BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
people with low intelligence can't...

What you're effectively arguing is that the world is not defined; for example you started with 'Trees are not brown, leafs are not green.' How ever this is fallacious, what we call green is defined as a chemical process where by light is reflected in a wave length from 495-570 nm[1] with this definition and measurement our brain is capable of registering and perceiving the color "green" and it is so defined. There by a green leaf, is definable as green by the process which you opened the debate by stating. You live and I live in a world clearly and meticulously defined. - Jevinigh Accepts the argument as Con 1.https://en.wikipedia.org...
The illuminate is real and they are trying to minipulate us.

Hello I'm glad a debate started on some conspiracy right when I deleted my profile and restarted! On with the debate!!! Definition of Illuminati: Illuminati- a Bavarian secret society founded in 1776, organized like the Freemasons First, I'd like to give a brief history lesson on the term "Illuminati". This term was first used in the 18th century when the "Bavarian Illuminati" formed. Their main purpose was to promote women's rights and gender equality. With that being said, WHY and HOW is the term "Illuminati" tied to a worldwide control group that controls most governments? Also, the term "Illuminati" was first used in the 18th century. Yet, a common theory of the Illuminati is that they have been around since the beginning of humanity. That makes no sense! How could that have been a term in the beginning of humanity when it was a term created much later. PLEASE EXPLAIN WORLD!!! 1. The Illuminati is a secret organization. Hmm...that's real interesting, considering if you were to survey 50 people on the street, at least 45 of them would be able to tell you what the Illuminati supposedly is. So, how is that secretive? It's not! Even celebrities that are supposedly in the Illuminati don't keep it secret, flashing the Illuminati signs. The bottom line is, if the Illuminati did exist, they would try a little harder to keep it secret, and obviously, that's not the case. Secondly, and this is just a personal theory, but celebrities most likely only use those signs to generate publicity from people unwise enough to do their research on the Illuminati and come to a conclusion that it is a false theory. Yes it's negative publicity, but it's still publicity, and publicity means more money in the pocket. 4. Zionists and Free-masons are predominantly involved with the Illuminati and use the power of Satan to help them. Let's start out with the Free-masons. The Free-masonry isn't a group that even focuses on religion. It is a group that has to do with stone masonry. It includes people who are Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Athiest, Agnostic, and others. How does this have to do with Stan. It doesn't. Now Zionists aren't Satan worshippers either. Zionists are a branch of the Jewish religion. Another history lesson: Anywhere from 7-2 BC, Jesus Christ was born. He was the Son of God sent to Earth. However, some believed that he was the son of god, some didn't. Those who believed he was the son of God joined him and formed the Christian religion. Those who didn't believe he was the son of God obviously didn't follow him, and they remained Jewish. That is mine for now!
acting is the problem of the existence of religion

Even though I may die of frustration, we will debate. If you are saying that religion is wrong because of free will, think of this. God created free will because he didn't want slaves. He wants people to love Him on their own terms. Having morals does not make us slaves. You are the slave. You are imprisoned by your sin. Satan has you right where he wants you. You are the zombie, chasing after pleasures and running away from true life.
acting is the problem of the existence of religion

Unbeliever doesn't equal believer, but yes, sometimes Satan equals theist. Morality is not knowledge, but those with TRUE knowledge have morality. Second, how can we be void of free will when we are capable of making more serious choices than one without belief? We know the true consequences of our actions, and we are able to reject sin more often than not. I find it odd that you preach against religion and the like, when you seem to worship knowledge as divine. I also don't understand how you can consider Satan wrong and yet have one of the most occult symbols as your profile picture. I think you are a Gnostic, not an agnostic. If I am being presumptuous, tell me, but how can you have a "religion" and preach against religion?
Circumcision is genital mutilation:

My opponent seems to be arguing that circumcision has health benefits and therefore is not mutilations, as it is not harmful. However, this is just flat put absurd because circumcision still fits the definition of genital mutilation. What do you call the cutting of a persons genitals their consent and without medical necessity? Its called genital mutilation. In regard to the health benefits of circumcision, there are none, and my opponent cites no credible source. And even if circumcision did have health benefits, it still wouldn't justify genital cutting.
Circumcision is genital mutilation:

The fact is this debate circles back to the whole concept of circumcision. While historically used for the reasons you outlined, in modern times it has been directly linked to many health issues. Circumcised men are less likely to contract HIV and penile cancer. Also, due to the universal inability to debate a direct dictionary definition, the heart of this issue lies with the necessity of it, because if circumcision is necessary for health reasons, then it cannot be classified as genital mutiliation, which is striclty abusive. And the fact remains that there is sound proof to support the medical reasons of circumcision. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Circumcision is genital mutilation:

