BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Yashua is Ha mashiach as spoken of by the prophets

My opponent refuted NOTHING of what I said. With that said, let's look at Pro's "evidence". "I also like this debate but let us use the Hebrew terms for the Jewish concepts. Yashua ha Mashiach is clearly descended of David and Solomon "And Jesse begat David the king and David the king begat Solomon of her who had benn the wife of Urias" (Holy Bible King James version) The Gospel according to St. Matthew Chapter 1 verse 6. "And I already explained how that is CONTRADICTED! In addition, being from Solomon does not make you the messiah. Joseph's lineage, is recorded in Matthew, whilst (Mary's?) genealogy is in Luke—(according to tradition, I disagree with this.) in Luke Jesus is from Nathan, while in Matthew, he is from Solomon. As I explained in the last round, THE FATHER GIVES THE LINEAGE AND THE MOTHER GIVES THE JEWISH SOUL. Therefore, if Jesus was born of a virgin, he could NOT be messiah, no matter how my opponent twists these verses. "second coming?"In order to explain away the fact that Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies, there is that catch-all explanation of a second coming. This is nowhere to be found in Judaism. Deuteronomy 21:23 is where the verse is found.
Yashua is Ha mashiach as spoken of by the prophets

I also like this debate but let us use the Hebrew terms for the Jewish concepts. Yashua ha Mashiach is clearly descended of David and Solomon "And Jesse begat David the king and David the king begat Solomon of her who had benn the wife of Urias" (Holy Bible King James version) The Gospel according to St. Matthew Chapter 1 verse 6. In Christian thelogy there is a 2 part coming of ha Mashiach The first 6 BC-30AD Gospel accountsThe second part The end times spoken of by the prophets,Yashua,The apostles and revelations.The third temple will be build by Yashua ha Mashiach in the end days and fufill the rest of the messianiac prophrcies.The passage shows David is descended of Nathan.Where is this accursed by God passage you make refrence to. Yashua is clearly ha Mashiach sent by YHVH Thank you vote PRO !!!!!!!
Yashua is Ha mashiach as spoken of by the prophets

Here is a debate on the divinity of Yashua ha mashiach. I will show the Hebrew scriptures proved Yashua to be the Mashiach as told by the prophets of old. Rules New testament is a historacally accurate sourceIf oral torah is cited Rabbis comments will not be cited but the actual oral torahTanakh is will all be equally authorative.I look forward to this debate.
Yashua is Ha mashiach as spoken of by the prophets

"Incorrect resolution apparently his desendence is from Yehuda himself therefore Yashoua is Jewish and he is descendance meets the Messianiac prophicies. Judaism hasent had its first so of course a second would not be in Judaism. The hanging refers to being hung on a nuse Judas is accursed not Jesus." Still, my opponent refuted nothing from the first round (except this). According to Jewish law, it does not matter. Hanging does not always refer to being hanged with a noose.
Euthanasia

Seeing as to how my opponent didn't attack any of my arguments, he must agree with me. I will now argue his: "It is legally wrong and prohibited to kill a human being even if he or she is terminally ill because it is against the ten commands of the holy bible" It is not "legally" wrong if it is against the bible. Also, the people getting euthanized may not share your beliefs, and it is okay to them. "it clearly states do not murder and if you do get charged with murder in this case by euthanasia and say you did not you break the rule # 9 do not lie so it strictly forbidden and it will condemn your soul" Like I said before, it is not murder. Murder is when an unwilling person gets killed. They would not be lying if they said they did not commit murder, they would be telling the truth. Thanks for starting this debate, and thanks to whomever votes. Rachelle
Euthanasia

It is legally wrong and prohibited to kill a human being even if he or she is terminally ill because it is against the ten commands of the holy bible 1. Do not worship other gods. 2. Do not worship idols. 3. Do not misuse God's name. 4. Keep the Sabbath holy. 5. Honor your father & mother. 6. Do not murder. 7. Do not commit adultery. 8. Do not steal. 9. Do not lie. 10. Do not covet. it clearly states do not murder and if you do get charged with murder in this case by euthanasia and say you did not you break the rule # 9 do not lie so it strictly forbidden and it will condemn your soul Exodus 34:28,Deuteronomy 10:4
Euthanasia

