BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All professional swimmers are categorised as homosexuals

I am an okay arguer, and I found this debate to be humorous. I accept your challenge and would like to offer some definitions and observations before I begin my argument. Definition 1: "All", is defined as "every", meaning that when the Pro claims that "all" he means every single person who has performed professional swimming. This mean that there is no exception to this rule and if the Pro claims that there are some exceptions, than he is contradicting the resolution. Definition 2: "Homosexuals" are defined as "sexually attracted to people of one's own sex". I believe this goes without saying but the term "homosexuals" encompasses both male and female constituents. (All definitions come from Dicctionary.com) I will now begin my case. Resolved: All professional swimmers are categorised as homosexuals Stance: Negative Contention 1: Resolution is a False Dichotomy. Sub Contention 1: There are "straight" professional swimmers... I only need to mention 1 straight swimmer of any gender to disprove the resolution, and I would like to mention Sharron Davies. Sharron Davies was married and bore children to a male partner. This shows that she is not a homosexual. To further prove my point, I would like to mention the couple Rebecca Adlington and Harry Needs, a swimming couple who married. I mention 2 scenarios, disproving the idea that "all" swimmers are homosexuals. Sub Contention 2: You can be a homosexual and not be a swimmer.... If all swimmers are homosexuals, then all homosexuals are swimmers. I would like to mention Elton John, Ellen ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi. None of these people are professional swimmers...... yet they are homosexuals. I would like to reiterate that I do not need to prove that all professional swimmers are straight, only that some are in order to negate the resolution. I believe I have presented sufficient evidence to prove my point, and therefore the resolution must fall.
All professional swimmers are categorised as homosexuals

To start off my argument I would like to say that all professional swimmers are homosexual. I have a list of openly gay swimmers to also kick us off 1. Greg Louganis 2. Bobby Goldsmith 3. Bruce Hayes 4. Daniel Kowalski 5. Mark Tewksbury 6. Dan Veatch 7. Johan Kenkhuis 8. Diana Nyad 9. Matthew Mitcham 10. Jack Mackenroth 11. Tom Daley If anyone can present a valid argument as to whether all professional swimmers are homosexual or not I would gladly argue with you since I am a great arguer. Thankyou
Anime shouldn't be confused with cartoons.

If this is truly not a debate of definitions, that should have been your very first point. Since that contention with the entire premise of this debate has not been brought up until now it is fair to disregard it. It is also fair to disregard this contention as pro never contradicted my definitions and by implication accepted them. In fact, in the one source that pro did reference, it stated that anime is not like "regular" cartoons, not that it wasn't a cartoon. In fact, from that statement we can logically infer that anime is a type of cartoon (just a unique kind). No proof of any kind has been brought forth by pro to defend her case, while I showed not only that by definition pro's premise is incorrect, but also that pro's evidence contradicts her very premise. Therefore, you must vote con. It has been a pleasure debating pro.
Anime shouldn't be confused with cartoons.

I assumed it would be clear that this is not about definitions, but about making sure that people understand the significant differences between the two and not getting them mixed up. Anime has created a sub-culture as the interest and popularity of East Asian culture exponentially grew in the Western World and it should be recognized as an independent genre. I certainly don't favor one over the other, but you have to admit that there are clear distinctions between them when you examine them more closely.
Anime shouldn't be confused with cartoons.

As I stated in my definitions, a cartoon is a motion picture using animation techniques. We don't argue that it's not fair to classify comedies or horror as movies, because "movie" doesn't refer to anything related to content (just like "cartoon" doesn't). They are both merely stylistic categorizations. I wouldn't compare DBZ to Mickey Mouse, but I also wouldn't compare South Park to Mickey Mouse except for the one common bond that every example you listed share: they are all animated! They are all cartoons. You may favor one more, just as one may favor stylistic choices in movies more (i.e., black and white vs. color) but it is undeniable that by definition they are all properly grouped into one category.
Anime shouldn't be confused with cartoons.

If it's going to be an independent genre, it might as well be it's OWN genre, not a sub genre. Fundamentally, they are similar, but when you get into the technical details, they are not. The facial expressions, topics/themes, and other visual characteristics differ so much that they shouldn't be classified as one in the same. http://www.diffen.com... How could you possibly begin to compare anime like Dragon Ball Z, Death Note, One Piece, & Naruto ( Just to name a few popular ones) to cartoons such as Mickey Mouse, The Simpsons, South Park, and Dora the Explorer?
Anime shouldn't be confused with cartoons.

