BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Star Wars is better than Harry Potter

My argument is based on a one-on-one fight between one Jedi and a wizard/witch. Contention 1: All Jedi's could avoid almost any of the wizard's or witch's spells. The Jedi could jump extremely fast and high and he can jump onto walls and stay there for a fair amount of time. Also he can jump onto walls and then jump off to get even higher. Contention 2: If the Jedi attack first and destroy the wizard's or witch's wand, it renders the spellcaster useless. The witch or wizard has to have a wand to perform spells and they do not have enough time to make potions in a fight, so the Jedi would win instantly.
GMOs are harmful for human health

In R2, Con argues two things, so I will address each separately.1) First, Con cites a review paper that has seemingly read and analyzed every single study and research paper ever done on GMOs in the last 10 years and concludes that ‘scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops’.The fault here is that as Pro all I have to do is prove GMOs are harmful for the human health, no matter how small. If Con wanted to argue that there is no significant harm to human health from eating GMOs then he should have said so in R1, instead he said that there is no harm whatsoever by eating a GMO. All Con’s evidence does is claim there is no significant hazards, yet Con’s goal is to negate the fact that GMOs cause any harm whatsoever, the evidence does nothing for his case. The paper doesn’t even define what they mean by significant. ‘Significant hazards’ could mean immediate death, Con misinterprets his evidence and tries to bend it into supporting his case.Con also presents one review paper, assuming that it is the one golden study that is right.So to contest Con’s review paper I will cite a review paper that supports my case. [1]The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters.To conclude; Con has cited a review paper that says that they think there is no significant harm, ignoring the fact that there is less-significant harm caused by GMOs, and Con assumes that his paper’s opinion is correct, which is contested by the review paper that I cited that says there GMOs do cause harm, completely negating the impact of Con’s argument. In the second contention, Con argues that since really all genetically modifying an organism is adding proteins and DNA, and since we eat DNA all the time in organic foods GMOs are no different, and therefore not harmful.Con makes it sound like adding DNA to an organism is no big deal, that it is a small change. Yet ignores what changing the DNA means, you are changing the chemical makeup of the organism. This can cause unthinkable consequences. This is not an insignificant change.[1] http://www.tandfonline.com...
GMOs are harmful for human health

Yes I am referring to just food and I accept your definition of GMOs. First, I would like to say that the burden of proof that GMOs are harmful to human health lies on the pro side. Even though I have just stated that, in an attempt to help get the debate started and to strengthen my side I will provide evidence that the scientific literature's consensus is that GMOs are not harmful to human health. Review articles are a great help in this area as they look at the literature as a whole published in many, different journals and report their findings as a whole. One such review article looks at the research performed from 2002 to 2012 and found that none of them concluded there were any significant hazards to many concerns involving GMOs, including human health (1). This is all the evidence I will provide on this for now. Second, there is little theoretical basis for harm to come from the consumption of GMOs to begin with. How exactly are GMOs made? The basics of the process are described in this article (2). Essentially, the gene of interest it inserted into bacteria which are then used to infect a plant that then have the gene of interest inserted into their genome. The end result is a plant that contains an extra bit of DNA and then the protein ultimately produced from this gene. Therefore, the only difference between the non-GMO plant and the GMO plant is that DNA and the protein. Obviously, eating DNA poses no issues to us as almost everything we eat was alive at one point. There is no mechanism for DNA to be taken up by our cells to begin with. We would have a ton of issues if we had to worry about what DNA was present in our food. The only other option then is the protein. There is potential harm that could come from these molecules in the form of allergies. But, GMOs must go through multiple tests to ensure that they will not cause allergic reactions and no GMO to date has ever caused an allergic reaction (3). Overall, the only potential theoretical harm is the harm caused by proteins in terms of allergies. Besides this, no harm can theoretically exist. 1. http://www.tandfonline.com... 2. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu... 3. http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org...
At least a God exists.

