BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Environmental Protection (con) + Police Profiling (pro)

Yeah, the disagreement ratio is pretty low. I feel like my ratio with almost everyone is higher just because of the vegetarianism issue alone. "I also am disgusted by what's happening with the earth and I understand your philosophy. However, our earth will be "liveable" for a long time." Most theories give us about one hundred or so years of comfortable living. "If we focus on our economy and fix the 9 trillion dollar debt, then we can take care of our environment believe in the future." Money does not fix ecosystems. The state of mind of the general population does. "Something that environmentalists are talking about now is Global Warming and how it will swallow the world bit by bit, however, money won't help Global Warming as much as civil duty." Exactly, so how will fixing our huge dept hlp the environment? I count civic service in environmental protection. Environmental protection would include educating people and a call to action for the public. "Furthermore, a good percentage of the country disapproves of the Global Warming theory, but who would disapprove of lots of money?" Ha, that was a good one. Funny. At least I hope you were being funny. What the population thinks doesn't change the truth of the matter. Four years ago most of the country believed that George Bush would make a good president. 43% of this country also believes the earth has been around for roughly 6,000 years. There is strong evidence to support we are causing the warming of the earth, the exponential increase in temperature over the past couple of years especially. I contend there are theories with evidence to disprove this theory. It is an important enough issue to take action anyway though. About our economy and money, the bottom line is, the world and all the countries of the world and all the people of the world are more important when compared with JUST this country and JUST these people. ********************* "Law enforcement almost already HAS that kind of power because there's police profiling all the time. Who do you point at in a line-up, a short white woman or a tall black guy? Now again, you many people might call it racism, but I call it statistics." Yeah, they profile all the time, and always will. It's human nature. I choose to think as every individual as just that, an individual, not part of a race or group. "A) Present tense? B) How so? Elaborate. I think that anyone cop that misuses the authorization of police profiling will be using police profiling whether he's authorized to do it or not." A. Yes, present tense because it is already being done. B. Go to any black neighborhood and ask random people how many times they've been arrested, searched, pulled over, or mistreated by police but never committed a crime. You'll be amazed. I refuse to encourage that type of behavior by people wh are supposed to be protecting us, not making life more dificult because of the color of your skin or where you live or what you do(occupation). I belive that the rights of every individual are more important than some presumed sense of safety. Looking forward to your response.
Environmental Protection (con) + Police Profiling (pro)

Thank you for this debate, I'm also very happy to debate you because you have the lowest disagreement ratio to me I've ever seen! :) 1) <> I also am disgusted by what's happening with the earth and I understand your philosophy. However, our earth will be "liveable" for a long time. If we focus on our economy and fix the 9 trillion dollar debt, then we can take care of our environment believe in the future. Something that environmentalists are talking about now is Global Warming and how it will swallow the world bit by bit, however, money won't help Global Warming as much as civil duty. Furthermore, a good percentage of the country disapproves of the Global Warming theory, but who would disapprove of lots of money? 2) < > Short and sweet lol. But I still disagree. Law enforcement almost already HAS that kind of power because there's police profiling all the time. Who do you point at in a line-up, a short white woman or a tall black guy? Now again, you many people might call it racism, but I call it statistics. << It is constantly misused.>> A) Present tense? B) How so? Elaborate. I think that anyone cop that misuses the authorization of police profiling will be using police profiling whether he's authorized to do it or not.
Environmental Protection (con) + Police Profiling (pro)

I'm happy do debate you on these topics. "I am for Environmental Protection in general, however, the way debate.org defines it is what I have a problem with. < > Emphasis on "AHEAD OF ECONOMIC POLICIES" The economy largely represents the well being of the people. I believe the well being of the people is more important than the well being of trees, plants, atmosphere... Although these also affect the well being of the people, a stable economy would help environmental protection while environmental protection brings down the economy." I think that the environment is more important than almost anything else at this point. I am absolutely disgusted by what is happening with our earth. I look at it this way, if we don't have a liveable earth tomorrow then the economy wont matter to anyone. Police Profiling: "It's a touchy issue because some people claim police profiling is "racist". However, if the police can say "A man was more likely to have choked this other man because the average woman wouldn't be strong enough to do it, then why can't the police also say "A black man was more likely to have shot this guy because statistics show that it's usually black men that shoot other people for money"? What's the difference?" I'm against police profiling because I don't think law enforcement should be given that kind of power. It is constantly misused.
Environmental Protection (con) + Police Profiling (pro)

