BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hockey is better than Soccer

Pro, who has full burden of proof, has made the point that hockey is more fun as you move at faster speeds. This is firstly untrue as the players themselves, if anything, move faster in soccer as they fight in a 'melee' style with the ball rather than a 'ranged' style in hockey. In hockey you can be moving our stick as a pivot around your body and shoulder rather than actually be speeding around. In soccer all tackles and all moves involve actual body-based movement and therefore you are moving at greater speeds. The only thing that moves faster in hockey, whether it's on field or ice, is that the actual ball or puck move faster within the game than the soccer ball does in soccer. This not only makes spectating and filming it for TV-based spectating a lot harder as well as real-time commentating but also is a major health risk and is why soccer players can wear nothing but shin pads and be fine but hockey players on field have to learn to use the bat itself as defence and on ice have literally padding top-to-bottom and still get life-threatening injuries. I won't use sources, case studies or go into details as yet. If Pro wants to call me out on any of my claims, I'm happy to oblige in later rounds.
Sinners will Be Annihilated in Hell

This argument is fallacious. Their is nothing about eternal torment that is essential to religion, and especially not Christianity. There are large and growing segments of Christianity that argue for an annihilationist view of hell. No checkmate at all. You did nothing to prove that religion and eternal torment are inextricably linked. In fact, just the opposite is true. The fact that many orthodox Christians believe in annihilation demonstrates that the two views are not mutually exclusive.
US should not get involved in syria

Syria is not causing the US any problems right now, how ever getting involved with them could and more then likely will cause the US problems. My point about afghanistan was to show that helping either side of a war could cause us problems of attacks. Another reason why we should not get involved in syria is becuase we don't have the money for it. We need the money here to help the citizens of the US, and we should not be spending anymore money on another war. In the wake of the sequester, the Pentagon does not have much extra cash on hand. According to one report , there are no extra funds in the Defense budget to pay for a bombing campaign against Syria. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe has stated this concern bluntly, observing that “our military has no money left.” With over 79 percent of Americans demanding a Congressional vote prior to any military operation, the lack of money is problematic for a White House keen to avoid having its plans rejected on Capitol Hill. Unlike the war power questions, there is no dispute among legal scholars that only Congress has the power of the purse, i.e. the exclusive power to raise revenue and appropriate funds.
US should not get involved in syria

Refuting the opening statement - My opponent begins his opening statement with this claim: The US should not get involved in Syria because it will only cause more problems forus. Notice, I could easily counter his statement with my own claim: The US should absolutely get involved in Syria because it will solve many problems forus. Conclusion: Unsupported assumptions are insufficient to meet the burden of proof. Ichallenge my opponent to satisfy his burden with evidence, and a solid interpretation thereof. Refuting the conclusion of the interpreted evidence – My opponent continues his arguments: When the US got involved in Afghanistan in 1973 they helped them out. But then onceOsama Bin Laden came back into role, Afghanistan attacked the US many timesincluding 9/11. Notice, I could easily counter this claim without much effort: U. S. aid to Afghanistan occurred in 1978 (not 1973). It consisted of a non-military CIAaction to provide funds, weapons and training to Islamic militants fighting theUSSR puppet Government. [Devotion to Duty, Apr 29, 2013]. Al Qaeda justified the attacks on 9/11 as retaliation for supporting Israel and themilitary action in. None of these relate to the CIA sanctioned aid to combatCommunism in the area. Al Qaeda didn’t move into Afghanistan until the late ‘90s. The extremists started inSudan, not Afghanistan. [Devotion to Duty, Apr 29, 2013] Conclusion: Osama Bin Laden is not the result of U. S. aid to Afghanistan in 1978. Osama BinLaden is the product of religious fundamentalism. [An Interpretation of the Quran, 2004] The Al Qaeda regime took full credit for the attacks and justified the action as retaliation for “America's support of Israel, its involvement in the Persian Gulf War and its continued military presence in the Middle East. ” [9/11 Attacks, Oct 10, 2013] I look forward to the next round of our debate. [1] Central Intelligence Agency, “Devotion to Duty”, April 29th, 2013. Link – . https://www.cia.gov... [2] 9/11 Attacks. (2013). The History Channel website. Retrieved 8:45, October 10, 2013, Link – . http://www.history.com.... [3] Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, New York: NYUP, 2000, 2004) As cited by proxy – . http://www.answering-islam.org...
US should not get involved in syria

