BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Being a Christian does not negate being in support of the Death Penalty.

I respect the fact that you are a Christian and believe in the death penalty, but that doesn't prove that it makes sense. I should say that I never once used the word murder. If you want to get technical, murder is defined by law as the "unlawful taking of someone's life", so because the death penalty is the law, it cannot be murder. And that is exactly why I chose not to use that word, so your argument regarding it not being murder, doesn't really matter. I never argued it. While i understand your comments on Sodom and Gomorrah, I believe I stated that passages from the Old Testament are not viable in this argument. If you would like to refute that, to THEN use that argument, please do. You then move on to say: "The government has an obligation to put an end to those whose crimes are so heinous that the only way to bring justice to them is by ending their life." That is fine if you believe that, but that has nothing to do with the question. You are trying to prove that Christianity supports the death penalty. You have also failed to address some of my claims made previously. How can the God that implores us to constantly forgive, and leave justice to the Lord, approve of us taking someone Else's life. Is there not a more Christian way of handling their crimes. While the idea of punishment is not foreign to Christianity, the idea of punishment without the chance for redemption is. And that is exactly what the death penalty does. Well, now that i've laid out how to attack my argument, you may do so when you please.
Being a Christian does not negate being in support of the Death Penalty.

I'm a Christian and I've always been taught that "you reap what you sow." There is a, distinct, but fine-line between killing someone and murdering someone. The death penalty is not murder. Murder is taking someones life just for the sake of taking a life. The death penalty is for those who commit such horrific crimes that we must not only put an end to their life but also make an example of them in the process. Sometimes the only way that justice can be served is by taking the life of the one that took a very fragile and innocent life away from this earth. The Bible certainly teaches that death is a justified way of punishing someone. Read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. God has struck many people down and killed them. The government has an obligation to put an end to those whose crimes are so heinous that the only way to bring justice to them is by ending their life.
Being a Christian does not negate being in support of the Death Penalty.

I am under the impression that as a Christian, it is wrong to be in favor of the Death Penalty. I believe a great argument comes from the 6 chapter of Luke, verse 37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Does this not speak to Jesus' entire message while on earth? Judgement is not reserved for us, but for God alone. Granted, we need to keep order on earth, but doesn't the ultimate judgement of death negate forgiveness? How can we forgive someone and then kill them. When Peter asks Matthew how many times he should forgive, Jesus responds with not seven times, but seventy-seven times. How is that in line with the Death Penalty? I do not believe an argument from the Old Testament is a viable one in this debate. Jesus came and established what was important from the OT. Love your God and your neighbor. I also believe that it is difficult to pull passages from the OT for random argument seeing as how so much of the OT is clearly based in a different time and does not hold the same validity as it does today.
Eating meat should be illegal

Thank you for accepting the argument. First of all, it is not simple to as of not clear up as in, or, supposedly when, how, or how not, something, or some, somewhat, some-else, (A to C) can be produced to create and function as in a different or potentially different, or, if not, a difference in a somewhat functioning, or perhaps not, if, or not to, area. That said, the only way of production in this case would be to have A or C (0.7-0.9/75) be reprogrammed to assess further developments in the cycle. Secondly it is not clear to how it treats like misused power of assignments or demands; A may produce B; but B may not produce A, like a B (0.7/BB0.7) can assess the A input, without notifying the others, such as C or 0.7's outputs. The final product will only depend on how an A will be assessed or vice versa, therefore concluding the main system and/or continuing the main cycle.
9/11 must have been assisted by the US government

I will be arguing that 9/11 must have been assisted by the US government...... (A)Unanswered questions: (1)Who was really in charge on the morning of 9/11 - Bush or Cheney? (2)Why did NORAD mislead investigators on why its planes didn't intercept 9/11 hijackers? (3)What really happened aboard Flight 93? (4)How could the alleged 19 hijackers have been identified in less than 72 hours? (5)Why were none of the 19 hijackers names on the passenger lists released the same day by the airlines? (6)Why did Giuliani send the WTC rubble to China and India so quickly? (7)Why was the Bin Laden Task Force broken up nine months before 9/11? (B)WTC collapse: (1)Heat from burning jet fuel was reportedly the sole cause of the WTC collapses which is impossible (2)There is evidence of a controlled demolition (3)WTC explosions heard (4)The Twin Towers exploded into dust and shattered steel shows evidence of a explosive demolition (C)Pentagon: (1)Pentagon whic is the heart of the military of the world's greatest super power was hit after warning without being protected by any defensive action. (2)Terrorist Hani Hanjour was not capable of flying the plane into the pentagon at 500mph just above the ground (3)Why would an Islamic terrorist perform a difficult maneuver to strike the portion of the building that would cause the fewest fatalities? Conclusion:These are some of the things I will use to show that 9/11 must have been assisted by the US government
9/11 must have been assisted by the US government

