BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus is one with God in nature

Rots of ruck trying to use the Bible as your primary source of proof !It's sure good to be back & awake again !My name wasn't Jesus- I had a Hebrew name, pronounced Yeshua.The 3rd nail proves that I couldn't have been on that cross.The self- proclaimed "God" of the Bible apparently claimed that his personal name was pronounced"Yahweh" .According to the Bible, both "Yeshua" & "Yahweh" were walking around on earth thousands of years ago."Yahweh" couldn't have been a Real God- for one thing he was doing things back then that a Real God never would have done. (See, for example, Numbers 16. )I see no reason to claim that what you call Jesus & what you call God are one in nature. Are you claiming that the spirit body of "Jesus" & the spirit body of "God" are the same, or part of a larger spirit?Prove it.
Jesus is one with God in nature

This debate challenge is only for Unitarians. Rules 1. The Bible should be the primary source. 2. Always use the texts with context. Round 1 is for acceptance of Con only. Round 2 Pro will give Biblical evidence that Jesus is one with God in nature. Round 3 Con will refute the argument of Pro Round 4 Pro will give final rebuttals. Round 5 Con will give final rebuttals.
Cold Weather vs. Hot Weather

My argument is very simple. Obviously, everyone has subjective preferences as to which type of weather they feel more comfortable in. However, cold weather is objectively superior because anyone -- regardless of their subjective preferences -- can easily take measures to make themselves relatively comfortable in it. Even if you are averse to chilly conditions, you can still deal with cold weather by putting on a jacket, wearing protective garments (gloves, socks, etc), using a blanket, or cuddling with whoever happens to be nearby (jk). This is not the case with hot weather. If you don't enjoy sweating and it's hot outside, you're screwed. There is no limit to the number of layers you can put on, but there IS a limit to how many you can take off. Even with the lightest possible clothing, many people (including me) still feel uncomfortable in hot weather. The best we can do to adapt is fan ourselves with whatever we have at hand. Because it is far easier to adjust to cold weather than to hot weather, cold weather is objectively preferable.
Cold Weather vs. Hot Weather

I affirm that on balance, cold weather is preferable to hot weather. Burden of proof is shared, so Con negates the resolution by affirming the opposite -- that hot weather is preferable to cold weather. The debate is impossible to accept. Accepting without permission will result in an automatic loss for Con. Apply in the comments section if interested. Cold weather is defined as being within the temperature range of 10 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Hot weather is defined as being within the temperature range of 80 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The standard for preferability is up for debate, but arguing that no such standard objectively exists is prohibited. Good luck & have fun !
Gun rights should be granted all over the world

My opponent (Whoever chooses to accept) and I will be debating about whether or not gun rights should be granted all over the world. I am in favor that it should be. Anyone who wishes to debate me on this topic must follow these set of guidelines: You must follow common guidelines, such as plagiarism. A few jokes in between are acceptable, but other than that, take the debate seriously. Both sides must share their BoP. First round is for acceptance only. Gun right: The right to own, give, or sell guns. Failure to do so will result in an automatic loss.
Gun rights should be granted all over the world

We will be debating whether or not gun rights should be granted all over the world. I, pro, am in favor. Con is not. I look forward to a great debate! Good luck to my opponent!I believe that gun rights should be granted all over the world because it leaves people with something to defend themselves with. For instance, if someone came after you with a weapon, you have the gun to defend yourself. In can not only deter the person from even coming any closer, but if he neglects that chance, to not be shot, to take on you, you simply pull that trigger and you avoid harm from coming to you.Now, you may say, "What if he did not have the intention to harm you? What if it was a prank?" Yes, an innocent would be shot. However, that is that person's fault; He should have known the circumstance; that if he would have kept running at the person, the guy would shoot him. It's common sense, and we all know this.I believe, however, that guns should only be sold legally. The stores follow certain procedures before they sell you a gun, such as looking through your record to determine if you are trustworthy for a gun. Now, indeed, your past may be good, but does not mean your future be; Someone you know might kill a loved one of yours, and you will seek revenge. You have that gun with you, so... However, hear me out on this:People can do anything to kill. For instance, say gun rights were not granted, you may use a crowbar to kill the person whom killed a loved one of yours instead of a gun. It is even worse because people will never suspect you to use crowbars to kill; They are tools, not weapons, though it could be used as one. Guns are known for lots of the killing out there, so precautions are taken.Gun rights being granted or taken away have their own advantages. However, it typically works to be better when gun rights are granted than when they are taken away. Here are some examples:Scottsdale, Arizona is ranked one of the top cities with the lowest crime rate, and get this: It has almost NO gun control. "Scottsdale, AZ tops our list mainly due to the low number of violent crimes."[1][2]Plano, TX is also a top ranking in the top 10 cities with lowest crime rate, and it has little to gun laws.Third on the list is Virginia. You will see that here, as gun laws goes up, so do crime rates, little by little.From all the information provided above, I can conclude that it generally works better when gun rights are granted than when they are not.I await my opponent's arguments.[1] http://www.areavibes.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
wearing the veil in a courtroom

