the discussion. PRO was all over the map, and I felt that asking questions was a useful format to focus the conversation, although I admit that it was only partially successful. 4) I did not state facts because I was not making claims. I was challenged to this debate by PRO, and it is PRO who has been making claims. 5) PRO states that it is not his fault that I didn’t know that Adam and Jesus were the same person. He is dead wrong; it is his fault. This is not a common opinion in my experience, and I had no way of knowing PRO’s feelings on the matter since he didn’t choose to bring them up until late in the debate. 6) This is one way to interpret vague scripture. It is also not evidence of anything since the bible itself is not historical evidence. 7) I’m not touching this irrelevant point, or the similarly irrelevant questions at the end. It’s getting late and I’m tired. Where are we now? We are now left in nearly the same spot that we were at the end of the previous round. PRO is asserting that Adam existed, while offering no evidence. I have offered evidence that suggests that the Adam character of Genesis could not have existed. PRO has not met his burden of proof. Wrapping Up I would like to thank PRO for challenging me to this debate. Why he chose me, I do now know, but it was fun. I had taken a hiatus from DDO, and it was good to be back, if only for a single debate.Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.amnh.org... [3] http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk...
Jesus was a real man with a real family who had a bloodline record that still continues to this day!

My opponent asked "Did Adam Exist"!1. Yes He is the first man listed in the pure Jewish Davidic Bloodline.2. Does my opponent say King David who's son Solomon built the wailing wall that still exist today. Did not exist either?3. David's bloodline has been preserved as a written record, and is more creditable, than my opponent's personal opinion. Notice my opponent need to 'ask' in order to build doubt.4. A true response would state a fact and not wonder about a subject, my opponent knows nothing about.5. Not my fault my opponent did not know that Christ is the Alpha of the bible. The only man who was in the Garden of God called Eden.6. The bible says Christ was is the Root of David. Common Sense say that is the first man in David's Bloodline. Simple.7. The 'word' Adam has three meanings.A. Red Ruddy, to show blood in face. Strongs #H119http://www.blueletterbible.org...B. mankind low common manhttp://www.blueletterbible.org...C. Adam H121 the first Man of Palestine! Who is that! Jesus Christ the Alpha of the bible.http://www.blueletterbible.org...Ok let us answer my opponent question! 1.Do red ruddy white men rule the world? 2.Where did they come from? 3.So it is in the beginning so is will be in the end! Facts are in your face! 4.God said His people are sottish=stupid!5.What is the race of the head of the Fedral Reserve, IMF, or The World Bank? Not Red Ruddy peoeple who rule the world?
Jesus was a real man with a real family who had a bloodline record that still continues to this day!

I feel that if PRO had made it clear he was claiming that Adam and Jesus were the same person, this debate would have looked very different. Jesus’ Kids PRO claimed in this round that he had not made the claim that Jesus had children, however, a simple reading of the title of this debate shows that very claim. The title is, “Jesus was a real man with a real family who had a bloodline record that still continues to this day! ” In this line of text, several claims are made, including, ‘Jesus was a real man,’ ‘Jesus had a real family,’ ‘Jesus had a bloodline,’ and ‘Jesus’ bloodline continues to this day. ’ As I have pointed out twice so far in this debate, the term bloodline refers to one’s ancestors and descendants [1], so for Jesus to have a shriving bloodline today, he would have to have had children. Jesus is Adam However, in this past round, PRO has finally clarified all of his statements by making it clear that he believes Jesus and Adam to be the same person. Why this wasn’t stated clearly at the outset is beyond me. Even though, as PRO notes, most will dispute this claim, I will, for the purpose of this debate, accept it. For the purposes of this debate, the biblical character of Adam is the same person as the biblical character of Jesus. Where does this leave us? After this revelation in the real line of reasoning during this debate, I feel I need to lay out what claims we are actually talking about. I have accepted that Jesus and Adam are the same person, and I will accept that IF Adam existed, we are all his descendants, making his bloodline still alive. So, the real question is: Did Adam exist? Modern science suggests that the story of the biblical creation [2][3] and the Garden of Eden story are not historically accurate [4][5]. Where are we now? Now, we are at the end of the fourth round of this debate. PRO is left with a single point to discuss: Did Adam exist? I look forward to PRO’s comments. Sources [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] . http://web.campbell.edu...[3] . http://creationtheory.org...[4] . http://www.amnh.org...[5] . http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk...
Jesus was a real man with a real family who had a bloodline record that still continues to this day!

Yes my opponent missed the point.Jesus was a real man of the Royal Line of David, David's bloodline still exists. Through England. Point proven, not my fault you did not think it through. There were many attempts to destroy the line of David. David share the same bloodline is a simple concept to understand. Try reading the topic. I never said Jesus had kids..Facts are Jesus and Adam are the same guy. 99.9% of all religions deny that the Alpha was is Adam who had kids, that bloodline still exist today. Fact! Try thinking Alpha and Omega. The Root of David. John 1:1-5 King James Version (KJV) 1 In the beginning was the Word,(ADAM WAS WITH GOD, NOT ALL MANKIND, ADAM WHO HAD CHILDREN!) and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.,(ADAM WAS WITH GOD, NOT ALL MANKIND, ADAM WHO HAD CHILDREN!2 The same was in the beginning with God.,(ADAM WAS WITH GOD, NOT ALL MANKIND, ADAM WHO HAD CHILDREN! 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. ,(ADAM WAS WITH GOD, NOT ALL MANKIND, ADAM WHO HAD CHILDREN! 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.