BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
god has no moral compass

To the readers of the debate. I would very much like to thank everyone for reading through and I would appreciate any positive and constructive feedback. I do believe it is important to realize that the original premise assumes God is real, thus we can examine if He has a moral compass or not. And the use of scripture also must be considered truth to judge God on this topic. If God is not real, then the consideration of his moral compass is moot, or if we cannot accurately trust scripture, then we cannot judge his moral compass. Personally, I feel that at this time, too many questions remain unanswered by the instigator such as: Why can humans require a creator god to be subject to our morality? And whose morality do we use and is superior that we use to judge all people with? Can a being capable of giving and restoring life be held to account for murder? And what truly does it mean to be moral and immoral? I also feel that many of the verses supplied in RD1 were addressed in broad scope through evaluation of context and the general scope of obedience to a creator's law. I also feel that the discussion of how we analyze ancient texts and personalities is settled as well. Whether one believes in the Bible's most fanciful parts, the question of how it is translated and the accuracy is based on the oldest and closest to the originals we can find. 68 AD isn't even a full generation away from when Jesus walked, preached, and died. Luke himself claims to have spoken with many people who saw him speak and saw the scars in his hands. Amazing? Certainly. Rare? Very. Truth? That is for each of you to decide for yourself. I hope you all have gleaned something or perhaps raised a good question you wish to pursue more. I would enjoy hearing from anyone further on this topic. :) God bless everyone.
god has no moral compass

You eagerly await my reply? Why? So I can rip your throat out, and throw it into the disposal so it can be regurgitated by the next flock of seagulls at the trash heap for you being so completely ignorant? "We should take the verses as they are." 1. Who is this "we" that you are speaking of? Um no YOU got dealt an absolutely monstrosity of a hand and you cannot squirm out of it and neither can anyone else because of YOUR god"s complete 100% immorality. Oh and oh yeah. You cannot even prove that your god even exists. 2. (Taken from Dossier of Reason and it only covers a minute portion as to why YOUR god would never choose text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible) Which Bible? A. Over 450 English versions of the bible B. All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts C. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain, and how those verses read. D. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts. II. Availability - current estimate is that 2,251 languages, representing 193 million people, lack a Bible translation 3. Would you like to rephrase your mind numbing dunce cap manure spread response? 4. So are you now telling me that this god of yours would have not foreseen through all of these foreseeable errors and done something about it? Like namely not used text? Duh. 5. "There is no need to hide that the Bible holds some very brutal passages and instances." You are so right. That means morally according to you the bible should not exist. Wow. that was easy. 6. So if this conversation is to continue, in no possible way am I going to let you off with a light feather dusting. You either pay attention to the rules, or don"t bother. I"m not paying attention to you.
The Disney Sitcom Jessie Should Be On A Channel Like Nick@Night Instead of Disney Channel

If the television show "Jessie" was on later, chances are, it wouldn't get many viewers. Jessie is a show made for kids definitely because how many adults are going to watch a television show about an 18-year-old who moves to New York to be a nanny to 4 kids? I know I wouldn't and I'm 19. It is a comedy show for kids.
The Disney Sitcom Jessie Should Be On A Channel Like Nick@Night Instead of Disney Channel

I have no idea where the idea for this debate came from. It is quite random, isn't it? I guess I thought of it as I was watching Jessie and realized that it was a bit more mature than Disney Channel, which is a network aimed mainly at pre-teens and under. I thought about it and realized that it could work on a network like Nick@Night much better; it is more of a family show than just a kid show. Anyway, this debate will be completely casual. It would be silly to use big, complicated words when discussing a topic such as this. If anyone does end up accepting this debate, thank you. I know this is completely pointless, but I want to see what other peoples' opinions are. Perhaps I should start a forum about it? If you want to start debating in this round, go ahead, but if you do keep in mind to leave the last round empty so we have an equal amount of arguments. Allons-y and good luck!
The Disney Sitcom Jessie Should Be On A Channel Like Nick@Night Instead of Disney Channel

Fran, the older woman off of the television show "Nanny", is an older woman that has the worst voice ever! As a kid growing up, I hated when my mother would turn on that show. The show also has some inappropriate language and it sometimes talks about sex. The show Jessie does not; therefore, it is more suitable for kids and the tv show Nanny is more suitable for adults.
Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution

The Bible disprove macro-evolution:Premise 1: The Bible states factsPremise 2: Science is a set of factsConclusion: The Bible coheres with science. There's no contradiction to both.Hence, Premise 1: The Bible states that creatures are created by a common creator not evolved from a common ancestor ( Genesis 1)Premise 2: Science must concurConclusion: Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution because the Christian Scriptures highly implies that it will not. On the existence of GodPremise 1: God is perfectPremise 2: Perfection denotes without any defectConclusion: Everything God does is never wrongPremise 1: God forsees that creation would gone wrongPremise 2: God still caused his plan creation to exist Conclusion: God's deed is perfectIn the realm of post-fall, the universe is subject to the consequences of the original sin which God did not create but only allowed for his glory.God's glory is the ultimate purpose why all things is happening the way they are. If someone does evil, there's a just punishment for it. Without evil, God's justice, holiness, grace cannot be evinced. This highly suggests that the entire creation is under God's sovereignty even in the existence of all sorts of evil. The case against the Bible On the Propohecy about TyreFailed Prophecy? There's no evidence against this claim. In fact, there's an evidence of its veracity and reality.Check this out: https://www.apologeticspress.org...; Time stopped for Joshua, and it ran backwards for Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:9-11). God used this event as a special sign to show Hezekiah that he would regain his health. The sun’s shadow moved backwards by ten steps, probably five to six hours on the sundial. That is, the sun appeared to move eastward instead of westward. The conclusion is again the same, that such a miracle is beyond scientific explanation. God may have temporarily reversed the Earth’s rotation, including all its inhabitants, or the miracle in Hezekiah’s day could have been local instead of worldwide. The latter view is supported by 2 Chronicles 32:31, which describes envoys who traveled to the land where themiracle occurred. Joshua and Hezekiah both made lofty requests of the Lord, that the very heavens might be altered. And God answered their prayers. The sun, moon, and stars obey the Creator who placed them in the sky by the power of his word. Justifying evolutionThis per se is our debate and I proposed a very rational argument supporting both sides.
Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution

To clarify, I am going to highlight a few more points of agreement, and a few more points of disagreement. Points of Agreement1) Evolution, though each time only affecting an individual, causes entire populations to change.2) Evolution is the combination of natural selection and genetic mutation on a scale large enough to cause speciation.3) Natural Selection and mutation are of course proven beyond all doubt to occur.4) Biological evolution is not a moral or ethical theory, and we cnanot derive from the existence of evolution a moral principle5) Speciation is defined as a change in kind, or to use a common layman definition, the change of one species dramatically enough to prevent mating which causes viable offspring.6) The strength of a theory relies on two points:i) The number of potentially false hypotheses, andii) Not containing any actually false hypotheses (i and ii make falsification, proposed by Popper). 7) The debate is not about whether macro-evolution did occur historically, but whether it can occur (or rather, is occurring, for macro-evolution takes a long period of time). Points of disagreement1) Christianity in my opponent's interpretation is justified2) The Christian Scriptures explicitly denies the existence of evolution on a speciation scale. I will not, to be clear, assume here that the Bible is infallible. For many reasons I will not do this, but the major one being it is a category error. A book does not contain fallibility or infallibility, but only readers or people who can express thought. A book can be interpreted in many, many different ways. The Bible, the most read book in history, so clearly has so many interpretations that to assume it to be infallible is nonsensical. Moreover, there is nothing stopping the book being infallible, and metaphorical. Indeed, much of the Bible is metaphor or parable, so to take it all literally is again contrary to reason. In short, I will be expecting my opponent to show the validity and factual nature of the Bible in the course of the debate as well as showing creationism to be true.
Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution

Debate IntroductionIt is said that Microevolution ( i.e. The first phase of biological evolution) will inevitably undergo macroevolution ( i.e. Speciation of an organism dramatically results into a completely different specie than its ancestor) as time goes by.I admit that this is scientifically an educated guess (i.e. hypothesis) and hence, it's probably the correct natural explanation of the origin of all current life forms in our natural and physicalworld.But there is an alternative explanation than this one and it's found in the Christian Scriptures.I request to my opponent to consider the book per se as infallible in this debate because I will present scriptural evidence for both creationism and evolutionism but not theism.Points of Agreement1) Evolution is descent with modification and it's change of genome not of an individual but of a population2) Macro-evolution is reality (e.g. antiobiotic resistance)3) Natural Selection4) Adaptation5) MutationPoints of disagreement1) Macro-evolution is focused on speciation per se in which " an organism became different in form than its ancestor". It's a probable explanation of how life forms exist based on scientific hypotheses but not the best explanantion because this area of scientific study is lacking of evidence of how did all start. This sort of biological evolution is only focused on what happens after all started to exist. 2) Common ancestorSpecifically, my argument is that Micro-Evolution will not undergo Macro-Evolution because the Christian Scriptures highly implies that it will not. Conclusion:Both micro-evolution and the Christian Scriptures offers a very possible, coherent, logical and rational explanation, which is non-contradictory to science, for the existence of all current life forms but in this debate I must prove that the Christian Scriptures offers the best one because of it's large scope that includes the origin of life per se.
TS 2014 is too over priced!

