BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is Acceptable to Kill Another Human Being in Some Scenarios

Here are my final rebuttals and concluding statements. Point One I can see what you're saying about eternity, but I see one issue. If we are truly believing in Him, the an act of defense such as the ones I listed would be forgiven by Him, therefore they would have no effect on our eternal life. Therefore mentioning it doesn't really have any effect on what I'm saying here. Point Two I have found nothing against this point, so I must concede it. Point Three While there is no precedent, we are always faced with new challenges day-to-day. Just because something was not done then, does not mean it won't be necessary now. Secondly, this refers to oneself. But in two of the scenarios, someone else was at risk. Protecting the innocent adds a whole extra layer of necessity to action. I one was on their own, pacifism would be acceptable, but I don't believe it would be acceptable to allow others a terrible fate, especially someone so young who has not yet gotten any chance to experience the world in great measure. I may consider accepting this line of thought when I am the only one at risk, but I see no good reason to allow the innocent to experience pain when it can be stopped. Finally for rebuttals, I believe that verse is meant in a sense of verbal or emotional abuse. I don't believe this means: "If someone tries to hurt you or someone else, let them. " I'm pretty sure it's more along the lines of: "If someone's being a jerk, keep calm and canter on. " To conclude, while I still hold firm my stance on this issue, I thank my you for showing me the viewpoint that the others who disagreed with me were maintaining. While I do not follow this complete-pacifism stance, I can understand it better now. I hold my stance on the following primary points: -The protection of others is a far more serious matter than the protection of one's self. -Our life in Heaven will not be affected by the act of killing someone for the purpose of protection. -While we should aspire to be like Jesus, he had a reason to remain utterly pacifist. From our view, we cannot determine if it is better in the long run if we die or not, so I feel it is logical to go with the one that will definitely produce good results- protecting ourselves and/or others to go on being non-villainous individuals.
It is Acceptable to Kill Another Human Being in Some Scenarios

I see your argument in three main points. (I will reorder them for convenience) Point one It will turn out better in the end if certain people are killed. However, this is the exact point I am arguing against. Because you are defining the end as what will happen now. I am defining the end as eternity. As I said before, the life that is being lived now has little significance when it comes to eternity. It will turn out for the better ultimately, but it may not happen on this earth. Point two There were times in the Old Testament were God required killing. God use force to protect the Jewish nation. In the New Testament God has not protected his people in the same way. which leads into my third point. Point three We are not the apostles. However, Paul says specifically, in 1 Corinthians 11:1, to "Be imitators of [him], as [he is] of Christ.". It is also said about Jesus in, 1 John 2:6, "Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked." Jesus said, in Mathew 5:39, "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." We are to do just this. You have said that the apostles had protection that we did not. However, everyone of the apostles were persecuted and killed. There is no precedent in the Bible for Christians to kill.
It is Acceptable to Kill Another Human Being in Some Scenarios

Well, first I'd like to make a clarification for the second scenario. I did not mean to say that the "you" in that scenario kept a knife on them at all times, what I meant by that is that there happens to be one nearby, for example if you were in a kitchen. You're arguing from a Christian standpoint, which is fine, because I am also a Christian, so I know how I would like to respond to your points. First I'd like to say that God certainly accepts the killing of human beings when He deems it the best course of action. For example, when He gave Canaan to the Jewish people, He ordered them to kill specific groups of people along the way. These were all people who turned their backs on him and walked in iniquity, but they were human nonetheless. Therefore, I believe I can safely say that sometimes, God wishes for us to do unfortunate things to ultimately lead to a better outcome. Secondly, to address the case of Jesus and the apostles. They maintained pacifism because that is what the Lord wished. There is a difference between them and us that must be addressed. They were protected from things that were absolutely not for God's glory. To explain this point, I will use the first scenario. -Say you do not kill the intruders. They do what they do, which I will not explain in detail, it's pretty obvious what their intent is-suffice to say, they do bad things. Then what? They may get away with it, and go on to perform more evil deeds in the future. Nothing has worked out for the better, except for these evil men. -Now, let's look at an example of something that happened to the apostles, because God specifically intended for them to perform no violent deeds. Some of the apostles (I do not specifically remember which, but this is a pretty well-known story, so you may recognize it) were preaching in the temple. They were arrested and sent to prison, where they converted many of the prisoners to Christianity. Here, we see that it worked out, because God intended it to. In the scenarios above, there is no guarantee of a commission from God, so I believe that action should be taken against the evildoers. It is either you living to continue walking in His way, or them continuing to live in iniquity. Surely He will forgive us for making the former decision. To summarize: -Not all of the scenarios signaled a premeditated decision to fight other human beings if it came to it. Actually, only one did. -God at times has not only allowed and forgiven human killing, but has commanded it. -The apostles and Jesus had absolute protection of God to live for Him until their purpose was done. We do not have this protection over us.
It is Acceptable to Kill Another Human Being in Some Scenarios

