BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Paul was a false prophet: Original sin and the law

I accept. In order to use the bible to prove that the apostle Paul was a false prophet, Pro must: 1)Understand and communicate accurately the meaning of Paul"s teachings. 2)Understand and communicate accurately the meaning of other bible passages not written by Paul. 3)Show that Paul"s teachings contradict these other passages. I expect that all of Pro"s attempts to prove that Saint Paul is a false prophet will fail in at least one of these points. If this happens the beloved apostle to the gentiles will be innocent of the charge and Pro will be guilty of defamation. I understand my lack of debating experience and limited knowledge and skills. The great apostle deserves better. If I fail, I would ask the reader to consider the 2,000 years of church history which admires this man as a saint who dedicated his life to spreading a gospel of grace and love to much of the known world. He was beaten on several occasions, persecuted, imprisoned and eventually beheaded for the Lord Jesus Christ. He deserves the benefit of the doubt on any statements that may seem to be in contradiction to his other statements or other passages in the bible. A superficial treatment of Paul"s words in an attempt to label him a false prophet without affording him this benefit would be as shameful as the false prophet accusation itself. I expect better from my opponent and anticipate an interesting debate. Blessings
Paul was a false prophet: Original sin and the law

In this debate, I will show that the NT writer Paul was a false teacher who brought in a new idea that was foreign to the rest of the Bible writers. The debate will be based on Paul's ideas that: 1. All of man, thanks to the sins of Adam and Eve, is fallen before God, lost and in need of salvation2. The reason the Mesiah was to come was to redeem the sins of mankind because man was cut off from God3. The law was never given to save man in any sense. It was impossible to keep and no one ever did. 4. A man's sins could not possibly be forgiven unless he has faith in Jesus. All of these ideas are wrong and I will prove it Biblically. Any takers?
THBT prefects should be elected rather than appointed.

This debate will be on whether prefects should be elected rather than appointed. I am going against this motion, And I hope that we can have a good and short debate. P. S: This is my first debate using this website, So I hope no hate comes to me XD So, My case set-up. In this debate, I have to prove why prefects being appointed does more good than harm, And election can emotionally effect people. Before I start off with my substantives, I would like to define the keywords of this debate. THBT: This house believes that. Prefects: A senior pupil who is authorized to enforce discipline. Election: A formal and organized choice by vote of people in the same or higher rank. Appointed (Appoint): Assign a job or role to someone I would now like to post a 2 tier policy. Firstly, We would put a cap and regulate the amount of prefects that can be elected in a specific class or school. Secondly, We would make sure that everyone in the class has to vote for someone. Our characters in this debate are the teachers and students. We characterise the teachers as people who listen to their students, Students as children who attend school and are not mature as adults. Moving on to my substantives. Firstly, I think that if prefects are elected, Both sabotage and biasness can occur. I will firstly talk about biasness. Biasness can appear in many forms, But today I am specifying on gender biasness and general biasness. So about gender biasness. Lets take an example which can happen in real life. Boy A is under election to be a prefect. So we all know that guys hate girls and girls hate guys in primary school right? So during Boy A's election, All his friends (which happen to only be boys) vote for him and the girls won't even care as they only care about their own gender. This occasionally happens when children are young, And during Girl A's election, All the girls vote for her even though Boy A is more suitable to be a prefect than Girl A. This is what children always do in school. Now about the other type of biasness I was talking about, The general biasness. So, Person A dislikes Preson B thus he wouldnt vote for Person B even if Person B was very suitable to be a prefect. Now, Lets talk about sabotage. The teacher wants the class to vote who in the class dosent want Pupil A to be a prefect. Obviously people who dislike Pupil A would raise up their hands, Even though, Again, Pupil A is a good role model and is suited to become a prefect. According to research done by me, I have asked a total of random people and collected my data. 7 people said that they do think that biasness and sabotage is a very bad thing ins chool, And thus they think that prefects should be appointed rather than elected. Thus, Looking back on my speech, We can clearly see that election for prefects indeed does more harm than good to all characters in this debate. I hope that you see my good intentions thus, Go with me today. This motion must and will fall. Thank you. Did I do well? XD please tell me in the votings whether I did well. Thanks!
Gay marriage

