BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Ten Commandments Are Outdated

1. I am not saying that non-sense, and did my opponent even came up with " because some people are not Christian is it bad idea to be Christian"? Anyway, voters will understand my statement. 3. In other words, this commandment is too outdated to be commandment. It can only be suggestion now. 5. My opponent admits that this commandment is incomplete. Humans are living things. In the same way parent has no right to kill his/her child, God has no right to kill humans. We are not his toys, we are living beings. He is should be tried if he exists. 7. and 8. My opponent has not refuted my arguments 6. and 9. I never mentioned kids or pedophiles. As my opponent can see here: https://www.google.me... It is not adultery unless 1 person is in marriage. My question still stands. My opponent agreed that these rules are not enough to live by, and that we need real law. We can still keep debating if some of these commandments, that are not covered by the state law, should be obeyed in addition to the state law.
The Ten Commandments Are Outdated

1. I dont get what you are saying is it that because some people are not Christian is it bad idea to be Christian you dont make sense. 3. the point of Sabbath is day off and this is also to respect the Six Day Creation Order as Jesus said this commandment does not have to be followed too rigidly but it is still good idea to take day off. 5. God created so God has right to destroy what He created and sometimes yes killing is in self-defense or it saves other lives but this verse was not talking about these instances because God did not forbid military service in most instances it is not good to kill. 7. what Bible says is dont take what belong to someone else without their permission. 8. in most situations lying is bad but there are exceptions as Rahab lying for sake of spies was not evil no gay marriage is not marriage but their still not yor wife so adultery or premarital sex is bad unless yor pedofile because I see no verse talking bad about pedophiles I didnt say that Ten Commandments should be only rules but Im saying that their not outdated that is the debate topic my opponent's arguments rely almost completely upon exceptional situations which the Bible doesnt necessarily condem so checkmate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Ten Commandments Are Outdated

1. People who are born in family that is worshiping another god are sinners. It not their fault. 3. Sabbath is meant to not work entire day, but to worship God instead. Problem is with defining work. So people should not attend their jobs, but can they still work in the house or in garden? I would say no. It is still work. 5. God committed the greatest genocide ever (big flood), and is hypocrite for saying we should not kill. Sometimes homicide can save multiple lives. Sometimes we have to defend ourselves. 7 and 10. It is up to humans to define who owns what. They often disagree. One man may take what he thinks he owns, and other man will consider him a thief. 8. If there are situations where lying is acceptable, then commandment "Thou shalt not lie" is not. It has to be updated. Here is one problem with 6 and 9. What if that person, whose wife we are talking about happens to be female? In some states, homosexual marriage is legal. We know God hates homosexuals, because he burned them in fire. Does this marriage count as marriage, or is it good thing to "try to get that women on right way"? Other commandments are ok. But these ten are not good enough to live by only them. We need real law. If we have real law, that we respect, then we don't need these commandments.
Pepsi vs coca cola

Now, contemplate Coke's chief rival, PepsiCo. It's got similar exposure to our vanishing taste for sodas, but there's a whole other side to the business: Snacks, which account for about half the company's sales, and have been selling more robustly of late. Carbonated soft drinks make up only about a quarter of PepsiCo's U.S. sales, compared to 60 percent at Coke. Despite activist investor Nelson Peltz's crusade to get the company to split them apart, CEO Indra Nooyi has stubbornly refused. "Decoupling our beverage and snack businesses in North America would significantly reduce our relevance to our customers," she points out. That's probably a smart move, given that there's no guarantee Americans will spend the same amount of money on branded beverages in the future -- but they're not likely to stop snacking anytime soon.
Pepsi vs coca cola

Pepsi is better. However, dig just a little bit and you'll find very different companies. Coca-Cola's main line of business is its carbonated drinks " about three-quarters of its revenues. For PepsiCo, it's only a quarter of their revenues. The rest of PepsiCo's sales come from snacks and foods, owning such popular brands as Frito-Lay, Doritos, Cheetos, Quaker, and Cap n' Crunch. For Steve Cortes, founder of Veracruz TJM, the difference in product mix is the reason why PepsiCo has outperformed Coca-Cola in 2013 and why he thinks it will continue to do so in the future. "Pepsi is far more of a food company," says Cortes. "Food companies have done terrifically well lately, largely because the input costs have absolutely plummeted. Corn, for instance, just a couple of weeks ago hit a three-year low. The food space has been a terrific spot to be."
The two party system has run its course and is dividing America.