I must first address from what perspective I am arguing to give my opponent and other readers a better understanding of these views. I am arguing from the perspective of looking for life in eternity. The one that is being lived right now has little significance when it come to forever. Gandhi was not a christian believer, yet he is famous for echoing the Apostles' philosophy when he said "I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill."(1) For each and every single scenario in which you provided, I must admit that I am a human being, and the thought of my love ones or myself being victimized in such brutal ways is too much for me too handle. I cannot guarantee that I would have the strength of the Apostles who followed Our Lord's example, enduring persecution without defending Himself. Two of your scenarios involved premeditation. Owning a firearm or keeping a knife nearby signaled a clear intention to take a life if deemed necessary. This requires practice, planning, and a particular mind set. Just having a weapon means having the willingness to use it. (1) http://www.brainyquote.com...
It is Acceptable to Kill Another Human Being in Some Scenarios

I thought that it was a generally accepted idea that it is, at times, okay to kill another human being, but I then had a group of people disagree with me, and no one take my side. So, I would like to see, in depth, the views of someone who believes killing another human is inherently wrong. I'd like anyone of mental maturity who follows this way of thinking to accept my challenge. As pro, I offer the following scenarios for rebuttal. I would like con to try explaining why these scenarios are not acceptable instances in which to kill another human being, and to offer further argument as to the cause of human killing being inherently wrong. Scenario One: You are at home caring for your children while your spouse is away at work. Suddenly, you hear a door being broken in your home. You grab a personal sidearm and tell your two of your three children to hide in your bedroom. You quietly go downstairs and see three armed individuals, one of which is a male who is forcing himself upon your youngest daughter. Is it not acceptable to fire upon them? Scenario Two: You are an average citizen living in a country at war. Suddenly, a soldier that is a part of the invading army bursts into your home. You have an infant who is sleeping in the nursery, and a knife right next to you. Can you be judged for taking action to protect your innocent child? Scenario Three: You are an adolescent who has stayed late at school. As you pick up your things and get ready to leave, an adult you do not recognize walks through the doorway. You nervously mumble a hello and attempt to leave the class. At this point, the man grabs your arm and throws you to the ground with much force, then shuts the door. You remember that the trash bin, which is behind you, has broken glass from a science lab accident inside of it. As the villain pulls out a knife, you make your move. Is it not understandable to use the only form of defense offered to you to protect yourself from death? Again, I say that multiple people argued against my "killing a human can be reasonable" claim, so I know there are those out there who feel this way. I was not, however, able to have a full discussion with them. I would like to see this point of view in full, so I encourage anyone who wishes to champion that cause to do so.
Chuck Norris facts are overrated.

Thank you for replying, TheSexicanMexican, and good luck. "Yes, Chuck does have many websites but not all of them are about the random facts, some are fan sites, his website, info about him, etc. I also would like to point out the part, where you said what you would do." While it is true that if you search Chuck Norris on Google, you will find Wikipedia info and fan-site's, more time's than not, you won't see them past the first page. Hey, this was the link given to me when I type Chuck Norris and click "I'm Feelin' Lucky": http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com... "The point I'm trying to get across is that everyone that has encountered these knows the "facts" are jokes." Well, as over 14's, we know they are joke's, but to a 4-year-old, they could be real. 4-year-old's don't normally know what is the truth and what is a lie until they are told it's either fact or fiction. So, if somebody told them [example] "Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer" without saying "Not really", kids would try to imitate him. P.S. I think he's being made fun of because he was in Walker, Texas Ranger.
Chuck Norris facts are overrated.

Yes, I would like to restate my opponent's first statement, that Chuck Norris facts are popular on the internet. Yet, he states also that are overrated, I believe that they are not. I think this because they're just big jokes. The reason it had to be Chuck Norris, no one is quite sure. To bring up my opponent's next point, of being "You can't go on the internet for 2 seconds (over exaggeration) without bumping into one. They are claimed to be fact, but are impossible to perform in real life. " Firstly, we all know, that know one, how ever awesome, can [for example] count to infinity twice. The point I'm trying to get across is that everyone that has encountered these knows the "facts" are jokes. My final point is to quote my opponent. "He is just an actor. Why should he be a big joke? He has numerous websites about these so called "facts", and even nearly got a book on them. If I had something like that, I would hide my head in shame. " Yes, Chuck does have many websites but not all of them are about the random facts, some are fan sites, his website, info about him, etc. I also would like to point out the part, where you said what you would do. In reality Chuck Norris has actually embraced all these facts and things of the sort as fan material and the like. To wind this up, Chuck Norris facts aren't overrated. They're just things about an actor with a cowboy hat made up by people with good imaginations and to much free time. This ends my round 1 argument. Your move…
Chuck Norris facts are overrated.