The US should not get involved in Syria because it will only cause more problems for us. Here is an example of what I mean. When the US got involved in Afghanistan in 1973 they helped them out. But then once Osama Bin Laden came back into role, Afghanistan attacked the US many times including 9/11. If we help Syria it could just cause a terrorist attack on the US. Are people really willing to throw there safety away to help some other country? And the more countries the US intervenes in the more enemy's we will get. So why dont we just worry about our own country and leave the other ones alone.
Voting should be compulsory

Definitions Duty- "something that you must do because it is morally right or because the law requires it" Responsibility- something that you should do because it is morally right, legally required, etc. http://www.merriam-webster.com... My opponent hasn"t provided in their arguments why voting is morally right or legally required, since it isn"t legally required, my opponent must prove it to be morally right. Now, my opponent says that we should make it mandatory so that everyone can express what they want whether it is none of the above. But there is no difference in not voting and choosing none of the above. Therefore the only thing this mandation does is put restrictions on the people, since I imagine if it"s mandatory there will be repercussions if one does not vote. Therefore people who have better things to would either have to miss out on that task or, face repercussions. "One might say that the not politically well informed may cause a hideous party or leader to be elected. There can be the option of a none of the above box" But let"s put it like this, if we make it mandatory to vote, part of the politically informed would think they aren"t informed, and they will vote for a president. Thus they wouldn"t use the none above option, more than as if we just made it optionary would go pick bad presidents, rather than if people had to go actively seek out to vote. In conclusion more people would vote badly if they were made to do it, instead of actively seeking it out on their time since they must have something in mind. Also, my oppoent is assuming that people would vote for what they want if it were to be mandatory, but people can and will make bad decisions, therefore my opponent can not assume that there would be a beneficial increase in politics. Religions Some religions such as that of Jehovah Witnesses, don"t take part in political affairs. They refuse to vote because of a religious reason, therefore by making it mandatory we would be opposing on their religious rights. And some unreasonable religious ideas are not to be allowed, but this idea is not bad. All they want to do is not vote, which is not unreasonable considering that my opponent has input a none above option.
Voting should be compulsory

Voting should be compulsory as it is a duty and responsibility. In many elections only 60 over per cent of eligible voters turn up to vote. If the remainder had voted, the results may have differed. One might say that the not politically well informed may cause a hideous party or leader to be elected. There can be the option of a none of the above box, hence the government and political parties would know how many people disagree with all their ideas and lead to a benificial shift in policies. People should rather think about 'Who should I vote for' rather than 'Should I vote?' The main aim should be to get rid of the lack of awareness in ignorant people and highlighting how each vote counts and makes a difference. Thank you for accepting the challenge Apecsec.org/compulsory-voting-pros-and-cons/
Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

"If it were in G-ds nature to change into a man, he would have done it. " John 1:14 says that he did do it. "Besides, if G-d changed into a human, and this has no benefit, he wouldn't do it, if it was an improvement, that would mean G-d wasn't perfect to begin with, and if it was a change for the worse, G-d would no longer be perfect. " The change wasn't made to improve himself, it was to change humans. He did it to bring salvation to all of his people. "if G-d CAN become a Golden Calf, why not worship a Golden Calf if it can represent G-d? " Because the golden calf isn't actually God. We aren't supposed to worship things that represent God (not even the Bible). We are supposed to worship God himself and Jesus was fully God. And that is why Christians worship him and why we do not worship any golden calf. "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for all your generations, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. " I agree that the Sabbath was a sign. It was a sign of the rest that the people of Israel would find in God. And according to Paul, that law foreshadowed the coming of Jesus. "So, Shabbat was not annulled, and neither were any other laws, and according to Isaiah 8:20, Jesus was a false prophet. " The Sabbath law was a sign that pointed to Jesus. When Jesus came, the law wasn't needed any longer since Jesus is the "lord of the Sabbath. " The second part of that quote is a bare assertion. "Just because humans are imperfect doesn't mean we shouldn't be required to follow any laws, proverbs defines righteousness as picking yourself up and trying again when you sin, not never sinning. " I do not disagree with that. "Sure we won't ever be perfect, but improvement is the goal of these laws, not perfection, if there isn't some standard to be held against we won't get better. " Romans 3:23 says that the wages of sin is death. And Adam's one single led to the death of humans! So the law is supposed to be perfectly followed in order to have a perfect relationship with God (which is the goal here). We do not want sin separating us from God. That is why a messiah is so important. "And Jesus still wasn't hated by men, a king, maybe some rabbis, that's it. " He was murdered! "Anyway, a verse from the Non-Testament doesn't prove anything. .. " Why not? I gave a whole argument supporting the New Testament and you ignored it. " Jesus wasn't a king, he was a wandering preacher, he never reigned. .. " Already refuted that one. "As I said before, those 365 prophecies aren't prophecies. .. " Yes, you did assert that. "in one of them they said that Melchezidek giving Abram bread and wine was a prophecy that Jesus would eat food at the last supper and be a king and priest, just one issue, many people eat food and drink wine, Jesus was not a king, and he wasn't a priest. " Hebrews 7:25 proves that he was a priest. And I already showed that he was a King. And you also picked one of the least impressive prophecies about Jesus. Why didn't you go in Psalm 22?
Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