01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01100010 01110010 01101111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01100010 01110010 01101111 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01100010 01110010 01101111 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01100010 01110010 01101111 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01100010 01110010 01101111 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100100 00101110010 01101111 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101101 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000f 01101101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01100010 01110010 01101011110
ISIS is a government funded false-flag organisation

ISIS, ISIL or Daesh are a false flag organisation, it has been said by Vladimir Putin that Turkey, a member of NATO is funding the terror group to fulfil western political interests. But it doesn't end there, ISIS have been seen often with western military equipment, stingers, brand new shiny Toyota pick-ups, technology that can be supplied only by a capable nation's arms trade. This is no doubt allocated through the gulf states that are also funding and facilitating ISIS's sale of oil, this can be prevented easily by sanctions, but they are not being stopped as Arabia is too valuable an asset to give up. The west 'responds' to their staged, false-flag events (Charlie Hebdo, Paris attacks) that makes blind violence a popular opinion in social media despite there being other attacks in less well-off countries, the bombing runs are executed with great imbecility against ISIS targets as opposed to simply cutting-off their supply lines, which should be an obvious course of action, instead the West uptakes direct action to cover-up the fact that ISIS is supplied by them. In the process of doing this, the west are purposely feeding a Jihadi ideology and rekindling the crusade dilemma that has cursed the middle east for generations, it's counter-intuitive to do this and implies that the West want war as it is profitable, it puts Israel in power in the middle east and it gives the USA access to oil as well as eliminating Bashar Al-Assad, who is Russia's sole main ally in the region. It also drives multiculturalism into the Western world which creates a power vacuum in the middle east, creates isolated, parallel societies and the terrorism puts enmity between people - it boosts the controllable slavery in the serfdom of the west. This is not helped by the fact the Zionist USA is legislating Israel's bombing runs of neighbouring Syria and Palestine and driving out their native populaces, then duping these people to believe they are the 'saviours' of these people, when the main stir-up was instigated by their bombs, their Israel and their ISIS. It's all a power-grab and you know it.
Gay Marriage Legalized in More States! [Breaking News]

The Jim Spiegel argument goes as follows: 1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. 3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.
Fence between America and mexico

$85 dollars is not what it costs to become a citizen, it is closer to $680 (http://immigrationimpact.com...), and that it is just the application, obtaining a lawyer can be expensive, and the documentation required for some can be difficult to obtain. And I have no idea what you are talking about they earning a little bit? You need to check your grammar before submitting. And these immigrants are not looking to make 50k per year. They just want to make money to send home or take care of their family.
Video games

Should kids under the age of 13 be allowed to buy violent video games with or without an adult ?No, that's why there's a rating on the back of the box. To avoid minors from buying M-rated games. Violent video games will expose kids to gore, violence, and sex. And kids ages 13 and below are more prone to aggresion according to a article that tested out this theory.http://www.theguardian.com...In conclusion, kids shouldn't buy M-rated games because they are not fully mature enough to play them.
In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation.