REBUTTAL If English law requires complainant and witnesses be face to face then why is it law if The English Constitution is unwritten so this means your whole argument is not valid. ARGUMENT The use of a veil according to ones is guaranteed because of religious freedom laws which you even admitted exist mean that there is no point in why a Muslim woman cannot wear a veil in court. Also the use of a veil does not restrict speech therefore meaning the veil does not influence the judicial process meaning there is absolutely no reason while a Muslim woman cannot wear a veil in court.
wearing the veil in a courtroom

I'm not sure that the first amendment is relevant in the UK where the constitution is unwritten. The real point is that the common law, as developed in the UK ( the home of the common law) requires that both complainant and witnesses should be face to face in the court. A person who is veiled is hidden from judge and jury (or what is the point of the veil?) and is thus not truly face to face. The challenge here is whether or not this principle is sufficiently important to trump a persons wish to maintain their religious observance. The UK courts might be expected to uphold the right to religious freedom (the law forbidding discrimination on religious grounds is absolutely explicit) but in this case conflicts with a centuries old principle of English law intended to prevent accused or accuser from avoiding the adversarial confrontation which is the fundamental basis of the common law.
wearing the veil in a courtroom

A Muslim women should be allowed to wear a veil in the courtroom because she is upholding her religious beliefs and the First Amendment protects our right to practice and believe in any religion. Since wearing a veil is very traditional to Muslim women because modesty is valued more than a lack of modesty like in Western Society, the Muslim women is using her rights to practice the religion she believes in. I also wish women in modern day western civilization were valued for things like respect and kindness more than skimpy outfits and sexual appeal.
wearing the veil in a courtroom

Their was a court case recently in which a Muslim woman was denied the right to give evidence without removing her veil. Is this right? On the one hand people must be free to live according to their religious commitments; on the other the court appeared to believe that the jury needed to be able to face the witness -literally- in order to test the credibility of her evidence. I think this is a really challenging issue raising complex questions about the nature of our multicultural society, but on balance the principle of English law which says that people should be able and prepared to directly face their accusers seems to me to be so important that it ought not to be compromised even for the most earnestly held beliefs. The paradox though is that the rights that allow us all freedom of religion depend on the uncompromising application of the law.
Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity

Resolved: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity. The thesis of this case is that human life should be the ultimate value. Without water you have no life, without life you have no morals. Therefor water should be valued as a human right instead of a commodity. With that being said, valuing water as a human right does not necessarily mean every human being will have water. There will be many who are deprived of water, but keep in mind that human rights are violated every day. A human right is only documented which doesn't mean it is enforced in all countries at all times. Value: Human Life is the superior value in this case Criterion: Preservation of human life Contentions: 1.Water sustains life and life is the ultimate human right. a. Without life then all other rights are irrelevant b. John Locke argued that people have rights such as the right to life, and liberty, that have a foundation independent of law of any particular society. c. Thomas Hobbes wrote "The Law of Nature" which interlocked the true definitions of rights, liberty, and law. 2.Human rights are violated but are still documented for guidelines. a.The right to life comprises the right of every human being not to be deprived of his life. In Article 18 in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. In February of 2002, 27 Hindu activist were killed by Muslims which triggered a violent spiral of religious revenge and 4 days later 2,000 Muslims were kill. Later investigations revealed that it was planned and done with mutual approval of authorities. The Hindu activist had their human rights violated. b.We agree that it is impossible to guarantee drinking water to every single human being, thus declaring that drinking water is a human right does not guarantee everyone will be provided with drinking water. Human rights are commonly violated. 3.Since water sustains life, valuing water as a commodity is putting a price on life. a.Human rights shouldn't be valued as a commodity because putting a dollar amount on life is immoral.
Is Mercy Killing Morally Correct