My argument will be on the grounds that "gay marriage" would no longer be marriage at all. According to U. S. Code " 7, [1] marriage is a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. This law is as it is because marriage was an institution created in order to establish a family that could be taken care of. Children are given role models, that, in an ideal world, would bring a child up with the best that each gender has to offer, both masculinity and femininity. Due to this, marriage has an intrinsic need for procreation. Without the ability to procreate, marriage would be an exclusively different union. "Unlike other forms of friendship, the marital community is structured by norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence, partly because of the intrinsic link between it and procreation. " [2] To allow homosexual persons to be married would take away an essential part of marriage, the biological unity of male and female, from which the hoped result is the creation of children and the raising of a family. Gay marriage could not possibly fit the same definition that marriage does today, and therefore "gay marriage" cannot be a real institution. Gay people have no possibility of procreating or even raising children in a balanced family environment. I'm not saying their children will turn out as abominations or anything, but they cannot receive the full breadth of education given by a mother and father. This argument has nothing to do with hatred, gay people should be treated with utmost respect and dignity, as they have no less worth than any other person. However, it would be degrading to heterosexual persons to classify a union that is biologically (not emotionally) weaker to theirs. I would also like to point out a fallacy in my opponent's opening argument. My opponent stated in their first sentence that "another person's choice isn't my business. " Yet in the next sentence, they stated "it isn't a choice. " They went on about how it isn't a choice, and then ended with a restatement of "another person's choice isn't my business. This left me a bit confused. This has little pertinence to my argument, but it may have something to do with theirs, as it was used quite often, so I advise them to take a definitive position. Thank you, and good luck in the upcoming rounds. [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...
Gay marriage

I'm pro marriage and pro gay marriage, because another person's choice isn't my business. Love is love. It's not a choice. You were either born that way, or it came naturally due to how you were raised. The Constitution states that all people should be treated equally and that we all have out rights and freedom. It doesn't state that gay marriage is a bad thing, and that it should never happen. People don't understand that this world is so full of hate, and a person doesn't just choose whether to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, pan sexual, etc. If they could, they would choose to be happy. The amount of hatred i see on these comments and statuses are made of stupidity. Like i said, another person's choice isn't my business.
Gay marriage

I was just stating some more of my opinion, like you did.. First of all, it doesn't matter where or whom it was founded of. It only matter the love for someone. I understand where you're coming from, but we all have our own opinions. Just because they don't have the same body parts, doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to marry or any of that. Yes, we are giving specific body parts to use, but you cannot help who you fall in love with. Love works in different ways. I never said that you 'hated' gay people, nor is it harmful to the meaning of marriage. If it was harmful, would it be legal in 17 states? No. Would they even let gay couples ever think about getting married? No. No matter the sex, people should be treated equal. Sure, some people don't believe that it should be equal because of what you said.. But that doesn't give anyone any right to feel the need to not want gay marriage to be legalized. Yes, it says that man shall not lay with another man, but god also said he would love his children no matter what. We all have different ways of expressing our opinions, and this is mine.. Lets say you walked up to a girl and said "ew you're lesbian.' She replied, 'ew, you're straight.' How would that honestly make you feel for being judged for being straight. We live in a world that being gay and lesbian is becoming more common because more people believe. Correct? yes. Yes, when African Americans fought for their rights, they did not have the right to everything white people did. But we live in a generation when it's becoming more and more alright to be the way you are. People get judged on their sexuality everyday, the word gay literally gets dropped on the daily. Children are exposed to the meaning of sexuality. But that doesn't mean that straight people should have any more of a right that gay people do. We are all meant to be treated equally, no matter the sex or race. And the fact that you say it's a sin.. Well guess what? Everyone sins every day, and it is said that god forgives those sins. And it also says that god loves his children equally, FOR who they are.. There, this time I actually answered your arguments. :) Good luck.
Gay marriage