Firstly it has been a good debate, even though we essentially agreed on the topic. This is probably the first serious debate on this site that ended early haha. It makes sense now, I have been to San Francisco, and had I stayed a month longer I probably would be a die hard conservative too. The things I saw their and the liberalism that empowers it is a horrible thing, at the least, I am happy that it is one of the few places in America where it got that bad, though otherwise it still is a great city. random story but I find it interesting, I think you will appreciate it too. One of my friends is extremely rich and well connected. he works in restoring old cars and asked if I could help him set up the garage for a TV show at the house for a man he worked for. I end up learning that the mans name is Bill Mittendorf, A former ambassador to the netherlands under president ford, and he held countless other positions under different presidents. At the time I was planning on studying political science somewhere in the D.C. area, in hopes of one day entering the political field. So aftering finishing the job, I asked my friend if I could meet him and talk with him abit, he said sure and the conversation that changed my life took place. He is a die hard conservative, yet he told me that when he was at Holy Cross 60 years ago, he was so left wing that he was a step away from joinning the communist party. He said as life goes on, he got stabbed in the back and lied to so many times that he eventually became conservative. He told me that the problem with liberals is that they get together and yell and talk about peace and equality and what not and never get anything done, they never do anything to change it. He told me that majoring in political science is a big mistake. it is a major made for the young and idealistic people that nevers makes for a good career. What he said next opened my nieve 16 year old eyes. He said, joe, this is the way it is, i am telling you this because you came to me for advice and this is your life we are talking about here, I go to speak at harvard or princeton and i tell them all that other bullshit because thats what they want to hear, but thats not the way the world works, its a cold place, and sometimes you got to be just as cold. that is what sticks out from a conversation that I have come feel was a chance at redemption for an old man who dominated the political game but was torched during the process. I think he thought he could save me from the same fate he suffered by telling me not to be so idealistic, by telling me the truth. two weeks later, I had 3 missed phone calls from my friend. It turns out i was invited to go out and eat lunch with my friend, mr. Mittendorf, and John McCain......I missed it I thought i would put some content in here, since the debate is essentially over.
The two party system has run its course and is dividing America.

21st Century Republican: Money-loving, Gun-loving, God fearing, corrupt, American pride, can't be trusted. WANT THINGS TO STAY THE SAME 21st Century Democrat: Nature loving, people loving, God loving/no god at all, winey, politically uneducated/political genius (either they know nothing or they know alot), Gay loving, soft. WANT THINGS TO CHANGE John Edwards talks about two Americas, but these are the REAL two Americas. From what I have seen over the past two years, this is how Democrats look at Republicans, and Republicans look at Democrats. It is tearing this country in half. a "true" Democrat today is unbearably liberal, and a "true" Republican is disgustedly conservative. Today, if you consider yourself a conservative Democrat, or a liberal Republican, you mine as well be an independent. The truth is that independents don't become president. So that leaves us with the two parties we see today, who's beliefs are polar opposites of one another. It creates two cultures in one country, and the fact is neither extreme can successfully lead a country. Foundation of the Democratic Party: The party the believes that more power should reside in the state, slight social liberal bend. Foundation of the Republican Party: The party the believes that more power should reside in the Capital, slight fiscal conservative bend. It is almost comical to think that 200 years ago, that the Democratic-Republican Party was one party alongside the Federalist party and the Whig party. It split because of the differences stated above. Those foundations served well until the 1960s, a period in which the Vietnam War and the "Flower Power" movement took the Republican Party name and the Democratic Party name respectively, and the damage is irreparable. This is the way it should be... The Capital should worry about national security, the economy, health care, global image, foreign affairs, etc. The State should worry about social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, environmental friendliness, etc. another important thing, there are much more important things to worry about then gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, etc. History shows that people are progressive, eventually all these things will be legal. Also, just make it all legal now, it doesn't affect you unless you want it too, and getting it all out of the way allows us to focus on more important issues (read Middle East). I don't want to hear Presidential Candidates talking about these issues, they can leave that to the governors. Solarman, I chose this because of your biases and, from what i have seen in your debates, a knowledge of exercising freedom, and of the United States Political landscape. as I said, I chose something in which i felt i could learn from you (what i feel is most important on Debate.org, learning). so i look forward to your response.
My opponent will not be able to win this debate