"Two things, one being that miracles do happen and it would be a mistake to end a life when miracles have happened. " You speak as if miracles happen more often than they do, this is life; it is no movie. Have you ever seen Osmosis Jones? That was simply an example of Deus Ex Machina. "Yes. .. but those morals are meaningless since they have not created any ethical standard in which people have to follow. " First, let's define ethical. eth"i"cal G2;eTHək(ə)l/ adjective: ethical 1. of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. Those morals that belong to atheists do have meaning, you act as if your morals have value because of your 'God. ' So far, you have backed up every single one of your counter arguments with a reason relating to god, the bible, or Christianity, might I ask if you can back up 'God? " "People do not decide what rights humans have. If so, humans could take away or add rights whenever they wanted and no one could say whether it was right/wrong since it would all be subjective. The founding fathers rightly recognized that only a God could give people unalienable rights. And the right to die wasn't one granted by the Christian God or one granted by the founding fathers. " People do in fact, decide what rights humans have, look at our long list of laws, and yes, humans do take away and add rights, but the process is not as simple as it seems. In addition, the founding fathers did believe god gave unalienable rights, but who was it that actually gave them their rights? Did god magically come down to America and say "Here are your rights? " The truth is simple, the founding fathers created those rights, and then American soldiers had to fight and even die for them. Also, the right to die is a Ninth Amendment right. . http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org... Amendment IX "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. " Of course, it is unlisted, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that dying is prohibited. "King Henry was not a true Christian. He abused the churches power to get things he desired and he murdered people. There isn't much else to say here. And yes, the Bible does say that murder is wrong. " Then what is a true Christian? There are many interpretations, including yours, but how do you know which is true? . http://bible.knowing-jesus.com... Ephesians 5:5 "For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. " It sounds to me like you have to be moral or else you won't have entry to heaven. To many, it would sound enforced.
Is Mercy Killing Morally Correct

What is the point of prolonging anyone's suffering? (Method of killing can be anything, but I'd like to focus on euthanasia and turning off life support) Letting them live any longer while they are in pain is sheer torment when their suffering could be ended. (Also, meaning of morally correct here is 'Correct in the sense of morals according to you) "Whether there is a heaven/hell or not...their death will end their existence on earth for an eternity. Isn't the last bit of time on earth worth the suffering to do something good especially when an eternity of peace awaits them?" Their period of suffering may not be so short, as some people who are terminally ill live longer than a week. Before that week ends, they could be resting, but to not pull the plug on their life support would just give them unnecessary pain. They are going to lose their life and most people on death's door don't think of "accomplishing anything good" because they can't in their state; they think about their last wishes and regrets in life. Let's assume you were a doctor, and had a patient who had multiple autoimmune diseases, genetic disorders, and brain cancer at the same time. That patient will not be able to "accomplish anything good" in their last moments due to the multiple and deadly diseases they have. Sure their family might need them, but do you think they would want to see their loved one suffer until they die? In addition to that let's suppose your most loved family member was lying down on that clinic bed, having a disease that would kill them, and make their life a living hell before they die. Would you want to see that happen to them until the day they finally leave this world? Many parents I know would not want to see their beloved child in pain until the day they finally lose them. "So generally speaking, without a God there is no morality that has any meaning." That comes down to personal preference of people. You say morals have no meaning without a god, but atheists have morals and do not believe in god. Let's take this back to history, King Henry VIII killed his wives, why? Because he wanted a new one. He was a christian, and according to the bible, murder is wrong. That is in the bible is it not? And doesn't said bible enforce morality? Yet somehow, the king did it. Though indirectly, it still counts. I also fail to see how the founding fathers and the 'all men are created equal' line is any relevant to this debate as we are speaking about whether or not mercy killing is morally correct. Sources www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC/articles/PMC1070877/ www.luminarium.org/renlit/sixwives.htm www.positiveatheism.org/host/cohen02.htm
Is Mercy Killing Morally Correct

I would like to start off by asking my opponent what do they mean when they say something is "morally correct?" Without a God, all reasons to be moral are subjective (or based on opinion). And subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. For example If a person makes the claim that murder is wrong, then why is it really wrong? Your opinion that murder is wrong does not create an ethical standard in which people have to follow. So generally speaking, without a God there is no morality that has any meaning. That said, the Christian God would consider mercy killing immoral. You can feel free to disagree with this but that is where he stands. What gives people the right to decide when they die? In fact, what gives people the right to do anything? According to Thomas Jefferson (a deist), third President of the United States, said that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So from a historical standpoint, the founders of the United States even believed that rights came from a God and that the right to death was not one of them. And is it really just to murder someone just because they are in pain? Think about what they might be able to accomplish in their last days on earth. Maybe their presence is needed among family members or maybe they can still do something good in their last days. They may suffer, but our time on earth is very short and the suffering will be nothing compared to the eternity in what comes after death. Whether there is a heaven/hell or not...their death will end their existence on earth for an eternity. Isn't the last bit of time of earth worth the suffering to do something good especially when an eternity of peace awaits them? Source: http://www.brainyquote.com...
Is Mercy Killing Morally Correct