Bs"d If it were in G-ds nature to change into a man, he would have done it. Besides, if G-d changed into a human, and this has no benefit, he wouldn't do it, if it was an improvement, that would mean G-d wasn't perfect to begin with, and if it was a change for the worse, G-d would no longer be perfect. There for G-d could not become a man by definition. Also, I responded to this earlier, if G-d CAN become a Golden Calf, why not worship a Golden Calf if it can represent G-d?And no, none of the Laws of the Torah can be done away with, nowhere do we see a new covenant does away with any of the rules of the old, only adds to them. All of G-ds laws are eternal, Psalm 111:8:"They are upheld forever and ever; They are performed in truth and uprightness." And another thing, Jesus cannot annul Shabbat, because Exodus 31:13:"Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for all your generations, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.""All your generations" means eternity, and though there is much debate as to why Shabbat was so important, it isn't really important right now because it was forever. So, Shabbat was not annulled, and neither were any other laws, and according to Isaiah 8:20, Jesus was a false prophet. And you further say that we cannot follow the law perfectly, there for we need a messiah. Just because humans are imperfect doesn't mean we shouldn't be required to follow any laws, proverbs defines righteousness as picking yourself up and trying again when you sin, not never sinning. Sure we won't ever be perfect, but improvement is the goal of these laws, not perfection, if there isn't some standard to be held against we won't get better. Point being, why would G-d give you no requirements and no standard, it's like a parent acknowledging that his child will screw up at some point there for he shouldn't enforce any rules. And Jesus still wasn't hated by men, a king, maybe some rabbis, that's it. Anyway, a verse from the Non-Testament doesn't prove anything, you have to give me a real reason to believe she didn't just commit adultery, and also, Jesus wasn't a king, he was a wandering preacher, he never reigned. As I said before, those 365 prophecies aren't prophecies, in one of them they said that Melchezidek giving Abram bread and wine was a prophecy that Jesus would eat food at the last supper and be a king and priest, just one issue, many people eat food and drink wine, Jesus was not a king, and he wasn't a priest.
Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

My opponent states that "And you can't say that this verse is irrelevant because G-d latter became a man, last I checked G-d doesn't change..." The verses my opponent provided were referring to God's character. His life will never end, he will always remain good, and etc...But the verses do not say that God cannot be a man. And besides, if it was in God's nature to change then it really wouldn't be changing now would it? My opponent then says that "Jeremiah 31:31 doesn't say G-d will abolish his old covenant." I don't disagree with this. All I am saying is that the new covenant was made and many of the laws in the old covenant were done away with since they foreshadowed the return of the messiah. As for the verses in the book of Psalm, verse 160 says "The entirety of Your word is truth, and all Your righteous judgments endure forever" (https://www.biblegateway.com...). This wasn't talking about specific laws. My opponent says that "And you further make the error of saying that humans cannot follow the laws, infact Deuteronomy 30:11-14 lays out that it is not imposible..." I didn't say that we couldn't follow any of the laws. My point was that we can't follow the law perfectly. No human (minus Jesus) has ever been perfectly moral. So yes, I realize that humans can follow laws but we can't follow God's law perfectly otherwise we wouldn't need the messiah. As for people being called children of God, that is something the New Testament does more so than the Old Testament. But my point remains valid. My opponent then says "Also, you didn't provide any argument as to why this chapter is refering to the Messiah, I however proved this impossible. such as Isaiah 53:10." I did...please reread round two. My opponent says that "Jesus? Rejected by mankind? Sure he had some enemies, but everyone loved him, and he wasn't a man of suffering or familiar with pain, this never happened until the last da of his life. And his diciples didn't hold him in low esteem, they thought he was G-d!" Jesus was born in a family with little money and he had a King trying to kill him. And that didn't end until 3 years after he was born. Then he grew up and people constantly wanted to stone him since he claimed to be God and then the Jews (including some of the disciples) betrayed their own messiah and had him murdered. Doesn't sound like a great life to me. My opponent also wants me to prove that Mary was a virgin. Sure...the Bible says "This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:18). My opponent then ends his argument with these three bare assertions: "Psalm 22 doesn't specify his death. And none of those 365 prophecies are valid. And dispite what my opponent may think, Jesus was never, and will never, be a king." He may feel free to support them whenever he wishes.
Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