On the resurrection of Jesus Christ, It seems that the proponent made bold claims without backing them up with evidence. To make a valid case against the resurrection of Jesus, I will cite the historian Richard Carrier (https://infidels. Org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/) The proponent claims appearances of Jesus were seen shortly after which is factually untrue as evidenced in my citation. The earliest records of Jesus comes hundreds of years after his alleged death. The stories about Jesus are even contradictory. The proponent claims "these are accepted historical facts" My citation provides evidence on why this is untrue. I will further refute the cosmological argument. The first premise is flawed as this not a fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The proponent states it as fact without any evidence. To conclude: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
At least a God exists.

The cosmological argument does not prove theism at all. The only thing it proves is that the universe has a prime cause. It doesn"t suggest, Let alone prove, That the cause was a being, And it doesn"t suggest that this cause was a being that is eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Personal and moral. Going from the cosmological argument to your theism is a huge leap. Also, Even accepting all your premises and conclusion, It only shows that a universe has a cause. It does not say that that cause has no prior cause. The teleological argument fails because it assumes the universe was created for us while the truth is we evolved to fit the universe(Douglas Adams' puddle https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=v8mJr4c66bs). Millions of species perished before us, We just evolved in such a way that we can fit in it. Had the big bang been slightly different, Maybe different planets with different beings would exist. So no it would not be quite possible for life to exist.
At least a God exists.

I'm going to list a few reasons why a rational person ought to believe in God. 1) The Cosmological Argument I. Everything with a beginning has a cause II. The universe has a beginning III. Therefore, The universe has a cause. 2) The Teleological Argument Had the conditions of the Big Bang been even slightly different, It would have been impossible for life to exist. Many naturalists try to explain away this fine-tuning problem through a multiverse. However, If we were only one universe in a world ensemble, It would be much more likely that our solar system exists through a random collision of particles. However, It does not. 3) The Resurrection of Jesus Jesus' tomb was discovered empty after his crucifixion. Separate individuals saw appearances of Jesus shortly after his death. The initial disciples insisted on the resurrection despite heavy persecution by the Roman Empire. These are accepted historical facts.
universal gods and co creating gods exist, do you agree? if you disagree prove me wrong XD

First, if you are a Muslim, Jew, or a Christian it means that you believe in good. 98.5% of the world have a religion, so it means you are either without a religion or you are making arguments up. All 3 religions believe in god, but we have different beliefs. I have a question for you, WTF!!! Universal god and co creating gods, do you even know what will happen if we had 2 co creating gods. The whole universe will be in chaos.
universal gods and co creating gods exist, do you agree? if you disagree prove me wrong XD

you know those type of things when you can't beat me in a philosophical debate without intelligence and awareness?? you are over-rationally thinking not even doing empirical thinking, your suppose to do empirical thinking to get the truth because empirical thinking is getting knowledge from your senses and an observation so you didn't even expose my so called philosophy yet LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO XD i know you know these type of things, you know those type of things when you said that they will be chaos if they were co creating gods? exactly don't you see chaos on this planet now while we are gods with god meaning to invoke on the source or call on but it means this linguistically so there is no way to prove me wrong about it no?? no?? this means that gods are intelligent beings or co creators manifested from universal intelligence or a universal creator no?? no?? you still can't prove me wrong because its impossible to because i'm right LMFAOOOOOOOO HAHAHAHA LOL LML ROFL!! >> XD < and King Solomon wasn't even a Christian or a religious person and he was still the universal creators wise man who was aware of the truth without religion no?? no?? the bible does not have all of the truths just like the bible doesn't mention the heart pumping the blood, cigarettes giving cancer, meditation releasing stress and in general they don't tell you how everything in the universe scientifically works no?? no?? so if you think you need religion to be aware of truth and think there is no co creating gods after seeing it in front of your face how the human race is still not extincted yet because they keep making babies, you see that people create who they are, you see that when people dream they are creating there own world, you see that meditation and looking within is spiritual mastery so that you can do magic than you must be philosophically naive and mind fucked over-rationally LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HAHAHAHA LOL LML ROFL!! >> XD <<
Abortion Should Be Legal

