BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sin Nature

In the account in Genesis, it says clearly that Adam and Eve sinned. Afterward, they had to make sacrifices to God for every sin. If you really believe the Bible, how can you believe that and this: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men because all sinned- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking the command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the girt of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.- Romans 5:12-21 That is black and white, we all sin through Adam. Besides, if we didn't sin, what would the point of Jesus coming?
Sin Nature

First of all, of course Jesus did not have a sin nature, because He was fully man, fully God. He didn't even come to the world biologically, but by the Spirit. And He was fully man in the sense He was fully flesh. Oh, sorry for violating the format of the debate, I did not realize. I'm new. Referring to your first argument, I don't mean it was transferred biologically. But if Adam hadn't sinned, we would be perfect. Unless , of course someone else sinned. So, it is our choice to sin to a degree, but before Adam, it was not our nature to sin. Sin had not been brought into the world yet. He sinned, making sin real to us and "through the one man the many were made sinners." Also, the death mentioned in Romans could also be taken as the spiritual death, because that also entered the world through him. Of course infants our born with a sinful nature. Everyone is born with sin, because Adam sinned and brought it into the world. But I believe that God would allow a dead infant into heaven because they do not understand how to be forgiven. Another question: do you just believe that when sin entered the world, we just started sinning because it was there? If we weren't born with a sin nature, then wouldn't Adam and Eve have withheld the knowledge of sin from their children, and they wouldn't have sinned?
Disney Channel is better than Carttoon Network

Is Cartoon Network l"n n"os fearr n" Disney Channel mar ba mhaith buachaill" agus cail"n" beag teilif"se chun f"achaint ar agus nach bhfuil rud "igin a fhoghlaim. Agus nach bhfuil an chuid is m" buachaill" agus cail"n" ag iarraidh a bheith suim acu i Disney L"ir"onn cos"il Croith s" Suas n" "dh m"r Charlie Translation: Cartoon Network is a lot better than Disney Channel because little boys and girls want to watch tv and not learn something. And most boys and girls do not want to be interested in Disney shows like Shake it Up or Good Luck Charlie
Disney Channel is better than Carttoon Network

Disney channel is better than Carttoon network because the shows teaches you about something in life. For example the show Shake it Up teaches you about best friends in situations and being a dancer on a tv show is hard work. Another example is Good Luck Charlie because if you watch it towards the end of the show Teddy Duncun makes a video diary for her little sister Charile. Shes usually telling you what went wron for something so it teaches you anout life lessons and difficult situations. Another thing I like to add is that most Disney Channel commercials says something about Friends for Change or eating healthy and staying fit
Whites are NOT more responsible for school shootings than other races

Are my sources correct? Yes. Is my math correct? Yes. Is my logic correct? Yes, but no according to you. It does make sense. If the percent of races committing school shootings the same percentage as their presence in the U.S., then there would be no blame on any race, but since the percentage of African American presence in the U.S. is lower than the percent of mass school shootings done by African Americans, African Americans logically should be blamed more than Latinos or whites, who have a lower percentage of mass school shootings by their race than their presence in the U.S.
Whites are NOT more responsible for school shootings than other races

I'm talking about basic logic. It doesn't matter where it happens, disparate statistics based on ethnicity exist everywhere. I'm at three sentences. Although the size of an argument isn't related to the quality of its content. Whether or not you researched a point isn't related to if your point is good or not. There are many people who are Atheists/Theists/Agnostics/Etc. who lack a degree in theology, but one of them must be at least somewhat correct.
Whites are NOT more responsible for school shootings than other races

Sources are at the bottom Nope, except for the male part, but that is linked to biology. Yes, it is true that it is more likely that whites will commit a school shooting. But as of 2017, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 76.6% of people in the United States are white. According to Statistia, school shooters who committed shootings from 1982 to February 2018 have about a 57.7% chance of being white. That means whites commit school shootings 14.7% less than they should be. Now let"s say we need to blame it on a race, which I do not think is what we need to do, but I am kind of curious. What race is doing this most often? African Americans African Americans, which make up 13.3% of the United States population, have committed shootings about 16.5% of the time. This means African Americans are committing school shootings 3.2% more than they should be. Latinos Latinos only commit about 7.22% of the time, and 17.8% of people in the United States are Latino. Also, the percentage of people who are Latino may be even higher, since so many are illegal and don"t want to get caught. This means Latinos commit school shootings at most 10.58% less than we should be. Asians As well commit 7.22% of school shootings. 5.7% of people in the United States are Asian. This means Asians commit school shootings 1.52% more than they should be. So if we have to blame a race, the races we should blame if we want to be total jerks from least to greatest is: White people?!?! Latinos! Asians! And African Americans! Now should we be blaming this on African Americans? Hell no. But, just needed to throw this out there. The whites are not to blame. Checkmate. https://www.census.gov... https://www.statista.com... https://www.quora.com...
During "Out-of-Body" Experiences, People's Consciousness Don't Leaves Their Bodies