There is a super pro, however in this debate you are not him. You are pro. You have forfeited all 7 points. Secondly, forfeiting on this website is when you no longer make any arguments. The website will then say "9sapceking" has forfeited this round". Since such hasn't occured, you forfeit all 7 points.Furthermore, since you didn't forfeit according to this site, all your argument and definitions after round 2 are invalid. You made a further post, being "to place text on a website. " http://dictionary.reference.com...;Since you didn't forfeit according to this site, I do not have to agree with your definitions, because they do not count. Furthermore, even if they did, I could alter them if I wanted to. You are "9spaceking" because no possible glitch is possible. You cannot prove it is possible, I can however say I asked airmax, and you cannot disprove such.1. I do have sources. This is another reason why I will win, because my opponent can't even read.2. I can create any rules I would like. This was not a rule presented that I couldn't. And I did make fair rules. Fair is "moderately large" http://dictionary.reference.com... rules had a moderatly large font, furthermore the quantity of rules was moderatly large as well.3. Quantity beats quality.4. I will win because you rely on bold fonts to win. I rely on facts, rules and pro lying.5. Anime cat girl with cute cats. Your argument is invalid.In conclsion, my opponent was unable to prove he wasn't "9spaceking". iMabench is not a real user. Furthermore, the glitch he speaks of is impossible. He has no proof supporting it is true. Because of such, he already broke many rules, and must lose 7 points. Also laziness makes me Bruno Mars. That is why people will vote for me. Girls love Bruno Mars.
My opponent will not be able to win this debate

I asked airmax if such a glitch was possible. He said no. Furthermore you cannot prove the glitch. You even refer to yourself as "9spaceking" in your debates. You are not imabench. Imabench has a seperate account. http://www.debate.org... you are an alternate account of Imabench, you will immediatly be removed from DDO. You are 9spaceking, and you broke the rules by being pro in this debate, since there is no "super pro". You posted a picture. You posted something. You didn't forfeit. Because of such, you have forfeited all 7 points.
My opponent will not be able to win this debate

Okay. I accept the ridiculous rules.1. I am not pro on this debate. I am super pro! :P2. I am not 9spaceking. It's a terrible glitch that I am reporting to the moderators. I'm actually imabench.3. Okay, but I'm not 9spaceking4. I ain't breaking any rules you idiot5. I ain't making any rules6. forfeit: a fine; penalty, defined as http://dictionary.reference.com.... I pay a virtual billion dollars. Add in another billion for good measure.7. Yes, of course. I am using them right now.8. I ain't.9. This ain't a picture it's an insanely good drawing I magically posted with godly powers. (picture: a mental image, defined by dictionary.com) 10. Yes, of course. I haven't broken any rules. I just accepted in a wordly way. However, my forfeit had a different meaning: to give up.RE-REBUTTALS1. This is a troll debate. Did you not realize that?2. I used more characters than you last round.:P3. yes I can. You speak "old man language".4. You took 10 hours to type this argument up. 6. I trolled you! :P7. I broke no rules as the user known as imabench. It's a glitchy error. I will try to PM airmax so he can fix it.8. your opponent "9spaceking" cannot debate, but I, imabench can.NEW ARGUMENTI have a cute drawing of a puppy. Everyone loves puppies, so they will vote for me.
My opponent will not be able to win this debate

You did not say I could make rules required for you to follow. Because of such, I will now make them. All of these rules only apply to "9spaceking"1. you may not be pro in this debate2. Your username on DDO may not be "9spaceking"3. You may not use any words,links or post any arguments. This rule only applies to the user "9spaceking"4. You may not break any of these rules, nor change them5. you may not make any new rules.6. you may not make any further post, you are required to forfeit. 7. You must also use the rules you created in round 1.8. You may not post any comments on this debate.9. You may not post any pictures.10.You must follow the rules you made in round 1 of this debate. Breaking any rules will result in a 7 point forfeitRebuttals:1. I also face higher elo debaters such as phlliy1. Furthermore, you face various noobs as well. Most of your debates are "troll" debates, which is why you have alot.2. I am using my characters to refute and make rules. This is an excellent use of them.3. The age presented on my account is false. I did so for the fun of it. You are unable to prove I am 110 years old. 4. I am not 110 years old. Furthermore, as you can see, I am already debating this, meaning I have caught up.5. I am not 110. Furthermore, dedecation does not mean a win. The Toronto maple leafs are dedicated, they didn't even make it to the playoff season. I am also very dedicated to all debates I accept, this is one of them.6. You just said you are serious about this debate. Because of such, you being a troll does not effect the debate whatsoever.Why will I win this debate?First of all, my opponent is no longer allowed to debate. He is forced to forfeit. Because of such, he is breaking his rule, which will result in a 7 point forfeit. I am also very dedicated. If I wasn't, why would I accept this challenge? I need no further argument, because my opponent is no longer permitted to debate.
Only Those of a Stable and Adequate Income Should be Allowed to Bear Children