My argument will be on the grounds that "gay marriage" would still be marriage, no matter man and man or woman and woman. Marriage is something between two people who love each other and want to spend their life's together. I don't know if you know this or not, but gay marriage is legal already in 17 states. There is two definitions of marriage in the dictionary.. 1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: "a happy marriage. 2. (n some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex. [mass noun] The state of being married. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) Also, I know plenty of kids who were raised from a mom and a mom, and a dad and another dad. I know many of people. It doesn't affect the kids. Some kids support it. You don't want to raise your kids to be someone who disagrees with something that a lot of people see now a days. You don't want them to see a gay couple and look at them and laugh and say something out of disrespect. As someone who grew up with family members who are gay and lesbian, it opened my eyes. It taught me that love is equal. Love is good. Love is kind and caring. It opened my eyes to realize that people can really care for different sex, people can love all sorts of people. Whether they are gay, lesbian, black, white and many more. My aunts raised a daughter, she turned out great. She is married, has kids, went to college, has a nursing job. I was also raised to treat people as I want to be treated. If someone loves someone, let them be. It's not you, so why worry? Does it honestly bother you that much that you are against it? Is it because they're happy? It doesn't matter if you agree with gay marriage, or you disagree. People are to be treated equally and be treated as a human. Yes, children are given role models, but it doesn't matter. Just because a child is raised by a gay couple, doesn't mean they will turn out to be gay, or turn out to be a bad person or even a good person. I believe in gay marriage because it's someone else's choice. It doesn't harm me to know that a girl loves another girl. I love seeing couples like that holding hands with confidence. For all the hate that lesbians and gays get for being that way.. if they could choose.. Why would they choose to be gay and hated on? I'm sure if they could choose, they would choose to be happy. It doesn't hurt you. It isn't you holding and marrying the same sex. It's another persons business to be with the same sex. Also, what I meant by "another person's choice isn't my business" in the first sentence is that it doesn't concern me with what sex they are with. Then when I said "it isn't a choice" I meant that they can't choose to be gay or lesbian. They're just attracted to them, and they'll know it when they find out that they're that way. TI am going to end this with ; the constitution of the Untied States of America states that people are too be treated equally. To have the same rights. Why judge someone because they love a different sex race?
Humans possess free-will

Well I suppose I'll just summarize in a very broad way everything I've asserted above: 1. If determinism is true, free-will cannot exist. 2. If indeterminism is true, free-will cannot exist. 3. The world can only be either deterministic or indeterministic. 4. Therefor free-will cannot exist. In another way: 1. Freedom implies without (at least to some extent) constraint. 2. Free-will is 'freedom' in respect to a being's will. 3. Fundamental existence is incompatible with 'not-constrained' 4. Freedom of will is incompatible with existence.
Humans possess free-will

It seems that the majority of your post was dedicated to going into various details in how quantum theory works, but virtually none of it refutes what I've already touched upon in describing quantum, or otherwise demonstrates that my key point in respect to indeterminism not qualifying for free-will. One part that I see that actually seems to be for me to address, is where you ask about infinite possible universes. There is a very big difference between "all possible universes", and "infinite possible universes". All 'possible universes' would constitute an important part of the mainstream super-string theory, wherein the 10th dimension represents the totality of existence; all possible worlds through all of time considered as a single dimensional point. This does not inherently imply anything is 'infinite', but a finite number in consistency with what the range of possibilities are. This is where I see a problem in trying to describe 'infinite' possible worlds: can impossible things happen in one of these possible worlds? If so, it's literally impossible, if not, it seems as though it cannot be infinite. The idea that something can be possible, implies that something else can be 'impossible', and the possibility of impossibility inherently defies infinity. That anything can be 'possible' implies limitations. So is it even possible for free-will to exist? Not rationally, no. All things that exist, just by virtue of having the characteristic of 'existing', are constrained by some other force. To exist or not, cannot by logical necessity be controlled by the thing that does or doesn't exist. It might be that all things that exist fundamentally exist through all of time as some uniform body, maybe the superstring of the 10th dimension, or existence can be made by some force out of non-existence, but at neither rate can something determine itself, no particle or other unfathomable form of existence, spiritual or not, can logically choose its own nature before it exists. As a consequence, nothing can logically be thought of as having a 'free-will', especially not humans in *this* world or any other possible one.
Humans possess free-will

