BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Judaism is a false religion because rabbis do not know the true origin of the word "Torah"

"If you are not a rabbi or Jewish and well versed in Judaism, please leave this debate as you are not qualified to participate in it."I am not a Jew. However, I am knowledgable enough to debate this resolution. "This isn't a debate on atheism vs. theism which you are trying to make it into. So again, if you don't know what the debate topic is about and have no knowledge of Judaism tenets you are just trolling as another atheist stalking religious debates."I do not understand this. The resolution is not inherently religious. It questions whether or not Judaism is false because of a misconception common among Rabbis. That would make it a factual debate. An example of a religous debate is "Does God Exist" as there is no conclusive eviedence either way inside of the resolution. In addition, my case does not reflect atheism. I made no points that stated that God does not exist. Again, I do understand the debate topic. It is fairly self-explanatory. I am not trolling, my case was a serious rebuttal. As I said previously this is not a religious debate, nor do I understand or appreciate the negative remark towards atheists."Don't come here to divert the discussion. And no, it is content of my opponents argument against the topic that is what we are concerned with here, not your definitions of rules of debate."I am in no way diverting the discussion. I made a resonable case which negated your points. It's true, the content of my case is important. However, we ought to also be concerned with the rules and etiqutte(such as Burden of Proof), as those allow the voters to make better descisions. We should also make a point of showing the definitions as these allow us to clear up the debate and make sure we are debating the same topic.My opponent has made no new contentions nor rebutted mine. I extend all of my points.Good Luck to the Pro.
Judaism is a false religion because rabbis do not know the true origin of the word "Torah"

If you are not a rabbi or Jewish and well versed in Judaism, please leave this debate as you are not qualified to participate in it. This isn't a debate on atheism vs. theism which you are trying to make it into. So again, if you don't know what the debate topic is about and have no knowledge of Judaism tenets you are just trolling as another atheist stalking religious debates. Don't come here to divert the discussion. And no, it is content of my opponents argument against the topic that is what we are concerned with here, not your definitions of rules of debate.
do you believe the true story of human who is son of god with spirits is true or fake ? lets debate

you didnt understood my story, i was talking about human origination is son of god but he lives like a human and when he calls his human parents papa then he becomes son of human parents but not son of god. so i wanted to debate on original truth with the world of god, if human says papa to human parent will he be son of human or still son of god. i hope you understood me now.
do you believe the true story of human who is son of god with spirits is true or fake ? lets debate

I accept your challenge. Since you did not dictate the terms, I will give my best interpretation. We are debating whether the story of how humans were created, as told by the Bible, is true. The burden of proof is on you, meaning you have to prove that the Bible is correct. I will be arguing that the story outlined in the Bible is probably false. Before we start, I'd like to request that this debate be based on logic. "You just have to believe" doesn't work. I also implore that you fix your grammar. It's hard to read run on sentences with no proper capitalization. Since you didn't make any argument in round 1, I won't need to make any rebuttals.
do you believe the true story of human who is son of god with spirits is true or fake ? lets debate

do you believe the true story of human who is son of god with spirits is true or fake ? lets debate the true story of human who is son of god with spirits a human origination is son of god and whenever human thinks he is son of god he is blessed and spirits looses from human on knowing truth so spirits forces human not to think he is son of god and live a life like normal humans live so spirits can control him who is son of god and do anything with him like they do anything with other humans. human who is son of god says why everything happens by thinking i will talk and say it to everyone in reality that i am son of god and i need something but he comes to know when he thinks and remembers that he is son of god then only every spirits comes to know it that he is son of god and looses from truth otherwise no spirit comes to know truth and even if any spirits comes to know truth and human who is son of god says he is son of human then he becomes son of human and spirits never comes to know original truth of human who is son of god as whose son he is when he thinks he is son of human. listen to audible at https://www.youtube.com...
Resolved: The united States government allowing mentally ill defentants to have a lesser sentance