This is my first time on the site so please inform me of any infractions I commit if there are any. A point of contention for me is your definition of consciousness. The phrasing "state of mind" you used implies a mental condition inherently centered in one's own head. I believe a more applicable term would be "soul. " If you agree not to bring this debate into a religious context, using the word soul would allow for argument of physical movement rather than the perceived movement suggested by your definition. It's essentially the same definition, with the small difference that "soul" represents a physical, mobile state of mind rather than one located in a single place by definition. Secondly, since you didn't specify what kinds of out-of-body experiences we are debating, I'd like to make it clear that anything that falls within your definition is fair game. This includes, but is not limited to, out-of-body experiences that occur while under the influence of illegal drugs, medicine, upon one's deathbed, or during any other situation where a person has recorded an out-of-body experience. While I freely admit that many of these experiences are most likely faked, the burden-of-proof requires Pro to "show it is more plausible that the consciousness does not leave the body. " To win this debate, I believe that Pro should have to show that the consciousness leaves the body in the all of the cases brought up, not just the obviously fake ones. I will argue that there is at least one case where it is more plausible that "the consciousness leaves the body" than that it remains grounded in one's body.
During "Out-of-Body" Experiences, People's Consciousness Don't Leaves Their Bodies

Resolution During “Out-of-Body” Experiences, People's Consciousness Don’t Leaves Their Bodies Definitions Out of body experience: The experience where it seems that consciousness is located outside the body and one perceives the world and themselves from this position. Consciousness: The state of mind that is aware of the experience of the self and the environment. Burden of proof The burden of proof will be shared. Pro has to show that it is more plausible that the consciousness does not leave the body, while con has to show that it is more plausible that the consciousness leave the body. Argumentation R1: Acceptance. R2: Opening arguments. R3: Furthering arguments, rebuttals. R4: Closing arguments.
People charged with terrible crimes where there is no question of guilt shall be immediately charged

Unfortunately, my opponent seems to have forfeited completely. Rather a waste of my time, but I'll close my arguments nonetheless. What seems "obvious" at first glance is often only "obvious" because of the manner the situation is portrayed by the one telling the story. The entire purpose of a trial is to give the state the opportunity to show why they think the defendant is guilty, and the defendant the opportunity to show their innocence. When someone is guilty, and knows there is no evidence that can possibly save them, they can plead guilty, in which case their case does go immediately to sentencing. Remember that, for criminal cases, jurors are asked whether the accused is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", so in principle, they're being told not to find someone guilty unless there is no question of guilt. That is the mechanism we have which is independent of the executive branch which performed the arrest in the first place (and is presumably biased). The system Pro proposes would encourage abuse far beyond what should be acceptable, and he has made no real case for his position other than opening assertions. Thank you.
People charged with terrible crimes where there is no question of guilt shall be immediately charged

And how would "no question of guilt" be determined? By the same people bringing the charges in the first place? There is a reason there are checks and balances to the government. Without them, you foster abuse and secret prisons. He's probably guilty. But he deserves a trial like anyone else. Perhaps there's exculpatory evidence. Perhaps he was somehow framed. We don't know; without a trial, we might never know. And sentencing is often dependent on the details of circumstances; without giving him a chance to express his side, how could an appropriate sentence be determined? The accused has the right to a speedy trial with a jury of his or her peers.
Tobacco Should Be Banned In The U.S