Yes, ill claim that the fetus is alive, but this does not make abortion morally wrong. You neglect the fact that pregnancy is not easy for the mother. Is painful, stressful, and exhausting. You are definitely giving the fetus support. It lives off of you like a parasite. And your claim about responsibility due to DNA and blood is a fallacy. Why adopt a kid, it is not my blood? That kind of thinking is awful. Not to mention foster kids often live the worst lives possible. They may not get adopted and they have to grow up thinking that no one loved them. Back on point, forcing a rape victim to give birth to the rapist child is sick and is torture. For nine months it would constantly remind her of how she has no right to her body. It would show everyone in the world that she was raped. That whole things is terrible. If you are too young, adoption is not an option. What if you are an 11 year old child? That is crazy. Most kids would have to drop out of school. It would ruin their lives. You do not actually answer what to do if carrying the fetus to term would kill the mother. There are so many circumstances in which abortion is acceptable. It should be made legal. My arguments in round 2 prove it is not immoral.
Abortion Should Be Legal

To start things off, I will be presenting some points that prove why abortion is not really immoral and that it should be legal. Judith Jarvis Thomas makes three valid points. First, if you deny the mothers right to an abortion, you are dehumanizing her and giving more rights to the fetus than to her. This is not fair. Everyone should have equal rights. Second, say you are kidnapped and forced to provide life support to a random stranger. Is it your responsibility to provide support for this stranger? Third, say the women does not want a child and she uses contraception. Still, she winds up pregnant. Now she is forced to give birth and raise a child who she does not love or want. Also what if the Woman if raped? What if the child is the result of incest and is going to be born with countless birth defects? What if carrying the child to term endangers the mother's life? What if the mother is too young to care for a child? There are so many circumstances in which abortion should be allowed. It should be legal. Thank You
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

first, con goes off on some tangent about the blood sacrifice of Jesus, before he actually address the faith v works issue. i think we can all agree it was pointless, dock him for that, and move on. next, con simply ignores the James passage that says explicitly that we are not saved by faith alone. it also talks about the necessity of works. another passage by Paul says that we are "to work out our salvation in fear and trembling". if we focus not so much on the letters of the apostles, and paul, and focus on Jesus, we see an emphasis on works. In the story about Judgment Day, (Matthew 25:31-46) where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, the only questions that Jesus asks the multitude concern works. Jesus also talks about the necessity to be baptized, participate in the lord's supper, etc. Jesus also gives examples of servants obeying their masters and doing right before the master returns. i could go on and on with examples of works based salvation being emphasized. his passage about faith and salavation being a gift is merely another side of the coin, that faith and works are required. this can be said about any verses he shows. how can we demarcate how jusitification is technically achieved with so many coflicting passage and theories? we can't. the bible isn't clear enough. we can know both faith and work are present, but not how they play into justification and salvation.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

The question of works or faith based salvation is one that has plagued Christianity for its entire history. For this debate, however, the only text we will consider as valid is the Bible (as it contains by necessity all doctrines essential to fundamental Christian understanding). I believe this is understood by both sides here today, as my opponent has also only cited the Bible. That being said, I jump right in. The Biblical imperative for salvation is reliant on man's sinful nature. God's judicial system mandates that sin against His laws be paid for in blood. That blood can be attained by a. ) a blood sacrifice or b. ) eternal damnation. Throughout the indefinite time period before Christ but post Biblical creation, the Old Testament introduces various sacrificial rituals for atonement. If this is contested, I will cite examples in the proceeding rounds. In the New Testament (which when considering the Bible must be held as equally credible as the Old), God sends an alternative to constant animal sacrifices in the form of Jesus- the incarnation of divinity. Jesus claims that He is "the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to God except through Him" (John 14:6). This eliminates the possibility of atonement through animal sacrifice and places explicit need on faith in Christ's power of salvation. Yet, the question remains: after faith in Christ, are certain works still mandated? In Ephesians 2:8-9, the Bible says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast. " This explicitly states that salvation is a. ) Through faith b. ) A gift (implying that no action was needed to earn it other than acceptance of it as a no strings attached gift) and c. ) not by works. There is no room for confusion. The only necessity to Biblical salvation is faith in the divinity and saving power of Jesus Christ.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