I'll argue that humans are incapable, by logical deduction, of possessing the meta-physical quality known as 'free-will'. Definitions to be used for this argument and to be agreed upon are as follows: Free-will - a characteristic of a sentient being marked by the ability to influence and decide their own actions, in accordance to their will. In other words, an agent's will has the ability to exercise control in determining the outcome of multiple possible futures. External Coercion - Any force that isn't directly a function or consequence of the agent's own consciousness. This includes sub-conscious, involuntary reactions in addition to forces outside of the human brain, such as weather events or other agents. To win, I would have to explain by rational deduction that it is impossible for such a thing to manifest in an agent. For the opponent to win, they would need to demonstrate or deduce that it is merely possible for free-will to exist, though if they are up to the extra challenge they might go as far as demonstrating that it *does* exist. First round for acceptance? Thank you in advance for whomever takes me on for my first debate here.
Abortion

Here is how this debate works: 1st round we introduce ourselves, 2nd round we debate, and 3rd round we wrap everything up. I (TheMaster_Debator) am against abortion. My Intro: I am very pro-life. I did not get my pro-life beliefs from church, as I did not go for quite some time. I choose to be pro-life because of statistics, which I will present in Round 2.
Abortion

Ok so here are my arguments for Round #2 The statistics prove abortion to be wrong. Did you know that 93% of mothers regret their abortions? Did you know that 89% of these mothers think that they murdered their child after their abortion? Most of the Pro-Abortion supporters never actually went through an abortion. My fact #2: Children have survived their abortions! Please go to this link: http://www.godvine.com... My Fact #3: You can abort a child....during LABOR! This is sick and gross in so many ways.
The Olympic sewage swim should be stopped

Sources Since Pro's source is unavailable, neither can I verify or refute the facts given in it nor I can determine its reliability. I didn't use sources as I abhor research and it wasn't required for this is more of a debate on moral grounds. Framework I already gave a reason as to why it was wrong and recommended to use the resolution as the basis, but since this is the final round it won't be useful now. Infection Pro still hasn't rebutted my arguments as to the infection lethality and cure. Illness is merely the act of being ill, which could be anything ranging from cancer to simple cold. In the old days, even cough and cold could kill after a few months, and thus the infection may not be serious enough in today's world. Happiness argument I quote "Con says that not a sports give happiness. Well, why are there boxers? Because they want to be boxers. There is happiness, as they achieved their goal in being a boxer, so for them, there is happiness." "Why are there sewage swimmers? Because they want to be sewage swimmers. They have achieved their goal of swimming through the sewage" "The athletes who did must do it for a reason that indirectly leads to happiness, therefore pro's argument is refuted. Some plausible reasons include simple victory, a challenge to oneself, extreme curiosity into the experience etc." Therefore the happiness argument has already been refuted and has not been acknowledged by pro. Free will In the last round I said it is optional and only people who want to do it participate and therefore there is no loss of happiness, yet pro didn't rebut. My argument still stands. Pro claimed "Just because of them, do the others who don't want to do it risk their lives? " But since it was not mandatory and no one is being forced, this rebuttal is invalid. Conclusion The sewage swim mustn't be stopped as it gives happiness to its participants, provides a sense of achievement and is still a competitive sport.
The Olympic sewage swim should be stopped

AveFrameworkMy opponent says that my happiness framework is wrong, but doesn't say what we should use, therefore, you have to buy the happiness framework. Con doesn't make any other framework. Con says that it is not mandatory. Well, they can quit, but people will probably swear, and make him feel bad, therefore, they have to. Imagine if Federer will quit a match, what do you think will happen? Con says that winning will bring happiness, but there is only one winner. The others don't have happiness.InfectionPro says that in my source, I only talked about ingesting it. Well, sometimes you can ingest water, and one of them said if you are in the waters, you would be infected. The infection is illness, which could kill, as it says in the New York Times, maybe more fatal. HappinessI addressed this in the framework, Con fails to refute my argument. BoxingMy opponent has no source when I do. It is only logical for you to pick my side then. I made sourced assertions, when my opponent isn't, so my opponent is wrong, as he has no source to defend his claim.SourcesThat's your fault. It's not in the internet, and I am not wasting my time to try to find it. You find it. Why should I? You have no source. Therefore, I should have sources. ArgumentsThat is just a bare assertion, you can't even call that an argument, and anyways, I refuted it, and my opponent doesn't defend it.ConclusionTherefore, vote Pro.Vale