I know it's unusual to debate on 2 different things in one debate, but I noticed those are the only things that we disagree on so I'd like to know why. Environmental Protection: I am for Environmental Protection in general, however, the way debate.org defines it is what I have a problem with. < > Emphasis on "AHEAD OF ECONOMIC POLICIES" The economy largely represents the well being of the people. I believe the well being of the people is more important than the well being of trees, plants, atmosphere... Although these also affect the well being of the people, a stable economy would help environmental protection while environmental protection brings down the economy. Police Profiling: It's a touchy issue because some people claim police profiling is "racist". However, if the police can say "A man was more likely to have choked this other man because the average woman wouldn't be strong enough to do it, then why can't the police also say "A black man was more likely to have shot this guy because statistics show that it's usually black men that shoot other people for money"? What's the difference?
I am a loser

Aha! I found a foil in your plan! I quote: " I accept all of my opponent's other contentions showing that he is at least a loser" Since you were supposed to argue why I was not a loser, yet you admit that I indeed am least a loser, I win the debate. All other arguements of yours are null and void. Vote pro because even con did. Foolish mistake. You forgot the most basic rules of debate.
I am a loser

First, I already have addressed my opponent's points. See round one, second to last paragraph. Second, notice how my opponent plagiarized my points without attribution? And how my opponent continues to bring un-necessary ad hominum into this argument, unlike my actually-relevant attacks? Bad conduct right there. Third, using other debates is just another source of information. Even if voters are not willing to give me the arguments vote on that one (even though I will not concede that it isn't an argument) they should therefore give me their sources vote for that and their arguments vote for everything else. Fourth, my opponent states he has an interest in starting a debating record. Most reasonable people who do this do not start five debates on ridiculous topics. They take the time to work out their profile and maybe say hi on the forums before they even start one debate. I am not arguing that the fact you are debating makes you a troll - rather your manner of debating indicates it. Fifth, of course I'm not arguing whether you are a winner or loser. I am arguing that you are WORSE than a loser. There is no onus on me in this debate to show that you are better, because you are blatently not.
I am a loser

) He came on this site with no debating record and randomly started 5 debates on ridiculous topics - two of them on public masturbation. He also did not take the time to write anything in his profile or tell us how he stands on the BIG issues. This points to trollish behavior. As everyone knows, a troll is worse than somebody who just loses all their debates. Someone who loses debates may be simply not very good at debating and worthy of sympathy. A troll is worthy of no such thing. To even use "troll" and "worthy" in the same sentence is kind of contradictory. I am interested in starting a debate record. At one time, you had no debate record. In fact, everyone did. I did not write anything on my proifle because I have not had the time. 2) On another debate he is advocating junk food being banned forever, but here he says that the only food he likes is ... junk food! He also claims to have 3 friends, but his profile shows he has 0. Therefore my opponent is a liar. I mean, it's one thing to be a loser ... but then to be dishonest about it, or to be in denial, points to far more serious issues than just losing. Loser is therefore an inadequate term. The fact that I am addicted to junk food should make me a loser, but you are using an entirely different debate to argue your point, so it is invalid. And even though I can not prove it, you should give me the benefit of the doubt. And once again, you are not arguing if I am a winner or loser. 3) He has no idea what to do. You cannot fail if you do not do anything. I think to call him a loser or a failure is not enough because he is worse than both - nothing but a drain on society. You can fail school if you do not do anything, You fail good sir. I have addressed all your points. Now please address mine. Opponent still has a small penis.
I am a loser