Tobacco should be a banned product in the United States of America. This debate should be impossible to accept. If you would like to accept this debate, please send me a PM through DDO or post in the comments section.________________________________________________________________________________The round structure shall work as follows:Round 1: Debate Structure/Rules (Pro) and Acceptance (Con)Round 2: Opening statements. No rebuttals should be made to any contentions offered by the opponent at this point in time.Round 3: Rebuttals/Cross-ExaminationRound 4: Rebuttals/Cross-ExaminationRound 5: Closing Statements. No new arguments may be presented by either party in this round.____________________________________________________________Rules:1.) There are to be no ad hominem attacks. Should one fail to abide by this rule, it will result in a loss of the conduct point.2.) Should one of the debaters forfeit a round, it shall result in the loss of the conduct point. Should one of the debaters forfeit two or more rounds, it shall result in a full seven point loss.3.) If someone should vote and have an RFD that does not pertain to any content in the debate, it may be considered votebombing. To all voters, please ensure that you have a legitimate RFD, no matter which way you may vote.4.) Wikipedia is not to be credited as a reliable source in this debate. You may use one of the sources cited at the bottom of a Wikipedia page if it does, in fact, pertain to your argument but just listing the Wiki page by itself shall not count.5.) Keep it clean. We're going to try and keep this as a clean debate. You may use words such as "damn" and "hell" but try to keep crude language to a minimum.6.) If someone manages to bypass the parameters set in this debate, it is to result in a full 7 point loss for them during voting.7.) In the event that someone does not adhere to the debate structure listed above, that shall result in the loss of the conduct point.8.) Debaters may not take to the comments section to post more arguments due to a lack of space on the debate tab. Should this happen, debaters and voters alike are to ignore whatever arguments may be made in the comments section.__________________________________________________________Finally, just enjoy yourself. While it is a debate and it can become intense, remember that it's all in good fun at the end of the day.I wish the best of luck to zmikecuber. I look forward to debating with you.
Tobacco Should Be Banned In The U.S

Well kids, that was uneventful. It turns out that codemeister13 got robbed, and any device he would use to get onto the internet was stolen. Hopefully he gets his stuff back. You can read about it here: http://www.debate.org...We're hoping to do it again when he comes back. So I ask that no one vote on this, and it result in a tie.
Tobacco Should Be Banned In The U.S

Unfortunately due to to time constraints, I'm going to be unable to post a full rebuttal this round. I invite my opponent to do so still and I shall return next round to refute his opening arguments and rebuttal. My sincerest apologies to my opponent and the voters. There's some personal shenanigans going on and I have to make sure they get taken care of by tomorrow. Thusly, I am been unable to post a full, coherent argument right now. My sincerest apologies again.
Cops should not be allowed to taser somebody merely verbally refusing to exit a vehicle-part 2

Resolution: Cops should not be allowed to taser somebody merely for verbally refusing to exit a vehicle.Does this resolution stand under all circumstances, if any at all? Let us delve into this matter.---A1:In his prior debate, the debate stated the following: "As I said in my original statement the situation I oppose is somebody who is simply verbally refusing to get of their vehicle. They have no weapon." The issue is that, in reality, in virtually all scenarios of this nature, the police officer does not know about whether or not the person has access to weapons within his/her car. A police officer needs to make sure that his life is not in immediate danger at all costs. By going up to the driver and manually pulling him/her out of the car, the officer exposes himself/herself to a wide range of potential threats. Why was the person hesitating to leave the car? Was he/she taking out a knife from the glove compartment? These a real possibilities that police officers face every day on the job. A taser effectively brings a suspect down with little direct physical contact, and it debilitates the suspect, making sure that he/she doesn't attempt to commit a violent act of resistance on an officer.---A2: We have to remember that driving is not a right; rather, it is a privilege. If a police officer decides that he/she has sufficient reason to stop you in the first place (or if you have already been stopped and have done something to draw suspicions, then the officer has the absolute right to command you out of the car. And the driver is obligated to comply. If you do not step out of the car, you are essentially refusing to perform your obligatory task that has been designated to you by the officer; in other words, you are resisting the officer's authority. The officer is unaware of the suspect's underlying motives for resistance, but, chances are, the suspect has some. Therefore, the officer must proceed with serious caution when a suspect is resisting, and using a taser is justified. ---A3:What if the driver gives you his ID, and he is a wanted mass rapist/murderer who has a history of brutal violence. And when you ask him to leave the car, he refuses. What do you do? Based on this suspect's propensity for violence, does it not make sense that more precautionary measures should be used? The use of a taser would be completely justified in this situation, since the suspect, based on his history, poses a threat to the officers, especially if it is unknown whether or not weapons are accessible in the car, and it is most likely that such a fact would be unknown. ---Thank you.
Movies are a better form of entertainment than books