Extend my arguments... Now onto voting issues: 1. Interpretation won on the CON side. ---The only interpretation that must be flowed through is the CON's interpretation that in order to vote pro you must eliminate jail time for pure rehab (in other words you must replace). She says that this is not applicable but fails to offer a definition that showed why. In fact, her very own definition pointed to the fact that my interpretation was right ("Replaced - To provide a substitute or equivalent in the place of")... Therefore, my interpretation stands, and overall, the CON side wins. We OUGHT TO do both of these things (rehab AND jail time) because each situation is unique and each situation needs a unique way to provide the ultimate goal of the round... societal welfare. 2. Value/Criterion ---The value for this round cited as societal welfare is by far best upheld on the CON side. This first begins with my criterion of propriety. Where we can target more than just meeting rehabilitation goals, but furthermore to "denounce unlawful conduct, to deter the offender and other persons from committing offence, to separate offenders from society, to rehabilitate, to provide reparations, to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and to acknowledge harm done to the victims and the community." At the end of this debate I must ask, what is the point of only doing one of these things when we can just as easily do ALL of them? This is why jail time is necessary and that any notion to hint at exchanging it for another form of punishment just does not suffice and overall, does not provide societal welfare. As my contention 4 said, "there is not one perfect system for everybody"... not to mention more jobs will be provided :D 3. Even misdemeanors need ‘punishment' (C3) ---Strictly using rehabilitation does not provide punishment. And to be honest, if you steal something or get in a fight, you ought to be punished more than just simply talking to someone who really doesn't care about you. This does not provide retribution and does nothing for our society. In the end, this is what is important, and I therefore urge you to recognize that we need BOTH jail time and rehabilitation. Therefore realizing that Sephiroth > Batman ;) and overall, vote CON! Thanks!
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

DILAINY ANSWER TO QUESTIONS- Answer #1 The school committee actually had about 10 years to work out a solution it just wasn"t enough to get people to accept it. Answer #2 Desegregation could have been stop by desegregating the neighborhood instead of the school it would have cause less problems because, it would have take longer and give people the time to adjust. Answer #3 The reason why it was such a big deal is because the parents didn"t want their kids to go far away from home. They believe they were putting their children in more danger. STACEY 4th Round - People didn't accept the the busing system and the integration of schools and they still ended up doing it. - People cant be forced to live in certain places that would be communism school is something the government could have control over - They were not being in danger because they were being supervised and the problems would have happened regardless whether in school or in theighberhoods atleast in school it was easier to control rather then neighberhoods. DILIANT 4th ROUND Assertion #1: In 1974, court ordered busing was the only strategy that could have desegregated Evidence: Blacks and whites didn"t want to mix, so they needed a higher power to do so. (If people don"t want to be mix why should we force them to do something they don"t want too.) Evidence:Blacks needed a better quality education. (Mixing them with whites will not get them better quality in education because they will have to face race problems and won"t be able to get that education) Evidence:Neighborhoods were segregated and most kids went to neighborhood schools. (This was safest way for anyone to go to school because they are close to home) Assertion #2:To create a desegregated school system, a judge should be able to tell parents where their children must attend school. Evidence:Kids have to choose a school in their "zone" which might not be in their neighborhood (24 schools to choose from). (This will cause students to have to take bus and with the racism happening in Boston it will be harder for black students to go to school) Evidence:There aren"t enough larger good quality schools in every neighborhood. (The fact that there isn"t good quality school is what we should try to fix and not move the students around.) Evidence:The new plan could re-segregate based on neighborhood Assertion #3: Courts have power to reduce the effects of racial discrimination Evidence:Court created equality in Boston schools so the judge gave back control to Boston. (The equality the judge gave won"t take away the suffering the black students went through) Evidence:No one but the judge was able to "desegregate" Boston schools (The judge didn"t let the school committee time to be able to do the same in a safer way) Evidence: People needed time to get used to the court orders, but it worked eventually. (30% of whites ended up leaving so it didn"t work out so well)
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Reply to question#1:It isn"t taking away their rights because their being forced to follow the constitution, the constitution states that everyone deserves equal rights and it wouldn"t be equal if the whites were receiving a better education and being treated better than blacks therefore if they don"t follow the court"s decision to integrate students then they would be violating other people"s rights. Reply to question#2:You actually get the option to choose 24 schools if you wouldn"t want a school then you shouldn"t list it, and it is still safe because although they aren"t as close they still are close it"s not like they"re going to a school in another state plus transportation was being provided therefore they were being supervised at all times so if something was to happen it would happen regardless. Reply to question#3: Although 30 percent of the white population left a greater part of the population ended up staying which is well over 50 which is 70 percent and those 70 percent had to accustom themselves to the situation otherwise do what the others did and leave because that was the only way to end the discrimination.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Question #1 Why force someone to do something they don"t want to do? Isn"t that taking away their rights? Question #2 Why make them choose a school they don"t want to go? Wouldn"t that be putting them in more danger since they are not closer to home? Question #3 You say that people just need to get used to the courts orders and that it work eventually but how come 30 percents of white ended up leaving?