The term "conspiracy theory" is used derogatively because conspiracy theories have a tendency to linger around even when there is no evidence supporting them. Let's be honest, when has a famous conspiracy theory actually turned out to be true? Roswell perhaps? Oh, nothing ever came of that? Well how about the JFK assassination? Oswald is still considered to be the lone gunman, you say? I hope the audience sees where I am going with this... All of the famous conspiracy theories have one thing in common: the people who publicize them pick through the mountains of evidence and come out with a few inconsistencies, that they repeatedly cite those same inconsistencies as evidence for their absurd claims. The fact of the matter is that in a beaucracy as large and as clumsy as ours, inconsistencies and quirks arise all of the time, from perfectly innocent situations as well. Does anyone remember President Obama's State of the Union Address, when he made the joke about one department regulating freshwater salmon and another one regulating saltwater salmon? That is a prime example of government acting clumsily and being inefficient. The issue is that although the government is sort of one entity, it is made of people who don't always communicate together and so these situations arise. There is nothing sinister about it. The truth of the matter, that many people tend to reject, is that we were simply caught off guard, plain and simple. 9/11 was a tragedy that never should have happened. The government was not prepared to defend us but it was definitely not the aggressor. Instead, the most infamous figure behind the 9/11 attacks met an ironic end when a team of Navy Seals put a bullet in his skull after he had settled down, thinking that he was untouchable... The audience has seen both sides of the argument and now it is up to them to decide. Anyone can say anything but the important part is to be able to back up your argument with reliable sources and I believe that my opponent has failed to do that.
9/11 must have been assisted by the US government

I must be a psychic because what I said my opponent would say is exactly what he ended up saying. 1. The Washington Post article says that SOME of the members on the 9/11 Committee thought that the Pentagon had lied to them. This is the same as saying that SOME members of our society believe in conspiracy theories. It also said that there was disagreement and no overall conclusion could be reached so the case was passed on, if my opponent only chose to read passed the first paragraph. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 2. I'm not even sure what exactly my opponent is trying to say in his second point so I ask that he tries to put together a coherent point next time seeing as the 9/11 Commission did not conclude that there was some great conspiracy going on as my opponent suggests. 3. My opponent asks the audience, "Does my opponent want you (to) think that in his opinion sources are not credible so they must be false? There is no attempt to refute my argument as you can see." I'm pretty much going to say yes to most of that. The site that my opponent cited from does not give any information as to who made it, nor does it cite any of it's information and so anyone could have written it and made up random numbers. Right there, I will say that it should not necessarily be viewed as automatically false but instead with a great deal of skepticism. Regardless of what I want the audience to believe, I also added a link a the paper that is from a well respected, peer edited, academic journal that addresses the issue. http://eagar.mit.edu... 4. In my last post, I said "In case my opponent still doesn't believe me, I challenge him to find the official Pentagon website himself. He will inevitably come up to the same page unless of course he chooses to link to the DOD's main website." As I predicted, MY OPPONENT POSTED A LINK TO THE DOD's MAIN WEBSITE "This is the Pentagon main website http://www.defense.gov...... which leads to the website where it clearly shows Pentagon tours http://pentagon.osd.mil...; The Pentagon is not the Department of Defense, rather it is a building operated by the Department of Defense. The only reason why an otherwise, mostly secretive government building, needs a public website is for tours and other public information. My opponent states that I am committing a logical fallacy when I point out that his sources are not reputable. However, he links to websites that make a lot of claims that have no solid foundation and which cite evidence that doesn't actually agree with their points. Of course I going to say that these sites are unreliable. If you make a claim that is not backed up in any way, it cannot be considered fact. And just to throw the cherry on top, lets assume that everything my opponent said is a fact (WHICH I AM IN NO WAY CONCEDING THAT IT IS!), all it would is that there are inconsistencies in the government's story (a government which is a cumbersome bureaucracy) and not that it assisted the in the attacks. My opponent is not presenting a coherent argument and I implore the audience to take note of it!
Skull art challenge