First let me start off by defining Euthanasia. Euthanasia: Ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness by lethal injection or suspension of medical treatment. *Euthanasia comes from the Greek word Euthanasia, which means good death* http://dictionary.reference.com... my opponent has argued "I think its wrong because it's exactly like murder and it should not be made legal" Murder:the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. Euthanasia and murder are very different. When a person gets euthanized, they choose to die. They no longer want to be on earth. When a person gets murdered, it is not their choice, it is the murderer's. Two very different things. My arguments: 1) People who are terminally ill (people who have cancer,etc.) feel that they are going to die soon anyways, and they feel that they no longer need to live. Why do they need to suffer until they die, when they themselves, are ready to die and feel no more pain. I don't know what your beliefs are, but maybe some of the people feel that their pain on earth is over and they need to go to Heaven. 2) The person on their "deathbed" may have a poor quality of life. They may have to make multiple hospital visits, and spend money on medication, which means they have very little money. They would also not get to enjoy life, with the suffering, pain, hospital and doctor visits. They may be very depressed that they don't get to live their lives normal, and they may even become jealous of everybody else. Why would you want someone to suffer if they were ready to go in the first place? 80% of people surveyed agreed that doctors should do PAS, or physician assisted suicide. (which is the same thing as Euthanasia) http://www.snn-rdr.ca... This is my argument and I cant wait to hear yours!
Removal of Common Core

I will be rebuting my Opponents statements. "Common Core does not provide a challenging curriculum" In it's common form the goal isn't to provide a challenging curriculum. It's to create a minimum of core knowledge that students need to advance their education and succeed in the market. If the classroom has a well fit teacher and good students then the class can exceed the standards and learn more than the minimum. Common Core isn't limiting, yet instead it sets a minimum of what has to be taught "Contrary to popular belief, Common Core standards are not internationally benchmarked." Yet, without Common Core we are even further behind. The expectations aren't high in the status quo, but the plan is to use Common Core as a starting point where in the future the minimum will be drastically raised. "Common Core does not allow students to work at their own pace" 1. Classrooms with Common Core are no more guilty of this than classrooms without Common Core. 2. As stated before Common Core just sets the bare minimum, in a good classroom those standards can be exceeded and the teacher can expand on the education. 3. We live in an age with practically unlimited knowledge easily accessible at our very fingertips. If a student is motivated enough to learn more than he has to in the classroom the resources are right in front of him. There are free, college level textbooks to learn from on the internet, there are free online classes you can take. Some examples are Khanacademy Coursera Openstaxcollege Dualingo The list goes on. All of which you can use to expand your mind and knowledge with no limiting factors. Common Core does not limit nor prevent this. It's up to the student to determine how much they want to learn
Removal of Common Core

I look forward to an excellent debate. To begin with, I would like to clarify what I will be arguing for this debate. I will be defending the statement, "Common Core should be removed from the public education system. " I will continue by providing reasons that concur with this statement. 1) Common Core does not provide a challenging curriculum. As a result, Common Core is damaging students in the United States rather than benefiting them. -Contrary to popular belief, Common Core standards are not internationally benchmarked. According to Dr. James Milgram, a Common Core validation committee board member, Common Core actually puts students at least two years behind international expectations. 2) Common Core does not allow students to work at their own pace. -For example, a student who is more academically advanced than his/her peers is not able to learn more. This results in boredom and a strong disinterest in school. And vice versa - a student who is falling behind in school or finds it difficult to keep up with the pace of the class is required to "learn" the same information. Often, this results in poor grades as well as poor comprehension and retention of information.
Removal of Common Core

Before we begin, I would just like to note that I am new to debate! Full Resolution I will be arguing for the removal of Common Core and the detrimental effects it has on public school education in America. Definitions Common Core: "a set of high-quality academic standards in mathematics and English language arts/literacy (ELA). These learning goals outline what a student should know and be able to do at the end of each grade. " Removal: the action of taking away or abolishing something unwanted. ] Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics or trolling. 4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.
Hegemonic Stability Theory is Valid

Resolved: Hegemonic Stability Theory is ValidDefinitions1. Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST): indicates that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single nation-state is the dominant world power, or hegemon. 2. Valid: acceptable as cogentRules1. No semantics....though itd be interesting to see how someone could argue semantically. (So if you do, know that it isnt a valid voter for the round)2. No new arguments in the last round3. Forfeits are auto-losses4. Drops are concessions5. Arguments start Rd. 2Good luck, and lets have a great debate! If you have questions, contact me
This debate will contain an awesome picture and will therefore be awesome