I quite understand ur points. And i amazed the way u explained the ways of ur points in last round. And i now on totally agree with the point that, "movies r more entertaining then the books". As my friends have remain a extra ticket for a movie. Guess what they invited me to come with them. (today) The movie is in 3D Captain Marvel Good movie, (i have seen) Since its was my second time to see cinema. Now i know that the digital entertainment is far, Far more greater than the book which some times creates confusion, Headache, Or time consumption perhaps U said in ur comments Once u get to face off with such stuff u shall know the power, Joy, Mind reliefing things Which i get today in 3D version. Thanks a lot to u, To bring me into such wonderful cinematic world of entertainment Its pretty much as better as books (greater than books). I m very happy to debate with u. Thanks for such new learning (new lessons). Onces again thanks very much. I hope we shall soon encounter For a new debate topic. For then up to that day. From my charm ur day goes As happier as ever. Bye bye see yaa! (smiling)
Movies are a better form of entertainment than books

Thank you for responding to my argument. I agree with you that it depends on person to person, And what I am saying is that how entertaining something is can't be measured by math or an equation, It totally depends on the opinion of the audience, And if something is more entertaining than another, Naturally more people will prefer it and we can tell by the statistics. The TV and video revenue worldwide totals at 286. 17 billion USD worldwide, While the book industry is only worth 143 billion USD. This proves that people are willing to pay more to watch movies, And we can conclude that people like movies more. I see your point on imagination and it makes sense. To address your point, I agree that books leave way more room for imagination than movies, But what is the point of that? Would you like to imagine a nice story, Or would you rather see it with your eyes? I think most people would choose to see it. To end my side of the debate, I would like to summarize all my points. First, Movies provide a shorter experience, Good for people who don't have enough time to read a book. They also create a good social environment, As people can watch movies together and share the joy. This creates oppurtunities for you to bond with your friends and family. Also, Visual and auditory effects in movies are way more detailed than anything our brain can create. Statistics shows that over the course of time, People are liking movies more and they are way more popular in modern society. If you are reading this, I urge you to take just two hours out of your weekend and enjoy a movie. I promise you will have an exciting, Fun experience. Debate0ts, Thank you for being my debate partner on this topic, It has been a fun time debating against you, And I have learned a lot from your ideas.
Movies are a better form of entertainment than books

On todays life style, People r forgetting the joy of book reading the marvelous way to surpass time. Not in to learn knowledge or study its gives way for then that. Books gives the world the precious comics, Which r even today also readed from international level. The entertainment from the reding gives the another way to self imagination of things. All movies scripts r first installment comes from the scripts of book. All by mean books, Reading, Writing r interelated which which gives to rise the world we see today. The famous entertainment stuff r firstly scripted into books. Now i get it. From ur counter points that Books r the past way of entertainment. Its is quite good at today also. But the worlds changes. Today life is all about digital stuff so just basically the more entertainment we see we can enjoy in movies rather than books. Visual learing r far more greater than reading stuff. I get it when i learning my therory work from youtube. Quite bit then i realize about ur point of views, What r u saying in these argues. So i finally i stable at ur ponits of countet over books. Thanks for be my contender at Wood pencil vs mechanical pencil But its totally depends on person to person to a matter of choice where he she like the digital way of learning or by reading way. Thanks for ur views on topic.
Movies are a better form of entertainment than books

Thank you for responding to my argument. I agree with you that books help skills such as writing and reasoning, But if someone seeks entertainment as a way to improve academic skills, Is it still entertainment? Or is it just a different form of learning? In the Oxford Dictionary, Entertainment is defined as "The action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment. " This is pure enjoyment and relaxation, And it says nothing about learning or increasing various abilities. As I stated, Movies have aspects that can entertain people way more than books, Such as visual effects, Auditory effects, Etc. In your argument, You have stated the things books can help you with in life, But not any aspects of books that provide enjoyment. In conclusion, One shouldn't seek entertainment for the purpose of learning, Or rather for a purpose of relaxation and stress-relief, And that is why movies are a better form of entertainment than books. Sources: https://en. Oxforddictionaries. Com/definition/entertainment