R1: Debate R2: Debate R3: Debate R4: Review (Telling each other the flaw in their debates and tell each other how to get better) I am Pro (Believing Mercy Killing is okay) you are con and are trying to prove that it is wrong. Definition: To Mercy Kill is to kill someone who does not have much time to live and would suffer if not killed until the end
Missiles defense systems are unnecessary

1. The U.S. obvesouly ha nukes we know this, but my friend you yet aain mistook my info I said we have GBI in those states and they aren't effective 2. resovled 3. The Pro is saying the explotion of the nuke is more important isue than a U.S. without power. No electriciy for hospitals so all in all after the nuke explotion means more people will helplessly die. Not to mention the diesse from the spoiled food. The Pro is technically heling me on this point. 4. droped 5. when he showed how missile defenses are unessesary well. the last round is for summerization insted of new agruement so I ask you to discount this. I see nothing but a Con ballot
Missiles defense systems are unnecessary

Refutations1) I'm sorry I misread Con's first point, so now I will make a valid refutation against it. You stated the only areas in the United States that have nuclear weapons are Alaska and California, yet this is invalid information.As you can see in this graph [1] it shows the areas of Earth that have nuclear weapons. The key is further down on the page. The primary areas to which have nuclear weapons is northern Europe. All of the area of the United States has nuclear weapons.2) Thank you for your clarification. Of course you should have stated that, so that I didn't make an invalid refutation. Although, my opponent has shown a flaw in the GBI which is a Pro argument.3) An Electromagnetic pulse [2] is, once again, generally the events after a nuclear explosion has happened. Obviously, we would hardly worry about the effects of the EMP, but we would focus on the effects of the nuke.4) I, again, misread this argument, so this should not be considered a dropped argument. I misread DOD as DDO, so I thought Con was referring to this website. This is, once again, in argument in favor of my posistion.5) In this debate, I am not entitled to show how missle defense systems are bad, I am to show how missle defense systems are unnecessaryArgumentsThe missle defense systems are too costly [3]In 2007 only, an estimated 130 billion dollars has been sent into a missle defense system, yet no working system of that 130 billion dollars was produced.Also, the costs of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense is set at an estimated 30.7 billion [4]Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.fpif.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Missiles defense systems are unnecessary

1. I never said other countries had GBIs 2. GBI is Ground Base Intecptors. 3. Pro only talks about a nuclear devise not a EMP which would fry the U.S. powe grid... How do we know this well the U.S. in the 1980s did a test. 4. The Pro has dropped this arguement don't let him bring it up again. 5. Pro has said nothing why a missile defense system is bad. he jus tries to make an agruement on how they have flaws.
Missiles defense systems are unnecessary

My refutations will be accordance to his points, so for his first point my first refutation will be one as well.1) The fact that other nations and territories have missle defenses isn't a valid reason for the U.S to have them. Just becuase slavery wasn't judged as a misdeed untill Lincoln came into office, doesn't make slavery valid.2) For any one who doesn't know, the GBI is the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Obviously this organization is only met to protect Georgia. The are numerous organizations that protect each individual state, there are also many which protect the United States overall, such as the FBI.3) An EMP is the after effect of, normally, a nuclear explosion which results in a mushroom cloud. Clearly if an intent was to fire a nuke at the U.S. the E.M.P. would not be focused upon but the nuke prior to the EMP effects.
Missiles defense systems are unnecessary

sub 1. I have nothing to refute, but masterkage thank you for explain so I'll now explain 1 there are a lot of countries out there that have nuclear wepons and the fact is simply this we need more defense. The U.S. has some, but there are very little and they are in Alaska and California. 2. the GBI can only defend a small amout of area. 3. the threat is EMP (eletric magnetic pulse) and an EMP strike will fry the power grid and with perjected tests 95% of Americans would die in an EMP strike and fall-out. 4. DOD knows about the problem and has done nothing about it... Pro may say why well they've been off spending on other things.
Missiles defense systems are unnecessary

==Introduction==This is for Weirdman's debate christmas tournament.You can find the sign up's here: http://www.debate.org...And you can find the debating match up's here: http://www.debate.org...My opponent will be arguing that missle defense systems are necessary, while I will be arguing that there will be other, just as effictive, methods other than missle defenses.First round will be acceptance.I don't believe that definitions are necessary, but my opponent may provide them if he wishes.