I agree that everyone should be educated to the point they know that every action has consequences. However, many are stubborn and refuse to listen. There are still a large portion of those who don't care for intervention and would rather to live their life their way even if it negatively affects the life of another. Unfortuantely, unplanned pregnancies are making the quality of life worse for everyone. In the last forty years the population has more than doubled. This planet is overpopulated with no means to control it. Something has to be done even if it means taking some freedom away from people. Parents and kids would benefit much more living comfortably without stress as opposed to the many families that do because they take on too much by caring for more life as they spread themselves too thin. It's like catch 22, people take advantage of the freedom they have but have to realize what kind of effect it has on everyone besides themselves. If China can have a one child policy, other countries can find a way to control their increasing population. http://www.forbes.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Only Those of a Stable and Adequate Income Should be Allowed to Bear Children

Many of the cases you mentioned are children that are unplanned. The only way the government would be able to enforce this, would be doing background checks as soon as a mother reports to a hospital, and sometimes they don't. If it were as simple as the government taking children away from broken homes, which they do (the court takes custody) then children wouldn't face the hardships they do. Instead what I would propose is the creation of a program that educates that demographic on the costs and consequences of unplanned pregnancy and the preventative measures that may be taken. That way the government is not overstepping their bounds by taking away children from their homes without some sort of abuse or neglect taking place, and those who do not wish to have children are more aware of the consequences of unprotected intercourse. That being said, to address your point of the government monitoring "those who decide to birth children", it does not seem feasible with the limited technology and law enforcement. Furthermore, there already is a relatively effective system to remove children from abusive situations. I am not saying that is foolproof, and I am aware that there are many children who slip under the radar and get caught in the undertow, but there is simply no way the government would be able to expend the resources required to institute such a program. The key here is prevention. The government cannot regulate who decides to have unprotected intercourse because that would mean actively regulating that demographic and given the number of people known to be below the poverty line that would mean actively invading their privacy and expending resources that would be more effectively used elsewhere. If I were to tell someone that if they were to have unprotected intercourse I would either terminate their rights or take away their children, they would be unlikely to take me seriously if they had no intentions of having a child in the first place. But if I were to educate them on how much time and money it takes to properly raise a child, and they found themselves incapable of doing so, then they would be more likely to listen. Furthermore if I made contraceptives more readily available to them, they would be aware of both the consequences and know what measures to take to prevent an accidental pregnancy. It is important to remember that those who are not educated in the actions that lead to the consequences will never learn what exactly it is that they are doing wrong. https://www.childwelfare.gov... https://www.childwelfare.gov... of State laws https://www.childwelfare.gov... http://www.census.gov...
Only Those of a Stable and Adequate Income Should be Allowed to Bear Children

I advise you to check out my links below, especially chapter four of Freakonomics. That being said, absolutely, if at the moment one is not able to properly support a child, then it is their own fault they conceived and therefore must either abort or surrender the child to someone much more capable. I think it's necessary for the government to provide free contraceptives to the public to limit the population of children born in unsuitable environments, i.e.; homes of drug addicts, alcoholics, abusive members, and those that are poverty stricken. It is absolutely unfair and absurd that an innocent child must be born into these kinds of circumstances. The majority of the children born in these kinds of lifestyles, will most likely resort to the same things as their caregivers or rebel and become ever worse. A great example is looking at the backgrounds of most criminals. They grew up with people dedicated to the life of crime and fell into the trap themselves. However,it would be ignorant of me to say that all kids born in these circumstances will become delinquents themselves. There is also a number of children who find the right path to education and success, which is wonderful, but they had to suffer great hardship to get there, which isn't fair. I think hospitals, identification services, and government officials should monitor those who decide to birth children and determine if their environment would be suitable. If per say a family got the income they needed after they conceived, the child should have the choice of going back to their original blood family, other than that, this would be an effective and much needed and desired to change to control population, motivate families to get higher educations and higher wages, and give better opportunities to these innocent children who need proper surroundings to succeed. http://www.businessinsider.com... http://www.psy.vanderbilt.edu... http://www.promises.com...
Only Those of a Stable and Adequate Income Should be Allowed to Bear Children

While I admire your reasoning, this would only work in an ideal world. There is simply no way of regulating who has intercourse that results in children. Furthermore, you would have to find some way of defining "stable and adequate income". Often, circumstances change and there is no way to foresee these changes.There are simply too many variables involved. If for a person who does not fit the criterion were to have their child removed from their care, but in a few years were able to generate enough income to fit the requirements would they get their child back? Or if a person who does fit the criterion were to have their child for several years and then face financial hardship that prevents them from being able to "adequately" care for their child, would the children be taken away from them? In terms of higher education, many people are unable to complete a higher education, but are able to generate a stable income. Would the elite be the only ones to have the "privilege" to bear children? Many pregnancies are unplanned, if the parents decide to keep the child, would they be forced to either abort the child or give the child up for adoption anyway?