Ok, as you are all aware of, Chuck Norris jokes are popular on the Internet. Examples include "Chuck Norris can strangle you with a cordless phone" and "If you have 5 dollars and Chuck Norris has 5 dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you." You can't go on the internet for 2 seconds (overexaggeration) without bumping into one. They are claimed to be fact, but are impossible to preform in real life. He is just an actor. Why should he be a big joke? He has numerous website's about these so called "facts", and even nearly got a book on them. If I had something like that, I would hide my head in shame. So yeah, they are overrated.
Chuck Norris facts are overrated.

"I never said the fact site's were the only Chuck Norris related site's. I only said there were a lot more of them. " I understand, what you mean. They are very populous in contrast to his other sites. "What I meant was if they stumbled across one on the Internet. With the amount there are, I wouldn't be surprised if he/she did. " "Ok, here's a quick reminder why that statement's wrong. One of my cousin's is 4 years old, and he is actually quite smart. But one day, I let a Chuck Norris joke slip (the joke in question was "Chuck Norris doesn't read. He stares at the book until he has all the information he needs"), so my cousin decided he could as well. He stared at a dictionary, and said he knew all the words in order. I said "Recite them, then" (because I like giving people challenge's), and he started on the letter H. And if he is a very smart 4 year old, what would an average 4 year old think? " That is very true, but my little cousin is 4 and the most he can do on the computer is MS Paint. I don't think most children, unless raised in like a technology-pro house, would really learn how to use a computer, unless receiving a lot of prior instruction. It may be very true that your cousin is smart, and yes the average 4 year old may think otherwise, but some parents may not own computers, or restrict the limit of it to their children under on supervised sessions. I also think that specifically using one example of this "But one day, I let a Chuck Norris joke slip (the joke in question was "Chuck Norris doesn't read. He stares at the book until he has all the information he needs"), so my cousin decided he could as well. He stared at a dictionary, and said he knew all the words in order. I said "Recite them, then" (because I like giving people challenge's), and he started on the letter H. " (Continued from above) is absolutely true, but cannot be held true for EVERY single child in the world who has seen these "facts. " All in all, what I'm trying to say that it all depends on who you are and what you do and how you act. I think that this debate has no clear winner, but that's up to the voters. Remember to Vote Con! I'd also like to thank Imnotdead again for posting such an interesting debate, and presenting me with a challenge. I hope to debate with you again sir, for you are a very skilled debater.
Chuck Norris facts are overrated.

Yay, my move! "I was just pointing out that "fact" sites weren't his only sites. " I never said the fact site's were the only Chuck Norris related site's. I only said there were a lot more of them. "I for one and I'm sure that no one else, would be going around telling 4 year olds that "Apple pays Chuck Norris 99 cents every time he listens to a song" or some garble of that sort. " What I meant was if they stumbled across one on the Internet. With the amount there are, I wouldn't be surprised if he/she did. "Also, I don't think kids would imitate this unless it was something particularly practical. " Ok, here's a quick reminder why that statement's wrong. One of my cousin's is 4 years old, and he is actually quite smart. But one day, I let a Chuck Norris joke slip (the joke in question was "Chuck Norris doesn't read. He stares at the book until he has all the information he needs"), so my cousin decided he could as well. He stared at a dictionary, and said he knew all the words in order. I said "Recite them, then" (because I like giving people challenge's), and he started on the letter H. And if he is a very smart 4 year old, what would an average 4 year old think? Ok, that ends my argument.
Chuck Norris facts are overrated.

Well I thank you for the luck, Imnotdead. True, that you will not find many of the other Chuck sites on the first page of google search, but I was just pointing out that "fact" sites weren't his only sites. I didn't specifically say that he had sites on the first page. Next, you say that 4-year olds would be looking up Chuck Norris jokes, or someone is trying to tell them that they are real. Well sir, I for one and I'm sure that no one else, would be going around telling 4 year olds that "Apple pays Chuck Norris 99 cents every time he listens to a song" or some garble of that sort. Also, I don't think kids would imitate this unless it was something particularly practical. "P.S. I think he's being made fun of because he was in Walker, Texas Ranger." That also is just some trivial assumption, actually that help launch his acting career. "Chuck" your facts before you guess. This winds up my round 2. You move…
September 2009 Public Forum Topic