In response to my Jesus is God argument, he ignores it and cites Numbers 23:19. First of all, when that verse was written, God had not became flesh yet. So yes, he had not yet become a man yet. Also, the verse says that "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent." In other words, the verse is saying that God does not lie or repent of sins like man does. So my opponent is twisting the words of God here. My opponent argues that God would never violate what his lips have uttered. I agree except for the fact that the Old Testament predicts the coming of the New Testament. Jer. 31:31 says "Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." The Old Covenant showed that no one was perfect and that no one could even be perfect. The New Covenant was made because humans couldn't keep it. Not because God couldn't. My opponent says "Hahahahaha! NO! The word used for offspring used is 'Zera,' which means seed, not followers." They missed my point. First of all, we don't know for sure that Jesus didn't have children. Second of all, children would be a word used to represent his followers. God uses that kind of terminology a lot. Paul refers to Christians as God's adopted sons and etc... My opponent then says "It doesn't say that the Messiah will be rich, this verse isn't refering to the Messiah, it is refering to someone else who becomes rich." I gave an argument for why the verse referred to the messiah. My opponent can address it whenever they feel like it. Or they can keep making bare assertions like they have been doing. Lastly, my opponent says "Jesus fit no messianic prophecies whatsoever, as I said before those 365 prophecies are not genuine, I could fit a lot of those, just look at them..." He then cites a website that says "The following is a list of prophecies in the Jewish scriptures that Jesus fulfilled" (https://www.bibleprobe.com...). I agree, those are all things that Jesus fulfilled. Thanks to my opponent for the help. He also adds that "Most of these propheies are super vague, such as that he would be a Jew, that he would be born of a woman, he would die, that he would be thirsty. Oh and another, "the Messiah will be G-d," again, G-d is not a man, this isn't a Messianic prophecy, and even if it were, you would need to prove him G-d. One last thing, one of these propheies says that he would be a king, but Jesus wasn't a king!" I don't understand why my opponent thinks that being born of a virgin, he would die (really specific details are given in Psalm 22), and etc...are vague details. As for being a King, Jesus literally says "You say that I"m a king," Jesus replied. "I was born for this, and I have come into the world for this: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice" (John 18:37).
Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

Bs"dIsaiah 8:20 says:"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."This verse lays out that any teacher who teaches something contrary to the Mitzvot is a false teacher, and there is no light in them. In addition to this, the Non-Testament confirms the Torah, which means it must be held in accordance to the Torah, the Torah doesn't confirm the Non-Testament, so it does not have to teach in accordance with the Non-Testament to be true. And to top this point off, the Non-Testament itself lays out in Matthew 5:17 that it doesn't come to destroy the law:"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."There for we may conclude that the Non-Testament must teach in accordance with the Torah enable to be valid at all. Matthew 12:1:"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them."So now we see Jesus allowing his disciples to harvest wheat on Shabbat, something completely contrary to the law. Just one of many examples.He also fit ZERO prophecies, and no those 365 non-prophecies fulfilled by Jesus are not valid, a lot of them are very vague that just about anyone could fit, like being born of a woman, being a Jew, having enemies, or dying. Isaiah 53 isn't valid either cause first of all it isn't a Messianic prophecy. Second of all Jesus didn't fit it, he didn't live a long life or have children (Isaiah 53:10), and he wasn't rich (Isaiah 53:12).