Circumcision is not done for medical reasons but, mostly, for religious or cultural reasons, aesthetic reasons, or hygienic reasons that are in actually nonsense. These are the same reasons why FGM is done, though it was initially invented to control female sexuality, just as circumcision became popular in the US for the same purpose. Parents should not be able to amputate healthy appendages off of their baby without absolute medical necessity, and the fact that this is legal to do to baby boys just because they were unfortunate enough to be born a male is sickening, and we must acknowledge the blatant misandry in our country, and the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against men through circumcision.
Circumcision is genital mutilation:

This argument is impossible and one-sided unless you approach it from another angle. What I am stating is simply this; genital mutilation most freuquently refers to the process of abusing one's genitals for the very sake of torture. However, it does not fit into this criteria when used for medical purposes, as is the case with many circumcisions. Ergo, circumcision is beneficial, which contrasts directly to the whole idea of genital mutilation, a practice used worldwide to torture and humiliate. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Circumcision is genital mutilation:

The resolution of the debate was that circumcision is genital mutilation, and as has been shown in round 1, circumcision fits the definition of genital mutilation. This debate is not about the health benefits of circumcision (which, if I may add, are quackery), but regardless, the Muslims claim there are benefits to FGM. {1} Circumcision removes healthy and normal male genital tissue which has 20,000 specialized nerve endings and accounts for half of a males erogenous tissue. As shown in round 1, this is the very definition of genital mutilation. {1}. https://islamqa.info...
Circumcision is genital mutilation:

First off, genital mutilation is traditionally set in the sense that it is meant to cause pain, meant to be a form of torture. It was used during the Rwandan Genocide, where soldiers would rape and mutilate the genitals of women. Female circumcision is still used today in countries for non-medical reasons, a practice rooted in gender inequality. However, in the case of male circumcision, it is a different discussion. While historically male circumcision was used ritually, it has been proven to have medical benefits. Studies conducted show that circumcised males are at a lesser risk of contracting HIV, penile cancer, and HPV. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Circumcision is genital mutilation:

The resolution is that circumcision is mutilation/maiming, and should be prohibited except on consenting adults above the age of 18, or out of absolute medical necessity. Genital mutilation:"Any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs..." {1}Circumcision:"To remove the prepuce of (a male)." {2}{1}. http://www.dictionary.com...{2}. http://www.dictionary.com...
Circumcision is genital mutilation:

RESPONSECircumcision is not medical assistance, and it isn't a form of healing. Unless the baby has an actual medical problem where the foreskin has to be removed, you're just amputating healthy appendages off of your baby for no reason whatsoever- which is generally refered to as maiming. Circumcision isn't to be compared to a 'life saving surgery,' because it isn't a goddamn life saving surgery- it's just genital cutting. If you need to be circumcised out of medical necessity, that is totaly different, but circumcision is generally done without medical necessity.CONCLUSIONAs per the definition provided in round 1, circumcision is genital mutilation. My opponent has tried to justify it by claiming that circumcision has health benefits, however, he is yet to prove any of these benefits, and has not yet shown how these benefits would justify forced genital cutting. Thus far I have seen him provide no differentiation between circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation, but has instead justified it in the same exact ways that Muslims justify FGM, which only supports the premise that this is in fact genital mutilation. Common sense should dictate, that parents should not be le to amputate healthy apendages off of their baby for any reason save out of absolute medical necessity. As it is unacceptable to do this under any other circumstances, I see no reason why circumcision should be treated any different from mutilation.
Circumcision is genital mutilation:

Circumcision procedures, which are up to the parents in the first place, are meant to medically assist in the majority of cases. In a way, it is a form of healing. It has been done for quite some time with proven medical benefits, and the new trend of denying science because of some outlier cases is an ignorance far too widespread. It relates to the trend of parents not getting their children proper vaccinations, because something can go wrong once in a million times. Circumcision is no longer an Abrahamic ritual. It is a medical removal procedure with proven health benefits. The maiming of an infant and the beneficial assistance to one are two completely different things. My opponent"s illogical understanding of a vague definition could be applied in many other areas. For example, with the definition he gave, mutilation is any removal of organs or flesh. In that case, should life-saving surgeries of appendixes and gallbladders be placed in the same box as the moral disagreement with proven helpful operations? http://www.parenting.com...
Open green areas are more important than expansion of cities for economic progress.