Thanks for the challenge, Pro. I accept. This debate is one of definitions, not of values. 1. Cartoon- A motion picture using animation techniques to photograph a sequence of drawings rather than real people or objects. (Oxford Dictionaries) 2. Anime- A style of Japanese film and television animation, typically aimed at adults as well as children. Therefore, anime is a type of cartoon. Perhaps anime shouldn't be confused with certain other kinds of cartoons, or rather respected as an independent genre of cartoons, but it will always remain a form of cartoon (just as comedies and thrillers will always be genres of movies, not some independent other classification).
Christian's believe Marriage is for earth, not heaven.

Your response to my comment about the bible is so misguided, I'm amused. I was referring to to fact that if my religion did not believe in the bible, which it does, your entire argument (being completely based on the bible), would have no effect on my beliefs. Also, I want a source on your info on Joseph Smith's 'lying', and other acts you claim an abomination. If you look Mormons up online, you can find mountains of hate- but that doesn't mean any of it's true. I want truth, not hate. And Joseph Smith did not say the Bible was blasphemous. He merely said the Book of Mormon was even more correct. Really, that makes perfect sense. Who knows how many times the bible has been changed, translated, tweaked, corrupted? We still believe in its truth, but it would be impossible for it to remain pure. With the marriage thing: If you know grammar, you will understand that, yes, I mean no one will get married- and that not being married is a completely different thing that is not referred to. Also, when you say this whole heaven, hell thing: The afterlife is one of our greatest differences, one that we're not discussing. We believe that we don't go to heaven or hell, but to spirit paradise and spirit prison. Spirit prison is not bad, but a place where you learn if you didn't get a chance to during your lifetime. Also, these people can have the ordinances they weren't able to do while they were alive done for them. It's a bit unfair to go to hell just because you weren't introduced to the church, isn't it? As to your Isaiah scripture, I read the context, and it definitely appears to me that he's referring to the fact that there would be nor was no other savior in this world. Really, he's not talking about God as it applies to ruling the heavens at all. Your angel thing is a really odd argument. We actually do believe that if you are not married you will become an angel, so that's all well and good, but your example is not at all applicable. Please explain more if you want me to take it seriously.
Christian's believe Marriage is for earth, not heaven.

Jesus said (as I quoted before) "people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels of heaven." So, he said you will not marry, NOR be given in marriage. Meaning, you will not be married. Those are two separate statements. You will not marry, nor will be married. Jesus also says you will be like the angels in Heaven. You say that "real" Mormons haven't practiced polygamy in a long time… but what about your husband having many wives in Heaven? Current Mormons believe there will polygamy on they're planet. Angels do not reproduce. A little history about this: In Genesis 6:4, it says Angels (through most translations) were indeed coming to earth and having children with women. Who were giants or heroes of old, and men of renown. BUT, it's proven God wasn't happy with this… because in the very next chapter he decided men were evil, all except for Noah. It goes on to say in Jude, that those Angels that had abandoned they're positions in Heaven have been kept in darkness bound with everlasting chains waiting for the Judgment Day. So, if this displeased God so much, why then would he be promoting it? It also says, "Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." Isaiah 43:10 This does not sound like a God promoting MILLIONS of planets with they're own Gods. "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book". – Joseph Smith Christians believe the Bible is complete, and it is all you need to obtain salvation. Jesus Christ is the true way to everlasting life. The closest you can be to God, is excepting Jesus Christ his son into your heart. PERIOD. Also, it says that you only have this one life, and you have not a second chance. In Matthew, Jesus says that if you don't fully except and live through him, he will say " I do not know you". It never says, if you don't live good enough to go to heaven, if your relative baptizes themselves for you, you're saved. Jesus has given us the one and only key. It's up to us to grasp it. Yes, you do believe in the Bible. Although, as I've stated above obviously your founding prophet didn't really revere it as Christians do. Joseph Smith saying that is blasphemy. <> This statement scares me, because it sounds like you would give up the Bible if your prophet asked you to. Is that true? If your prophet said we no longer needed the Bible, would you obey? I'm confused what you need sources for... please clarify and I will provide them.
Christian's believe Marriage is for earth, not heaven.