In case you don't know, the September 2009 Public Forum topic is "Resolved: The United States policy on illegal immigration should focus on attrition through enforcement rather than amnesty. I'm done debating this topic, so I don't really care if you take my case. I do care, however, if you join this debate just to get arguments. As the CON, I am for amnesty. The PRO would have to argue attrition. Please refrain from posting any arguments until Round 2.
government cover up

I accept. The government is not a "Cover up." You have the BoP to show that the government is covering things up. You said that the government shut down a webpage about caves in the Grand Canyon and they deny UFOs. Source please. And eyewitnesses are not always reliable. Plus, you know how hard it would be to keep all the things the government is supposedly covering up in the age of WikiLeaks and conspiracy theorists? Not to mention the government has 22,000,000 employees. I'm pretty sure that a few of them would of said something about how the government is covering up everything. Source: http://cnsnews.com... Your move
The Holocaust did not happen.

1.) You compare the Palestinian conflict with "The Holocaust", I was not saying to compare. I was asking why Israel has a blank check for all of their crimes, towards the Palestinian people. Secondly, just because, "not as many people die." Does not make it something to be ignored. Did you read about the Holodomor? Approximately 10 million died. Yet it is only illegal in Ukraine to deny it, which is still bad. But why? People widely consider that "The Holocaust is the worst crime in history." Why is it the worst crime? How are Jews more important than any other human on earth? 2.) The entire UN does not even need to come together and forge something like this. People like the former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was part of the UN, and he publicly denied it. The way they make this work; The United States of America was very influential at the time. People trusted the USA with a lot of things, since the USA came up with "The Holocaust." As a means to gain support for the nation of Israel, and then had everybody learn about it, above anything else. Not only does the USA label, "The Holocaust." The worst crime in history, they use media to make anyone questioning, "The Holocaust" labeled an anti-semite. 3.) Sorry I should have clarified, it is illegal to research with the intent of disproving the historical, "evidence"of The Holocaust. Like the amount of people that died in, "The Holocaust". Questioning, "The Holocaust" is not illegal in the US because, it didn't take place there, and you can't research it there. The link you sent me said, As Jewish religious law forbids disturbing burial sites, she and her team from the University of Birmingham have used 'ground-penetrating radar." They have not actually "seen" the bodies, and if they see them, they should open the area up to many other organizations to do many forensic tests. Also, they automatically assumed that all the people that were buried there are "Jewish", this does not add up. 4.) If you are about to die, you would fight back. Especially when you are grouped in the thousands into a tiny gas chamber against around 3 SS guards. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.wumag.kiev.ua... http://www.bbc.com...
The Holocaust did not happen.

How can you deny the truth of the Holocaust? Doing so is, in my personal opinion, enormously disrespectful to all of the people who lived, and those who died on account of, this terrible event. You pointed out some sources. Bully for you! This does not in any way disprove the thousands of eye-witness accounts of the victims and attributing parties. Sure it may be illegal in some countries to deny the existence of the Holocaust. This is only because forgetting terrible events, nay, deplorable acts of slaughter and attempted genocide, is something that ought not occur. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Also, Hitler's argument in his book can be flippy-floppied upon its head and used against you. The story of how the Holocaust was allegedly faked is believed by many (Exhibit A: Pro!), but this does not make it true. The belief that the Holocaust never occurred is an even more likely lie. History is a funny thing. Nothing in the past can be truly verified. Because of this, we are forced to look at evidence in order to come to a conclusion about what truly happened. I bring fourth, therefore, evidence! 1.) Just like to point out, like most all Holocaust would-be debunkers, you seem to have suspiciously attacked the few weak sides of my argument. Do you have any evidence that supports your argument? 2.) Hitler openly admitted to hating the Jews on multiple occasions, one of which being his speech in 1946 in which he said, "I want to annihilate the Jews in Europe." Not much wiggle room for interpretation, is there? 3.) Physical, written, eye witness, and photographic evidence are abundant and verifiable. Examples are too numerous to list, but I shall try to do the topic justice. > Letter of Rudolph Brant > Sondercommando's picture of the body burnings, taken in real time >Photographs of prisoners being marched into Death Camps Yes, you no doubt believe that all of this evidence was fabricated by some top-secret illuminati-style government cult, but the fact is that there is too much evidence. You cannot convince so many people to lie for you. You cannot create so much evidence pointing toward something that is not real. 4.) What is the point? If it truly is faked, what good does it do the people who faked it? Not one ouncage, as far as I can see. The benefits are far outweighed by the possibility of being discovered. Denying the Holocaust is morally disgusting. Think about how terrible it would be if you were to experience something unspeakably terrible and then have the world dismiss it as false. Shame on you. Unless you don't really believe it. In which case, this is a good debate. For us to debate. VFD Shiny.