This round I only have rebuttal. I hope voters also noticed that my opponent offered no rebuttal against any of my points, only against some of the factual claims within some of my points - but for all of the points he rebutted, he missed out alternative factual claims by which one may reach the same conclusion. Just because I do not argue against your points does not mean you are a loser. Rather what I'm saying is that your own points, compounded with mine, show that you are worse than a loser. I agree that not having a debating record does not prove you are a troll, however, this fact cannot be seen in isolation. In context, put together with all my other evidence, it is pretty strong. Real life friends is not evidence because you can lie about that too. Unless you put your friends where your mouth is (metaphorically speaking) you remain a liar. Incidentally, having no friends is also evidence you are a troll. As to the ad hominum attack on me, I am happy to concede that I am a loser. So what? This debate is focused on my opponent, not me. In fact, if I am a loser and I can beat him, that would make him worse than a loser, would it not? The fact that my opponent resorts to ad hominum is a sign of fear, a sign that he feels he has already lost so he insults he instead. None of his insults on me have any evidence, of course, making him even worse still for losing a debate to a loser based on no evidence.
I am a loser

Opponent has not attempted to agrue against any of my above points. If I don't have a debating record, that doesn't mean I can't start one. The fact that he has looked at my topics instead of addresing the current debate makes him unreliable. I also ment friends by friends in real life. As for the debates being ridicuolous, opponet should grow a pair and stop being so serious all the time. He also has a small penis.
I am a loser

Greetings to my opponent! My argument is that my opponent sucks so incredibly bad that "loser" cannot even begin to denote just how terrible he is. I contest that a new word should be invented, just for my opponent, for people unworthy of even being called losers.Definitionsloser (n): a person with a record of failingA note on conductI would like to point out that any insults I deliver to my opponent should be seen in the context of the over-all argument I am making. My opponent could turn his life around and become slightly better. While I phrase my argument as criticism, which is sort of necessitated by the structure of my opponent's opening round and the adversarial nature of western debating, I have every intention of keeping this constructive and am not insulting for insult's sake. Where I have backed up my contentions with evidence, I ask that they do not lose me conduct because that would be necessarily confusing conduct and material.Contentions1) He came on this site with no debating record and randomly started 5 debates on ridiculous topics - two of them on public masturbation. He also did not take the time to write anything in his profile or tell us how he stands on the BIG issues. This points to trollish behavior. As everyone knows, a troll is worse than somebody who just loses all their debates. Someone who loses debates may be simply not very good at debating and worthy of sympathy. A troll is worthy of no such thing. To even use "troll" and "worthy" in the same sentence is kind of contradictory.2) On another debate he is advocating junk food being banned forever, but here he says that the only food he likes is ... junk food! He also claims to have 3 friends, but his profile shows he has 0. Therefore my opponent is a liar. I mean, it's one thing to be a loser ... but then to be dishonest about it, or to be in denial, points to far more serious issues than just losing. Loser is therefore an inadequate term.3) He has no idea what to do. You cannot fail if you do not do anything. I think to call him a loser or a failure is not enough because he is worse than both - nothing but a drain on society.I would like voters to note that my opponent's contention #7 is irrelevant because one's opinion of oneself does not translate into a tangible record of any sort - if I thought I was God that would not necessarily make me a "winner." I accept all of my opponent's other contentions showing that he is at least a loser, but none are exclusive with my contention that he is worse than that.Guys, just don't vote for Mr.Sexy. He's simply not a loser.
I am a loser

I wll present the argument that I am a loser: 1) I have an addiction to food. This sucks because I will probably bite the dust by age 30. My mouth waters and I always think about food 24/7. 2) I have ADD. I've tried several medictions and none of them have worked. It has caused me to get the worst grades I've had all semester. 3) I only have 3 friends. The first one is only my friend because we go to same high school and college. we don't talk to each other during car rides, only awkwardly turn on the radio. The 2nd friend is my cousin. The third friend was my friend from elementary school. 4) I have acne. Went to the dermatoligst. His pill did not work. Have had it my whole life. 5) I am super picky. I only eat pizza and sweets. 6) I have no idea what to do in life. 7) I hate myself.
I am a loser

But I say being a loser is INADEQUATE. Saying you are just a loser is false because you are so much worse than that that you no longer fit the definition. It's like saying everything is high-frequency. I contend that some things are low-frequency, even though they ALSO meet the thresh-hold for being high-frequency (as opposed to ultra-high-frequency), and therefore are not high-frequency. Or look at it logically. You contend you are L. I contend you are L-extra stuff worse then L = worse than L. Without accounting for the extra stuff I point out that makes you worse than a loser you'd be right. But if one actually looks at and understands my argument, then one sees that loser is not really an adequate term. One needs to take the other, over-riding factors into consideration. It is wrong of my opponent to conclude from his arguments he is a loser, because he excludes the possibility that he might be something worse. By the way I see I am now also a fool. By my previous argument my opponent digs himself into a deeper and deeper hole.
The New-Testament:

Closed minded Harry, everyone sees that? You were given all you needed in the Torah it is you who failed to believe, not the Torah, Tanakh or whatever excuse you continue to attemt to make. From moses to psalms through Daniel, to Isaiah Christ is shown as the messiah/ mashiach. Just as the majority of Jews failed to believe in Him in the first century, yet proclaim there was no peace .... when they rejected Him. Woe unto you, for the second time you fail the one whom you have pierced, mores the pity.Your excuses gain fall squarely upon your lack of spirituality, your dead inside Harry, you've know knowedge of God within you, thus you remain outside the tabernacle. Pity. God was yours to know but because you possess a heart of stone instead of flesh you have closed your mind to the truth. No Harry no more excuses. You could find Him, you simply on't want to. Condemned by your own words .... accepted with bias. I accept you .... but with bias, no Harry, better to not know you at all , isn't it? "The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps."Proverbs 29:20 Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.Proverbs 12:15The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.Proverbs 23:9Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.Proverbs 3:5Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
The New-Testament:

Bs"dFirst of all, I didn't want "miracles," we believe the Torah because there were millions of whitnesses of its divinity. Second of all, I don't heed any Oral Commentary, I'm more of a Karaite in my beliefs, but the Oral Torah still needs to be investigated and confirmed top be either way. Either way, Me and a freind wrote a declaration together denouncing the teachings of men and the Oral Torah, you can see it here:https://docs.google.com... Third of all, I do not go to men, I go to the Tanakh, and according to the Tanakh, Jesus cannot have been the Messiah. Fourth, I didn't gop into this debate because I needed proof of Jesus's messiahship, I came to this debate to see if you could prove him the messiah, which you have failed to do. Fith of all, originally, I had a bias that Jesus was the messiah, I was proven wrong and I accepted that, if you can prove me wrong, I would accept that too, but you have done a terrible job at doing that. Sixth of all, you still need to prove Jesus the messiah, and you seem to be misinterpreting the reason I disbelieve- all the evidence points toward you are wrong, thus I believe what the proof points toward. This isn't about being right, its about truth, Proverbs 14:15:"The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps."I'm just investigating your claims to tell trut from falsity, and your Non-Testament has proven itself false. In any case, I am mereely observing G-ds commandment "have no other gods before me," there is only one G-d- YHWH, who is one and has no son, he doesn't die or get tired or thirst or sleep, Jesus did all of these things, therefor not G-d, and I cannot worship other gods but Hashem.
jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence

"Those who live by the sword die by the sword" was a condemnation of conquest and imperialism. We saw what Britain and Denmark did to their subjects and they will pay for what they've done throughout history and the fact that neither of them even have the guts to apologize shows that they await judgment. It was not a condemnation of violence but rather a condemnation of conquest. I'm sorry I didn't adress this earlier. And about us using violence, that again goes back to revenge, not defending yourself. Jesus had to die a matryr so that was a different case. He let himself get beat up for a purpose. But that's job is done. God never said we couldn't defend ourself against someone who wants to harm us. Just that it's not right to harm someone in retaliation to a wrong. He said to leave that to God."Those who live by the sword" is a condemnation of imperialism, slavery and conquest.
jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence

When Jesus said to turn the other cheak, He meant to not hold grudges against people. He didn't say that you couldn't defend yourself against evil or someone who wants to hurt you or your family.Luke 12:51 "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division."Leviticus 19:18 "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord."Never did Jesus contradict Himself when it came to violence. Jesus told us not to have personal hatred for others.
jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence

jesus contradicted himself regarding use of violence how do all of the following things reconcile? i actually have some theories but they could be better, and am curious if there's anything better. Jesus told people not to intervene in his arrest process: "And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" when jesus was before pilate during the arrest, he said if this were his kingdom people would be fighting for him: Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." at another point, jesus said to 'turn the other cheek'. at another point, jesus said "let he who is without a sword go and get one"