Firstly, I myself have never quite gotten plural marriage, and it has not been practiced by real Mormons in a very long time. With that being said, your scripture quoting does not in any way disprove Mormon beliefs. It stated, as it seems to me, that no marriage ordinances will be preformed in Heaven. It did not say that people's marriages will be dissolved. Indeed, this would e a sorry state of living. When you love someone, how comforting is it to say that you'll be joined to them in life but then you're on your own? Our Heavenly Father wants us to be happy, and being separated from my family personally, would not be conducive to this. Neither does it prove baptisms and sealings for the dead to be sacrilegious. Even if it proved marriage wrong, it did not refer to these other ordinances in any way. You also spelled 'Prophet' wrong. In reference to our first, i'd like some sources before I take what you say at face value. What do mean about lying about Mormons endorsing it? Your argument becomes increasingly unclear. And, for the record, we do believe in the bible. If we didn't, your whole argument would be null in my eyes.
Christian's believe Marriage is for earth, not heaven.

Jesus said, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures of the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry not be given in marriage; they will be like the angels of heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead- have you not read what God said to you, I am the God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Matthew22:29-33 Please explain to me now, how Mormon's believe you are married in heaven. Not only married to one wife, but MANY. Do the words of Jesus Christ, Savior and Redeemer mean nothing to Mormons? Not only does this scripture disprove Mormon's eternal marriage and Godhood, it ALSO makes they're baptism and marriage's for the dead sacrilegious. Joseph Smith had 84 (documented) wives. He started practicing plural marriage BEFORE his said "revelation". Then, after the "revelation" he outright LIED about Mormon's endorsing it. Would a true profit of God deny his laws? No. So, Jesus Christ has said there is no marriage in heaven, and your marriage on earth is not for heaven. So, exactly where does that put YOU? Your Mormon prophet's can change Mormon belief's all they like, but the Lord Jesus Christ never changes. Do you believe in the Bible? If you do, you need to do some real soul searching, because your beliefs highly contradict it.
Christian's believe Marriage is for earth, not heaven.

You know, I kinda feel bad that you missed that. It shows a lack of care on your part. But then, of course, I don't have to go through with rebutting flawed information. Suffice it to say, my opponent has not been clear, has not understood clear statements, and has not produced clear evidence. The fact that she has missed an argument cements her confusing debating as something to be deplored. People on Earth get married because they want to be together forever. When people die, the people still alive usually comfort themselves with the fact that they are then in the arms of their loved ones. Marriage is a sacred ordinance, and it wouldn't be broken up with so little a cause of death- our Heavenly Father wants us to be happy.
Christians break Gods first commandment by believing that Jesus is God.

I appreciate you conceding that the term 'son of God' is no indication of being God. Your claim that being the son of God plus the prophesied Messiah is what actually made Jesus God is an assumption because it is not based on any Biblical evidence. The prophesied Messiah was never expected to be God. The Bible explicitly states that God cannot be a man. 'God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man' (Numbers 23:19) 'for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee:' Hosea 11:9 We learn from the Old Testament that no one can even see God and live; 'Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.' Exodus 33:20 Even in the New Testament during the time when Jesus existed in the flesh John writes; 'No man hath seen God at any time;' John 1:1 If you want to make bold statements asserting that the prophesied Messiah will be God then you simply must back it up with Biblical evidence. If you do not then your argument has no substance whatsoever. So far you have provided no Biblical evidence at all that counters my argument.
Christians break Gods first commandment by believing that Jesus is God.

So be it. My opponent has listed several examples indicating that the Bible lists multiple persons as being "sons of G-d". I will now refute the statement quoted below as it is the best generalized representation of all of his examples.[Con: "Jesus is not exclusive in being described as 'God's son'".]You are right. According to both Jewish and Christian traditions; there have been many historical "Christs" that G-d has chosen to carry out His works. King Solomon, his father David, and Saul of Tarsus are only but three examples that give credence to that statement. But on the other hand, there exists just as many (not if more) antichrists that oppose the works of G-d. [1]The term Christ, as I tried to identify with other terms prior to jumping into this complex question, identifies in Old Hebrew as meshiach (מָשִׁ֫יחַ), or "anointed". As such, the term "Christ" is subjective to us. THE MESHIACH, or promised Messiah, from the covenant G-d made with Israel in Horeb (Deut 4:23) is exclusive to G-d alone as He deems it appropriate to choose His anointed. The hereditary title of "son of G-d" is used so much in Abrahamic record keeping as a means to identify a person or nation as being directly descended from first man, Adam, as He was created by G-d. This fact is not exclusive to only Christianity. This being the case, all males would all have the title "son of G-d" after "son of Adam", because we all descended from the children of Adam and Eve.But separating ourselves from that for a little bit, let's use Enoch's paternal side as an example stepping backwards to the time of Adam; [Enoch > which was the son of Jared > which was the son of Mahalalel > which was the son of Mualeleth > which was the son of Enosh > which was the son of Seth > which was the son of Adam > who was the son of G-d.[2]Yeshua ben Yosef is commonly referred to as being the "Second and Last Adam". (1 Corinthians 15:45) Luke used the very same method of recording Yeshua's paternal line in his account of the Gospel as the Christ descended from Joseph (Yosef) and Mary. (Luke 3:23-38)And since Jesus was a direct descendant from Joseph's line, as prophesied, that would then make Yeshua ben Yosef THE Son Of G-d, or the Second and Last Adam and the promised Meshiach. Sources:[1] Strong's Hebrew @BibleHub: http://biblehub.com...[2] Second Adam: https://www.blueletterbible.org...
Christians break Gods first commandment by believing that Jesus is God.