Okay. "Let's do it!" - Dr. PhilC1: ConstitutionalityThe 14th amendment of the Constitution says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." --AP Government and Politics, Pearson Education 2009Thus, by allowing mentally ill criminals have lesser sentences is immoral and unconstitutional. If a criminal gets a different sentence based soley on their mental status, it would violate the 14th amendment and thus be unconstitutional.My opponent's first plank is something I somewhat agree with. This is NOT A CONCESSION. My opponent shows a background that is accurate, but the means of carrying out the sentence reduces the penalty paid. My opponent says that a mental person should receive rehabilitation and treatment for less jail time/ other penalty. I agree. However, treatment at a hospital in rehabilitation can be a sentence in itself.A person can be sentenced to mandatory treatment and/or rehabilitation. I agree. However, it would need to be mandatory in compliance with equal punishment/penalties that a mentally sane person would get as well as rehabilitation/ treatment.Example: A person could be sentenced to compulsory drug rehabilitation instead of prison time. --http://www.drug-rehab-center-hotline.com...--http://www.avvo.com...So my opponent basically has contradicted themself by saying they should get more rehabilitation but less prison time. That is not the equivalent to a lesser sentence. They would be sentenced to less jail time, but would also be sentenced to a mental hospital. So, my opponent has not met his/her BoP. ConclusionMy opponent has said that the gov't should allow mental patients to have a lesser sentence. Then my opponent goes on to say they should get treatment. If my opponent says they should get mandatory treatment, this would be an alternate sentence.So, I cannot really understand if my opponent is saying they should have overall less of a penalty to pay, or if we should subsititue jail time for treatment. If the latter is true in this case, it is not the equivalent to a lesser sentence, because they would be punished (and helped) by mantory hospital rehabilitation and treatment. So, if my opponent wanted a truly lesser sentence, it would be unconstitutional.If my opponent wanted to substitute some jail time for mandatory rehabilitation or hospital stay, it would not be a truly lesser sentence. Thus, my opponent has not met his/her BoP.
Resolved: The united States government allowing mentally ill defentants to have a lesser sentance

I. Inherency Insane Asylums were closed, causing an uncountable number of mentally ill persons to be released onto the streets. These persons were not given proper care needed for there illness and many became jobless. The joblessness of said Ill persons caused homelessness and insufficant funds for treatment. States set up programs for the ill persons to receive funds, yet the funds were insufficant to handle the growing problem and resources became stretched. Those not already diagnosed as Ill had to deal with not only the illness that they already had, but a growing stigma. Some, but not al. Of these ill persons were violent and the levels of violence were varied. Some ill persons were seriously violent, while others weren't violent at all. Plan: Plan plank 1: the united states government will santion a federal policy allowing mentally ill individuals to serve a reduced prison sentence in return for the ill individual serving the remainar of their sentence, as recommended by the pre-sentencing investigation report, in a psychiatric hospital, choose by the judicalial court that the case falls under. Attending phsycian of the committed ill person may not, under any release the ill person until date specified Plan plank 2: this plan will take full effect by the year 2015 Plan Plank 3: this plan will be funded by a luxiory tax Plan Plank 4: physicians violating said law is subject to a suspension of license. If the released ill person commits a crime while illegally released, the attending physician will face charges of negligence, and, if the victim dies, manslaughter. II. Solvence: Ill persons who commit crimes are subjected to the same sentences as healthy individuals. Ill individuals can go into psychotic episodes where they are trapped Inbetween two worlds, theirs and ours. Their perceptions are severely altered. These perceptions can be anything including what is right vs. What is wrong. In the instance of The State of Iowa V. Mark Daryl Becker. Becker suffered from paranoud schizophrenia. He truly believe that his former football coach was raping him and turning children into 'fish and animals and dead people.' Becker knew that killing people was wrong, but he felt he had to kill Ed Thomas in order to save the children. He Perceived that killing Ed Thomas was OK, but he was still found guilty to life without parole. III. Significance Ill persons cause a threat to jail personal. Putting these persons in a residential treatment facility will allow them the opportunity to become better and enter socioty ready to be productive. To date the percentage if I'll prisoners nationthey will, eventually be released. wide is 16% . A number of the individuals are locked up for nonviolent crimes or violent crimes that have small sentences. These persons will be released in time, releasing them has potential to be more costly than enacting the proposed plan.
God loves us