Yes, faith without works is useless- just like a car without gasoline is useless. However, the car is still very real, despite the fact that it is functionally "dead". So it is with Salvation. I have addressed misinterpretation as a major flaw in all of pro's examples except for Jesus' parable of the sheep and goats. I suppose I assumed since the story is already clearly not one to be taken literally (as that would involve real sheep and goats) it could be fairly simply dismissed. The fact is that statements like "Saved by grace through faith...NOT works" are not ambiguous. That is not a paradox or an open ended question, leading to advanced equations about what part faith to what part works is mandatory for true salvation. My opponent even unwillingly admits this, in some respect. My opponent says we both know that everything comes down to grace. Grace is defined as the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings. If salvation required works, it would be an act of mercy. However, the concept of this unmerited "gift" is the concept of a strictly faith-based gracious salvation.To have mandated works would make it an earned privilege, albeit a mercifully provided one. My opponent has shown no reason to explicitly believe that works are vital to salvation, while I have provided a direct quote that not only says that we are saved through faith, but not by works. There is no ambiguity. The proof is explicit and as such you must vote Con. Thanks for the debate Pro. It has been a pleasure.
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

con says "but that does not correlate to salvation" when james says faith without works is useless and withotu works we are not 'righteous'. how does con necessarily say this? it says these things explicitly in addition to 'faith alone' being docked against. 'it is a gift.. not of works'. this could simply mean works do not do it, faith and works do. it could also mean, ultimately salvation is a gift that cannot be 'earned' as a matter of right. but in both scenarios of faith or faith and works, something must occur before the gift if given. no one disputes 'grace' is ultimately the situation. con says the bible is explicit in his passage, what about the explicitness of this and other passages? con hasn't even addressed the words of Jesus himself. at best the bible is ambiguous. con has shown no reason to necessarily say otherwise
bible is not clear if we are justified by faith alone or if works are required in justification

My opponent has no right to instruct voters on which of my contentions are valid based on his perceptions. The brief history of blood sacrifice through the time of Christ was vital to establish that no further "works" were required for salvation. Your passage from James does not pertain to salvation. It explicitly states that faith without deeds is "useless" and without good works we are not "righteous", but that does not correlate to salvation.The original Greek translation of Paul's "fear and trembling" reflects reverence and respect, not nervousness or anxiety of losing salvation. Christian salvation is faith in and respect for God, not the works of man. Isaiah even states that "our righteousness is as dirty rags". Not even man's good work satisfies God. There can be no two sides to the question of salvation. A gift is, by definition, not something that we must pay for or earn. It is something we must merely accept. The Bible is not vague, it explicitly says the words "it is a gift...not of works".
Mitt Romney's name is more swell Barack Obama's

This debate is about whether Mitt Romney has a cooler name than Barack Obama. Swell is defined as: "Excellent; very good." Name is defined as:"A word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to." More is defined as: "A greater or additional amount or degree: "I poured myself more coffee"; "tell me more"."Voters must vote on who has the most convincing and compelling arguments. First round can be either an argument or acceptance, I do not care. We are reffering to the full name, including middle names, and titles (Sr., Dr.) Political ideals are not covered in this debate, as all we are judging them by is the quality of their name.This debate is about whether Mitt Romney has a cooler name that Barack Obama.Swell
The War on Terror

That is precisely the blinkered views that I am talking about and it doesn't help. Individuals should be punished for crimes they have committed but when the situation becomes as generalised as it is in today when not just individuals are being prosecuted but cultures are being prosecuted. If we go by your logic which is "they have killed American citizens" which gives us the right to to attack their cities their culture and cause unnecessary damage to international relations then they are also perfectly within their rights to attack us however they see fit because we have also killed innocent citizens. This seemingly never ending cycle is what is so harming to those in the culture who have no part in terrorist acts because they see that America and the west has made this a war against their own culture, which by the way they love. This is the very reason they feel they cannot stand up against the terrorist acts committed by their own people because we have legitimised these killings by making it a war. They may be our enemy but we are theirs. You cannot simply say they killed my people so I will kill theirs. It is arrogant, selfish, harmful and such a complex situation can never be solved by naive statements such as that. For your very reason that people are dieing the situation should be handled with a lot more care and thought and should never simply be put down to "well they hit us so we will hit them back". That type of thing doesn't work in the playground and it certainly is not going to work in a hostile situation that has international relations in hot water.