This will probably be my last art challenge for a while- summer holidays coming up soon. My opponent and I will post 2 art work pieces- the theme will be Skulls. To specify "Skulls", I mean - . http://en.wikipedia.org...To my opponent and readers,The rules are that: The art pieces presented by me and my opponent, may only of their own and may not be plagiarised from someone else. Violating this rule will result in loss of conduct points for that person. No digital art may be used (to help prevent instances of plagiarism). Any media/ materials may be used The theme of the art pieces have to mainly on a skull/ skulls. The artwork may be any size or colour. 1st round will only be acceptance- please do not post art work in the 1st round. In the event of an opponent or me forfeiting a round in the 1st, 2nd or both rounds, the other person can withold the right to not present a artpiece in that round or consecutive round. The opponent and I shall take a photo for each of our artpieces, and select one for each round. The images of the artpieces shall be pasted in that round, or the opponent may post a link in that round to a photo of that art piece. If my opponent is unsure, please refer to this link to see what I mean. . http://www.debate.org...For voters: Please vote fairly. I have changed the settings so that anyone can vote, but I expect that all votes are sensible and are legit. In the instance of vulgarity or uncivility being presented by any side, that person shall lose his/her conduct points. In the case of bad grammar or spelling, please do not vote against this as grammar/spelling is irrelevant for this debate/challenge. Good luck, I look forward to this challenge with my future opponent.
Guns should be banned in the US even for cops

My opponent says wikipedia is an unrealiable source... and he goes on to use Yahoo! answers to prove this. I'm not sure if this is meant to be a joke. Anyways, if you want a source other than wikipedia for Indiana state laws, look here: http://www.in.gov...Banning guns will not necessarily make guns impossible to obtain. Many drugs are illegal, but they're very easily obtained. What makes my opponent think that guns will be any different? Most guns gangsters use are bought illegally anyways (1).But if gangsters have guns, and police officers don't, then police officers will probably be shot down by gangsters. What is the police officer going to do? Taze a bunch of gangbangers? I doubt it.(1)http://www.nytimes.com...
Guns should be banned in the US even for cops

Note- Do you know that wikipedia is a unreliable source. It says right here http://answers.yahoo.com.... So that most defiantly brings you down on most reliable sources especially in R2 you never put your sources. Rebuttals- Also, if we banned guns from police officers, they wouldn't be able to enforce the law. What if there were a female police officer going up against an enormous gangster? What if the gangs still had guns, and the police don't?I am sorry what part of banning guns did you not get. They should not have guns and police officers would carry a weapon still. I never said they could not. Just no Guns.
Guns should be banned in the US even for cops

So how many deaths does something have to cause before we ban it? What is the magic number? My opponent hasn't explained why guns should be banned, but bathubs shouldn't. He simply insists that they're different.My opponent states that Washington DC has a low murder rate because they banned guns. Well, look, Indianapolis has a much lower murder rate, and guns aren't banned there. There aren't even bans on assault weapons in Indiana (1).What basis do we have to believe that gangsters and shooters couldn't get guns if we banned them?Also, if we banned guns from police officers, they wouldn't be able to enforce the law. What if there were a female police officer going up against an enormous gangster? What if the gangs still had guns, and the police don't?Banning guns won't make guns magically disappear. Drugs are banned, but they still get into the US. So gangs will still have access to guns, and depriving police officers of guns will make them essentially ineffective.What are you going to do when a gang member has a gun, and is shooting people, but none of the police officers have guns?A Harvard Study concludes that there is no clear correlation with banning guns and with decreases in murder, suicide, etc. (2)My opponent simply hasn't met his burden, and what he's arguing for has absurd consequences.(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...(2)http://www.law.harvard.edu...
Guns should be banned in the US even for cops

"Why stop with guns? Children drown in bathtubs. Why not ban bathtubs?"How many deaths do guns cause to bathtubs? I already showed you how many die from guns now time for bathtubs. Only bout 350(says in website http://www.medicinenet.com...) now lets compare that to gun deaths in my round 1. Argument- Washington DC has a low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 because of strict gun control. Indianapolis "high" murder rate is just 9 per 100,000. If we don't this luntaic could go on a shooting spree. And we have had so many shootings in the US. A long time ago I was actually surprised when someone got shot. Now it is the usual. The more helpless you are the safer you are from killers. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defence! The army has hundreds of them. Website used- http://www.rulen.com...Good luck to my challenger.
Guns should be banned in the US even for cops

My opponent has argued that since banning guns, even for cops, will reduce gun deaths, that therefore we should ban them.However, he does not source any of his claims that banning guns would reduce gun deaths.Let's formalize his argumentP1: If banning guns decreases death, then guns should be banned.P2: Banning guns does decrease death.C: Guns should be banned.In the form of a categorical syllogism..P1: Whatever decreases deaths should be done.P2: Banning guns, even for cops, decreases deaths.C: Guns should be banned.He's argued for Premise 2, but not Premise 1 of either of these arguments. Why stop with guns? Children drown in bathtubs. Why not ban bathtubs?So my opponent has simply not defended the very controversial premises in his argument.
The state of Virginia is the most historical state in the U.S.A.