The terms and conditions are that we have five rounds to provide arguments and counter arguments to the debate which topic I have made clear. I have in round one given direct instructions from Jesus that the most important commandment to obey is the first commandment. According to Jesus based on the Biblical evidence that I have shown only the Creator is God and we should never think that anyone else can be God. If I were you I would have used my first round to provide a counter argument as to why Jesus did not actually mean what he is clearly stating rather than try to define what should take place in each and every round. So please BTW, don't waste any more rounds. Jesus is not exclusive in being described as 'God's son' . Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38) Psalm 2:7 Defines King David as God's begotten Son. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. There are many other examples of people being described as 'Son's of God' within the Bible so we have no justification to believe that any of them (including Jesus) could possibly be God. I have and I will address each and every one of your points that counter my argument. If you want to debate me then please do the same.
Christians break Gods first commandment by believing that Jesus is God.

I accept this challenge. My opponent has declared that the very foundations of Christianity are intentionally blasphemous, and Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus Christ) is not the Son of G-d; therefore could not possibly be a product of the One True G-d the Ten Commandments reflect.The burden of proof lies on my opponent (in theology and scripture) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity's perception of the Christ in the New Testament is in fact NOT the Son of G-d. Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Terms & DefinitionsRound 3: ArgumentsRound 4: RebuttalsRound 5: Counter rebuttalsWill my opponent agree with my proposed structure of debate?
Christians break Gods first commandment by believing that Jesus is God.

Christians break Gods first commandment by believing that Jesus is God. Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: (Mark 12:28-32) Jesus is giving us clear instructions that he is not God, only the Creator is God and we should never think that anyone else can be God. If we do so then we will be breaking the first and most important commandment of all. How can Christians possibly justify breaking God's first and most important commandment of all? Please base your justification on Biblical scripture.
Christians break Gods first commandment by believing that Jesus is God.

That's the great question isn't it? Christianity interprets the Bible stating that Yeshua was Christ, the Messiah, or the Triune G-d incarnate. The Jews and Muslims on the other hand have an entirely different interpretation. Both Christians and Muslims claim Divine origin apart from actual purpose. You have the Jews who do not believe Yeshua was the Christ, Muslims who believe Yeshua (Isa) to be a prophet of G-d, born of a virgin, but not the Messiah. And then you have Chrisitianity, founded on Christ's teachings to his disciples...who also believed him to be the Son of G-d. Through Him and his work G-d could be seen. Christ acts as an embodiment of The Spirit. This makes him G-d. Three different interpretations, one person. Can you honestly say you irrefutably can claim that Christians are guilty of blasphemy? My opponent sounds just as the Pharisees did in the time of Christ. In conclusion, there was only one man who has successfully defeated death, and ascended to heaven according to what was prophecied in scripture. His name was Joshua, son of Joseph. Or as we better know him to be -- Jesus Christ.
Marijuana is Disgusting and Ought to Not Be Legalized, For Various Reasons Other Than The One Stated

http://www.drugwarfacts.org... http://www.history.com... Banning the sales of marijuana creates a black market. Illegalizing marijuana will not eliminate the risks you have provided. Prohibition increases the rate of crime, not the opposite. My links provide this accurate information. In closing. My opponent has fortified and refortified the argument that marijuana should be illegal because of the known and unknown risks. I stand by my original argument that despite these risks, it hold not weight on forcing someone else to live by your personal set of moral codes. I support the study of this mind altering drug as it is fascinating on how it effects the body. I do not support it's illegalization within an entire country; mind a few states here and there for experimentation. History has proven this so called war on drugs has had little to no improvement on our social enhancement and has only accomplished creating a deadly black market, separates social circles, and heavily populating our already full legal system. I have given many examples, both morally, legally as to why this drug should no longer be illegal (if ever it should have been). I leave it to my voters to decide who made the better argument. Thank you for your time and consideration. And thanks to my opponent for the same.