Open green spaces aren't better because everything mentioned above can be manufactured in the cities. We have oxygen tanks, grow trees in cities, have lumber yards, grow fruits and vegetables in city neighborhood gardens, and have water treatment plants. As for my opponent's global warming claim, she did not provide any evidence for its existence, so her claim should be rejected as the baseless claim that it is. Remember, the resolution claimed that open green areas are better than expansion of cities. I didn't have to show expansion is better. I only had to show they were at least equal. On the basis of this, and my opponent's plagiarism, I ask for your vote.
Open green areas are more important than expansion of cities for economic progress.

Hmm... Very well said.. Green spaces are the primary need of the people because they are the only one on whom our whole life depends... Let it be oxygen, wood, timber, medicines,fruits, vegetables, maintaining water cycle and many more. We are already under the threat of global warming which, when increased, can take away the whole life from the Earth. Therefore, Expansion of cities could lead to such problems...On the other hand, green areas could surely decrease it...
Open green areas are more important than expansion of cities for economic progress.

I think green spaces are more important than expansion of cities for economic progress. I can give many reasons..... Economic benefits- Houses close to parks are on average 8% more expensive than similar properties further away. Greener cities attract more visitors, whose spending on shopping and leisure generates job opportunities. Health benefits-People who use green spaces are more likely to take exercise than those who don"t, and that the attractiveness or quality of green space is important: people don"t want to use neglected parks or open spaces. The more time people spend outdoors the less stressed they feel " an important consideration given the cost to the UK economy of depression and mental illness, which has been calculated at "26.1bn. Social benefits-Academic studies tend to support the relationship between well maintained local green spaces and people"s feeling of belonging. People who live near green spaces are more likely to feel a sense of attachment. In Zurich, researchers found youths were more likely to meet and make friends with people from non-Swiss backgrounds in the city"s parks. This all shows that green spaces are much more important than expansion of cities that do nothing but creating problems for our existence on Earth.
Bigfoot is in the Bible!

I would like to begin by pointing out some serious flaws my opponent has made. He stated that, "The Gods of the heathen are devils." This statement is far from correct. To be heathen, means to not belong to any religion, such as an atheist. If they don't have a religion, they have no God. Therefore, the Gods of the heathen are not devils, their Gods are nonexistent. Also, my opponent said that the Sons of God were angels and their offspring were "Bigfoot." The Bible does NOT say who the Sons of God were, nor do they say who the Nephilim(offspring) were. If the Bible does not say who they were, how can he make such a huge assumption with out proof. This is what he is assuming: Nonexistent God children had offspring with human daughters and produced hairy men that wander around in the woods with "poisonous critters." If that doesn't sound ridiculous enough, he goes on to say why he believes that we don't find their skeletons. He references a passage in the Bible where the archangel Michael is arguing with the devil about what will happen to the body of Moses. Moses is not an angel nor a child of an angel("Bigfoot"). I do not understand how this point helps his argument at all. They were fighting over 1 HUMAN in the whole Bible, and that suddenly means that they are going to take every "Bigfoot Skeleton" off the face of the Earth every time one dies. NO! That is incorrect. What would be the purpose in that? Also, my opponent brings into play the "evidence" left behind by Bigfoot. NONE of this "evidence" has ever been proven to be anything other than fake. One of my opponent's last points implied that as long as you are large(a giant) and you are "hairy enough," then you can be considered a Bigfoot and your Grandpa is a heathen devil God. That point really killed his argument. Bringing back my point of time, these "Bigfoot" you created in your head would have died out long ago. If they were "produced" back in Genesis, they would have had to have lived for around 5,000 years for people to "have sightings" of them today. Nothing can live that long on Earth. Even God grew up. If his plan was not to die on the cross, I would imagine he would grow old and die like the rest of us. Earth puts us and "Bigfoot" in a state of immortality. The last point I would like to bring up is when the first sighting of "Bigfoot" occurred. If you look it up on the internet, you will find the first person to "see Bigfoot" (excluding native American legends) was a white man in Canada in 1811. If Bigfoot has been around since Bible times, then you would think that someone would have caught a glance of him before 1811. If only a tiny sliver of the Bible points to some people that most likely had nothing in common with large hairy demon grandchildren, how believable does that make it. My opponent sounds like he knows what he is talking about, but careful analysis will lead you to think otherwise. Postscript - In his Postscript, bitings isn't even a word...
Bigfoot is in the Bible!