Irrelevant if they find it entertaining, the very concept of a bear riding a shark while holding an AK-47, smoking a cigar and wearing a bandana is awesome. How can it not be? I will not engage in any arguments! MUAHAHAHAHA! I will only post ANOTHER AWESOME PICTURE! The resolution is 'This debat will contain an awesome picture and will therefore be awesome'It does not say that the picture ABOVE is the one meant. This picture is pretty awesome too!
This debate will contain an awesome picture and will therefore be awesome

Okay, first of all, bears are not awesome. They have mauled a lot of people which isn't funny or awesome... (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Same with sharks, they attack many people when not even provoking them. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)The weapon, AK47, is not awesome either, it is used by our enemy, which can kill US soldiers. I don't think US soldiers believe it is awesome, when foes are trying to kill them with it.. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I have another definition of awesome...: "extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension."But, I will go by both, since that is a slang definition, so I will oppose both formal and slang. The slang term, "Very impressive" As I said before, to some people that would not be very impressive, it's all based off of opinion. If someone was attacked by a bear or shark, they would think that is offensive or disturbing. United States Soldiers who actually got shot at with an AK47, might believe it is offensive to them. And some people might just believe it isn't that "awesome."The formal term: "extremely impressive or daunting; inspiring great admiration, apprehension." same thing as the slang term, some people might not think it is daunting or impressive from past experiences or just opinion. "Inspiring great admiration, apprehension."Admiration definition: "respect and warm approval."I can tell you right now, I do not admire that picture, it's just like what I said before, some people won't admire that. Also, some people would not consider it "impressive art." Because, really, what is art? We all have our opinions.Apprehension definition: "understanding; grasp." Some people will not understand what you were doing with this picture here, because it is weird and disturbing... at least to some people. I don't really understand this picture, too.
This debate will contain an awesome picture and will therefore be awesome

Definition of awesome 'Slang. very impressive: 'I present...THIS! It is inherently awesome in our culture to present testosterone inducing mixtures that appease the masculine audience (We live in a sexist society after all)My opponent cannot deny that this is simply awesome. The bear is wearing a bandana, a symbol of bad-assery. He's riding a shark, a symbol of aggression and power. He's a bear, a symbol of AWESOMENESS! He's carrying an AK-47, a sign of masculinity.References:[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible

Resolution Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible In this debate I will defend the view that it is generally morally impermissible to deliberately terminate the pregnancy two weeks after the moment of fertilization; until the presence of the primitive streak one might argue that the zygote is not definitely an individual — in that period it is yet able to split into twins. In this debate I will not argue on religious grounds. In this debate I will not argue whether or not abortion is allowable in rare instances. These rare exceptions consist of spontaneous abortions ,cases of anencephaly, rape, incest and when the health or life of the woman is endangered. This debate will thus cover around 92 percent of all abortions.[1] This debate does not consider the legality or politics of abortion, but is constraint to the morality of abortion. Definitions Abortion: the deliberate removal (or deliberate action to cause the expulsion) of a fetus from the womb of a human female, at the request of or through the agency of the mother, so as in fact to result in the death of the fetus.[2] Generally: in a way that is not detailed or specific; in most cases.[3] Morally: concerning or relating to principles of right and wrong in human behavior.[4] Reprehensible: deserving of reproof, rebuke, or censure; blameworthy, impermissible, very bad: deserving very strong criticism.[5,6] Fetus: The unborn child, 2 weeks – birth. Burden of proof Pro will present the case for the pro-life position, while con present the case for the pro-choice position, in regard to abortion. The preponderance of the arguments shall point to the winner of the debate. To potential voters I advise discretion when evaluating this debate, considering the highly biased nature of the topic. Argumentation Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Furthering arguments, rebuttals. Round 4: Closing statements. No new arguments allowed. Rules No use of semantics. My opponent is allowed to contest any given definition in Round 1, provided that he has good reasons to do so. A forfeit is not allowed. All arguments and sources must be within the character limit. Videos are not allowed. Sources [1] http://www.guttmacher.org... [2] http://www.csus.edu... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
People should follow social prejudice to preserve self-worth