O.K. first of all I never said every other religion is wrong and I will also start of by saying, why do you hate GOD and think he doesn't love us and I'm sorry if something bad happened to you but that is not GOD, that is Satan. The proof for GOD lies solemnly in faith just like the fact the you believe that there is no GOD or if you believe in any other religion you need faith. I could say the bible is proof that GOD exist but you might not believe in the bible so you could easily say that the bible could be made up as far as we know. I am talking about the christian GOD. I will start with The Ontological argument which says " The idea that God doesn't exist is just as absurd as the idea that a four-sided triangle does. According to the ontological argument, we can tell that the claim that God doesn't exist is false without having to look into it in any detail. Just as knowing what "triangle" means makes it obvious that a four-sided triangle is impossible, the argument suggests, knowing what "God" means makes it obvious that God"s non-existence is impossible. The claim that God does not exist is self-contradictory." and there is proof for God and It lies in the bible and as I said earlier you may not believe in the bible so I am not going to go on and on about it. Now for my rebuttals, My proof that God made us unique and special is that we are the only animal that is able to talk and our body is way more complex than any other animal in this world. The bible says In Genesis 1:27 " So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Evil is not a thing it is just the absence of good, you can not have a jar of evil just like cold does not exist and darkness does not exist, they are just the absence of heat/light. God did not create evil but he allows evil through free will. If there was no evil then God would not give us free will because we would be worshiping God through obedience not free will if this world was perfect. God put us on Earth so we could have a choice to either worship him or to disobey God because God did not want robots. We can never fully understand why an infinite God does what he does in our finite minds and that is because we are limited but God is not limited. For the stone paradox or the omnipotence paradox, God is beyond our knowing and he is infinite so he can do the logically impossible like create a stone he can't lift and lift it.
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

I never said imaginary things are material, I simply said that they are real. I have no clue what imagining myself being poked would prove. That is imagining something that isn't based on reality, so it isn't real. If you imagine something based off of reality, it'll be real. Seems simple, yet some don't understand...Again, PRO has dropped all points beside this one in his Round 5 rebuttal, and actually didn't understand what I said anyway. EVERYTHING that my partner has pointed out is either false or incredibly off-topic, with the exemption of setup in Round 1. I have done my best to show this to you, yet I don't think I should have bothered.VOTE CON!!!
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

I really don't know what this has to do with the resolution, but here goes:"I can't imagine reality"(grammer fixed by mfigurski)I can. Can you imagine an apple? I think everybody should be able to. Yet an apple does exist in reality. So you have imagined reality. And so reality is imaginable, yet imagination isn't always real. Imagination uses memory, so it cannot be opposite. Truth isn't always logical, and imagination can be very logical. Sometimes imagination can be more logical than truth.No, I'm asking if YOU SPECIFICALLY can imagine yourself in that situation. Which you have proven you can by posting your short scenario.Belief is specifically the truth, at least in most cases.Belief - "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence "(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)If you reheated the coffee when posting, it should be pretty cold now, an hour later. PLease don't ask about the coffee again, I have alredy mentioned some simple ways of testing wether it is hot. Look at the end of my Round 2.PRO has so far not been able to demostrate the reality of any of his wild equations, much less the actual resolution. To my partner, please get it together and actually find some evidence. Yes, it can be logical, but it has to be sound.
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

You do not have to imagine something that is real... but you can. And, in that case, your imagination would be real. Therefore imagination isn't always untrue, as there are occasions where it is truthfulNot everything you know comes from a physical experience. Have you ever lost a leg? Don't think so, yet eeryone knows that it would hurt.Belief is actually more likely to be defined as KNOWING without having concrete proof. So belief = I know = known.And I don't know if it's too hot. It should probably be good enough to drink now, expecially since you asked me first in round 2. That was, what, 15 minutes ago? It should be fine now...
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

Math is absolute enough to allow for it's non-absoluteness. Besides, math needs a context, otherwise things such as a "circle" neer would've come into being.You don't have to imagine DDO, you have to believe it exists though. IF you chose to imagine DDO, THEN your imagination would be true, becuase it is based off of truth.You know a coffe cup is too hot to grab by observing the liquid steaming, or by feeling the radiative warmth, or by quickly touching a figer to the side to check it's temperature. And that's without any complicated machinery.I don't see the connection between a coffee cup and imagination.
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