Welcome ladies and gentlemen to this debate. I shall be arguing that the state of Virginia is the most historical state in the U.S. Anyone is welcome to accept, and the debate will follow this format: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: First arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing arguments, rebuttals,and conclusion Good luck to the person that accepts this debate. I will see you in Round 2!
The state of Virginia is the most historical state in the U.S.A.

Right then. Point #1: It is the site of the 1st permanent English settlement in the U.S. When the English sailed to the New World in 1589, the colony, Roanoke, was unsuccessful and the entirety of the inhabitants either died or went to live among the Native Americans. The most this venture amounted to was an annoying reason to put a little footnote under anything claiming that Jamestown was the first English settlement. However, in 1607, John Smith and Christopher Newport sailed to Virginia. They started a settlement called Jamestown, which was a permanent settlement and paved the way for more settlements to come. While Spain may have settled the southwest first they later gave up all their land to the U.S. We in America are descended from the English and not the Spanish. The fact that the English settled is more important to society as a whole and arguably, more historical. Point #2: Virginia was the site of many Revolutionary War battlefields and home to the surrender of the British During the Revolution, Virginia was imperative to the war effort, sending many supplies and soldiers to the army. It was also the home of many battles and the last major battle, Yorktown. If the British had never surrendered at Yorktown, Virginia, the U.S might not be a separate country today. Virginia is the most historical and influential state on the war for independence. Point 3: It was the site of the capital of the Confederacy during the Civil War and the site of the most battles during the Civil War During the Civil War the capital of the Confederacy was Richmond, Virginia. This automatically makes it one of the most historical places and the MOST influential place in the Civil War. Virginia was also the most battle- ridden location in the war, with 122 battles being fought there, many more than the surrounding states. The result is that Virginia is the most historical place from the Civil War. These reasons combined make Virginia the most historical site in America. I can't wait to see what my opponent has to say about his most historical state! :) (Note: I could not find my VA Studies textbook to cite, so I just put "My VA Studies Textbook instead) SOURCES: http://www.nps.gov... My VA Studies Textbook (Harcourt 5th Grade and 4th Grade)
Liberals are Lunatics

Pro posed the challenge to me and then refused to debate the topic he proposed. Whether the resolution should be affirmed or negated should not depend upon whether I am a liberal, conservative, or visiting Vulcan. Arguments stand on their own. Pro has made no case and offered no opposition to my arguments. People can be very wrong on some things, to the point where it seems like lunacy, yet they can at the same time have completely logical lines of reasoning on a different topic. That's just the way people are. Liberals are not lunatics, they just, in the extreme, subscribe to a type of religion. The resolution is negated.
Liberals are Lunatics

Pro did not address the debate topic. The question is whether the gross errors of some liberals are best explained by "lunacy" or by ideological fervor of the type that characterizes true believers of anything. I gave the reasons why Liberalism is typical of many fervent beliefs that are held contrary to facts and counter-examples. The most obvious parallel is traditional religious belief, but I gave other parallels. In each case, the belief provides simple, satisfying answers to problems. Pro has the burden of proof to show that Liberals are insane, and not merely wrong -- insofar as they are wrong. Therefore, the resolution is negated. Pro claims "Liberals, especially Secular Humanists, believe than Man is inherently good." Where do Liberals assert that? It seems quite contrary to liberalism in that it poses "good" as a moral absolute, and moral absolutes are not typically liberal. It seems to me that liberal thinking is closer to "an enlightened elite determines what is good, and must impose that good upon society for the sake of social progress." Liberals seem to believe that it is good not to have interpersonal social norms, so they seek to eliminate them. However, they have strong ideas about what people are allowed to say, what property they are allowed to possess, and so forth. It's a pseudo-religion with very strict doctrine. I agree that for true-believing Liberals facts don't matter much and that emotions rule, but that is typical of any true believer's rationalization of their faith. We are talking about broad generalizations, and while a generalization may be fair overall, there is no guarantee that it applies to everyone who thinks of himself as "Liberal." For example, while two-thirds of evangelical Christians are are Conservative, about a third are Liberal (think Jimmy Carter). It also leaves individual issues to be resolved on their own merits.