Ok, sure... Now, social prejudice in an utopian world would be less extreme than it exists today. What do you mean by it's not always right? The stereotypes COULD be untrue, but mostly, they are based off of true things and giving people a sense of "well, I can't do this" can often times save lives. The truth is, women are generally not as good as men at physical activities. They might, however, be better at, say, sewing. This is normal, because historically men have done more physical activities. If we try to tip this scale, we will waste a lot of time and humanity will have a long era of near zero growth.
People should follow social prejudice to preserve self-worth

I personally think that social prejudice is not always right and people should live the way they want no matter what gender they are and do whatever they love to do, as long as they are good people and don't harm others or do anything that affects the society in the bad ways. Social prejudice itself doesn't even have any reasons why it is so but most people are just afraid of it because they are afraid of being judged and losing their self-worth in others' eyes.
Progressive rock 2

I let the first one slide but my opponent has now posted two non-progressive rock bands even though the rules clearly stated we were supposed to post prog rock bands...The song for this round will be by Caravan, one of the most underrated progressive rock bands of all time despite being influential and extremely talented. The song has a few distinct sections starting off with an insturmental one, the main insturment being what I take to be an electric organ maybe or/and a keyboard. An electric guitar then procedes to take over and then the vocals accompanied eventually by a flute. And finally another electric guitar solo at the end.The song is from 1971. The early days of progessive rock.http://www.youtube.com...
Progressive rock 2

Queen isn't usually considered prog rock but I've always thought they were closer than people tend to say. Very good song but I think voters should find both my choices have stayed more within the essence of progressive rock than my opponents.http://www.youtube.com...This round I'm choosing one of my favorite songs by King Crimson. It's a live extended version of the original song. It features a quite unique guitar solo from Robert Fripp as the main extension at the beginning. As typical with progressive rock it's a slow, complex and creative piece with obvious influences from classical music especially with the use of David Cross's violin.
Progressive rock 2

This is just for fun and to perhaps discover some new prog rock bands. It will end in a tie but viewers are incouraged to vote. Just don't give any points. Guidelines:Each person posts a song for each round from a progressive rock band. Songs must be under 12 minutes. A forfeit will result in the loss of the debate. http://www.youtube.com...I'll start. "Time" is a meangful song from the concept album Dark Side of the Moon. It's lyrics were written by Roger Waters and are about the general theme of time in our every day lives. "Ticking away the moments that make up a dull dayYou fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way.Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home townWaiting for someone or something to show you the way."
Euthanasia should be legalized with requirements

2. Subjectivity"How is there no option?" If euthanasia isn't legal then it isn't an option, so there is no option. "I speak from personal experience..." This is a different logical fallacy called anecdotal [1]. "Who's to say that they are not in their right minds? Simply being in pain does not inhibit your sense of right and wrong." Pain will cause people to do things they would not normally do which is why torture is used to get information. Further, a super majority of older people suffering from terminal illnesses who attempt suicide suffer from depression. [2] "if someone is refusing treatment while writhing in agony they are ignoring the pain that is meant to save them." They would refuse treatment such as being hooked up to a machine, but that does not mean they are forgoing all medical treatment. As far as a child receiving euthanasia, there is a difference between deciding which parent to live with and ending your existence. Those two are not even close to being able to compare them. It is easy to "force" one's views? I don't like how you worded that, but it still conveys the idea. If force is needed then it obviously requires effort to enact such a policy. What is easy is saying do what ever you want.Gallup poll"The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity." [3] To respond to why should we be allowed to force our views of life on others, because things have consequences, and if the negative outweigh the positives then no matter how many people think it should happen it should not. "What gives us the right to deny them what they so desperately want?" The same thing that gives us the right to stop people from murdering their neighbors even if they desperately want to. I already explained there is no right to die, so a policy that forbids euthanasia doesn't take away any rights. "The logical fallacy is believing that we have the right to take away the choices of others because our beliefs differ from theirs." This isn't a logical fallacy. Further, we do this all the time like All Drugs & Alcohol, Euthanasia/Suicide, Prostitution, Polygamy, Gay Marriage, Cannibalism, Bestiality, Incest, Public Nudity, Abortion (According to some people), Dueling/Fights to the Death, All weapons of any kind be owned should all be legal then.Sources[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[2] https://www.nrlc.org...[3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...