As will be seen, the Con has misunderestimated my argument, and Esau is not relevant. The argument: We know that the Bible says there were "giants". Most accounts depict adult Bigfoots as larger than the average human and can be classified as "giants". Some of the names for the true giants in the Bible were "Emims" and "Zuzims". "Emim" in Hebrew means "terrible ones". (Strong's Concordance 368) "Zuzim" means "roving creatures" (Strong's Concordance 2104). It derives from the root word "Ziyz" (2123) which also means "a full breast" (ref. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Wilhelm Gesenius). One should watch the Patterson Bigfoot film more insight into this last aspect. It is available on youtube. The Gods of the heathen are devils, and a Hebrew word for devil is "sa'iyr" which means "hairy ones" (8163 ). (Leviticus 17:7) The Bible shows that these hairy ones were the offspring of the Sons of God (angels) and the daughters of men (Genesis 6:4) and were revered by men. From this we can conclude that the giants were terrible, roving, large-breasted and potentially hairy, in addition to being large in stature. All of this describes Big Foot, which in Chinese is called the Ye-ren (wild-man). How could my opponent argue this? I will describe it according to classical Aristotelian syllogism: 1. Giants are in the Bible, are hairy, are a' roving, are big and, therefore, are not dainty of foot. 2. Bigoot is hairy, is a' roving, is not dainty of foot. 3. Ergo, Bigfoot is in the Bible. This also clearly reveals that Bigfoot are the offspring of angels and earth-women. This explains why we have not been able to discover a full skeleton, for it is probable that when a Bigfoot dies its body is taken by the (bad) angels. We know angels have a tendency to want bodies due to the tesimony of Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael the archangel, when he was disputing with the Devil in a debate about Moses' body, did not dare bring an abusive condemnation against him but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'" This is an example of two angels (one good, one bad) fighting over Moses's body, to see who could get it. However, my opponent will note that there are no Biblical verses indicating that angels are concerned with foot-prints, hair-samples, and other leavings of the Bigfoot (which, out of decency, I shan't mention). It is only the body of the abdominal Sasquatchalo that the angels would argue over. True, we do have some modern giants walking among us like Shaquille O'Neale from the video game "Shaq Fu", Nikolay Valuev the Soviet boxer, and Christian Bale --- however, none of these are hairy enough to qualify as a true "Bigfoot". They are simply large men. Concluding Postscript: NOTE: I did not say ALL angel babies were hairy monsters. However, SOME clearly were. There could indeed be a hairless variety, though it is unlikely that such could live in the wild very long due to poisonous critters biting it to death (Bigfoot hair is a protectorate against poisonous critter bitings().
Bigfoot is in the Bible!

Before starting round 1 off, I would like to say that I am a full believer in the whole Bible and in God. Next, I would like to say that your argument is invalid. The only "evidence from the Bible that Bigfoot exists" is Esau's descendants. Apparently, some people, including you, think that Esau's great grandchildren are wandering around in the woods. How is that even logical. If Bigfoot is only human, then they would have already captured him and interrogated him. I have no doubt that if your argument is valid, then a whole lot more of us would be considered a Yeti. Not just one or two guys out in the woods that have never even been proven to be actually seen. I'm not sure how old you are, but if you are at least sixteen or so, you would know that your arms and legs start to get covered in hair (due to puberty). Not because we have caught Sasquatch disease "like Esau." Plus you said that, "you cannot rule out that Bigfoot does not exist presently." In the Bible, there is no evidence in the Bible that anyone lived further than age 969 (Methuselah). Therefore how could you even know that he is still around. It has been at least 3000 years since the time of Esau. How would he "still be around." You are using the Bible as your source, and then contradicting it. Your argument is invalid and does not even make sense, and if you are not referring to Esau, then please tell me who because I know for sure that Bigfoot is not a "Biblical fact" as you consider him to be.
Bigfoot is in the Bible!

Bigfoot is a Biblical fact. If you believe in the Bible, you must admit that Bigfoot existed in the past, at the very least, and you cannot rule out that Bigfoot does not exist presently. If you do not believe at least in the Old Testament (Tanakh), please do not enter this debate. Note: Bigfoot also means Yeti, Sasquatch, the Abominable Snow-man, the Skunk ape, and the Alma.
Should Probable cause be alright in School K-12

Police agencies have traditionally provided services to schools, but it has only been over the past 20 years where the practice of assigning police officers to schools on a full-time basis has become more wide-spread. Criminal justice and education officials sought to expand school safety efforts"which included assigning law enforcement officers to patrol schools"in the wake of a series of high-profile school shootings in the 1990s.4 Expanding the presence of SROs in schools was also partly a response to rising juvenile crime rates during the 1980s and early 1990s. S.R.O (School Resource Officers) are sworn, licensed police officers with the ability to exact Probable cause in school. Not only would the cost of the SRO be consequential to the schools funding but it creates a bad environment as well. The students are put into the justice system most of the time caused by minor offense, not only does that cause complications for both student and parent but it ruins there success in life by giving them a criminal record.