I thankfully accept @vispex's public challenge.BoP is fully on PRO.RESOLUTION: "Imagination is false" & "Belief is imaginary"PRO will have to prove both of these statements to gain victory in the eyes of the viewers.PRO's "equations" should not be counted as definitions as they have no credible backing.*END OF SETUP*One's "belief" cannot always be a lie, can it? For example, I believe that DDO is a website, that there are many users, and that there is a specific one with an account named "Vispex" that is trying to prove something to me. Are these all a lie? Because I believe in them wholeheartedly.As for knowing it's truth, I know that I exist. And I believe that I exist as well. I know that the truth factor in my existance is one, because I know I exist.If you don't know, you don't have to imagine it. It can be drawn for you to understand, explained by others, or simply observed. And if you can at best imagine it, that doesn't mean it's a maybe. Though seeing is believing for many people, there are many more who find that belief is a triat that can lead to a truth.
Feminism is necessary in modern day United States.

In the United States of America, the government have given both men and women the same rights, but feminists are still rampant. This would not be a big if the feminist stuck to their morals, but while the dictionary definition of feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men, individual feminists have demonstrated otherwise and have turned this once proud movement into a cult. Here are my rules: - The first round will be accepting the challenge only. - The final round will be our closing arguments, and no new evidence will be brought up. - All feminists will be held accountable for their actions and their radical actions are fair game when demonstrating how this movement is deteriorating. - We will not personally attack each other or resort to ad hominems. - Data must be backed by credible sources.
Muslims are terrorists.

I am very sad that you were wrong when you said "I wasn't born yesterday" because if you are a grown up you must have some sense of debate. You quoted a verse 9:5 but as I told you earlier, you have not understood the context. This is a extract from Koran: [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists. (9:1) So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. (9:2) And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger.So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.(9:3)Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]. (9:4) And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush.But if they should repent,establish prayer,and give zakah,let them [go] on their way.Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (9:5) And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection,then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah .Then deliver him to his place of safety.That is because they are a people who do not know.(9:6)This paragraph refers to the treaty which non-Muslims made to the pilgrims and then defied that.This paragraph announces punishment for the traitors which is death in any law of the world.Islam is just; it punishes the evil and rewards the good.
Muslims are terrorists.

That's not true at all, I wasn't born yesterday, all of that is just Islamic propaganda, the Qur'an says to kill non-muslims in cold blood and to terrorize them, if you want a more bltant verse, Qur'an 9:5:"And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the unbelievers wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."This verse even says to lie in wait for them, clearly not self defense, like I said, I was not born yesterday, you can't just lie and expect meto believe such a blatant audacious lie.
Muslims are terrorists.

The contender has quoted some verses of the Koran and has tried,quite unsuccessfully,to prove that the Koran promotes or provokes aggression.I wonder upon my opponent's debate because instead of providing material to oppose me,he was unintentionally supporting my argument. As I said earlier,the Koran says that you can kill those who attack you or who force you not to obey or preach Islam. In every constitution of the modern world,self-defense is allowed. If someone attacks USA, will USA be silent or will they defend themselves?In another verse which my opponent quoted but not completely, the Koran says to the wrongdoers that their destination in the hereafter is fire. In this verse,if read with proper context,this fire is in the hereafter not in this world as Allah promises to reward and punish.This belief is about the same in Christianity, Hinduism and many other religions.Islam teaches us to behave nicely and secure the people who are non-Muslims; throughout the history Muslim Rulers have been securing the non-Muslims and their rights.They ruled Spain for over 800 years but non-Muslim families were not killed but they prospered.Killing is just allowed for self- defense and securing the rights of Muslims: the rights of speech, action, thought or movement.Islam never orders to attack someone without them attacking Muslims. Tell me that can you call a whole religion terrorist just for a minor group of fanatics who want to kill people just to defame Islam? Nobody has the right to blame Islam for terrorism in the world.Just take the recent report that says that Britain's behavior towards Iraq was unjust,now can we say that the West is terrorist?No one has the right to say that Koran promotes unprovoked aggression and if some person,who calls himself a Muslim,does such kind of killing is a sinner.The Koran contradicts killing: ""take not life, which God hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom."(Quran 6:151)