BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
King James Onlyism

I am going to Dayton, OH and will not have time for a super long rebuttal. However, I cannot understand what you are trying to say. You have horrible grammar and the format makes it impossible to know where you are trying to go. In the next round, I'd request that you make it clearer where you are trying to go (i.e., bolded headings showing the contention that you are disputing). Before I leave, I will make mention of John 8:1-11 which you cited. The problem is that the passage is absent from the earliest of the Greek manuscripts. It does not appear in the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus and most of the later Greek manuscripts also omit it. It is also interesting to note that the passage is sometimes omitted in John all together, but added in Luke (after 21:38)! The earliest translations of the Bible including the Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian versions omit this passage. It was apparently unknown before Ambrose and Augustine. (http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...;) Also, I am going to make note of something that you stated:"Now my opponent failed to answer this part of my argument in Mark 16. Again, there are only TWO GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OUT OF 1600 MANUSCRIPTS that contain the Gospel of Mark which do not have the passage:Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (sic). Additionally, there is an ENTIRE BLANK COLUMN IN VATICANUS (sic) AFTER Mark 16:8 and it leaves about the RIGHT SIZE FOR VERSES 9-20. This means the scribe knew of a manuscript which had the passage and didnt (sic) know whether to include or omit it, so he left the column blank. AND AGAIN, with the passage gone, there would be 666 verses in the Book of Mark." My opponent once more uses the genetic fallacy for the number 666 (http://en.wikipedia.org...;), it also overlooks the fact that verses are not inspired, but are all man-made. Every scholar knows this so the exact real number of verses in the Gospel of Mark is 0! CROSS EXAMINATION1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times?2. What Bible would you recommend before 1611? Where was the Bible before then?3. Did Paul/Jesus use the KJV?4. Why do you reject the apocypha since the original 1611 version contained it? 5. If the KJV translators were inspire, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha?http://www.bible.ca...http://www.bible.ca...Again, I can barely understand what you are attempting to say. I will respond to anything I did not respond to in the next round. Moreover, you still failed to fulfill the burden of proof -- which is yours.
King James Onlyism

The King James Version(KJV) is superior compared to modern versions for several reasons. In this round I would like to mention errors concerning the omission of verses found in modern versions. The following verses are removed: Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24 New International Version(NIV) New American Standard Version(NASV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, and Luke 24:40 are removed Revised Standard Version(RSV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, Luke 24:40, Matt. 12:47, Matt 21:44, Mark 16:9-20(THATS A WHOLE PASSAGE), Luke 22:43,44, 24:12, John 7:53-8:11(WHOLE PASSAGE), and James 1:8 New Revised Standard Version(NRSV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and James 1:8 New Century Version(NCV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24 Now that is just examples from 5 modern versions. The King James Bible has all of those verses. I believe the Bible(KJV)is the Word of God and if so, then to remove whole verses(NIV removes 63,625 words altogether) is absolutely SATANIC! Removing 63,625 words would be the equivalent of removing Obadiah, Jonah, Haggai, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude. It just removes a word here and a word there so you dont notice it. This is not the only reason that the KJV is superior but this reason alone should convince any honest person.
k

My opponent has put "k" as the resolution and "o" as his argument. Clearly, he is trying to convey the abbreviation "K.O.," which means "Knock Out." In other words, Pro is attempting to prove that he has knocked me out. I, Con, will argue that he has not knocked me out. It is clear that my opponent has not knocked me out, otherwise I would be incapable of typing this paragraph. Furthermore, it seems that he is the one who is knocked out, as he has not been on for approximately two days, according to his profile [1]. Because I am not the one who is knocked out, then I win this debate. Thank you.[1] http://www.debate.org...
Global warming is likely (and mostly) anthropogenic

This is for Subutai's environmental tournament. In this debate, I am for the resolution. The BOP will be even since this is a contested issue--BOP shall not be negotiated. The debate structure is first round acceptance, second round arguments (no rebuttals), third round rebuttals/defense, fourth round rebuttals/defense. My opponent is familiar with the wording, and definitions are not needed. Have fun!
Diabetes Should be Illegal

Here we are at debate #14. I have already done 13 debates with you. Well, I believe that diabetes should be illegal. Diabetic people are fat. Fat people absorb too much sunlight, which will cause plants to not be able to produce, so plants will die, and then herbivores will die, and then carnivores who eat herbivores will die, and then the superior Russians will die out. Russian people are supreme to every race. Also, diabetics have to pee all the time, so they either stink up the world or flush too much and cause the world to run out of water. We have 3 rounds, and you have a max of 8000 characters.
Magic is an art.

Oh so you want an argment, that's it. I am going to take you so high youre never going back down. If magic is a lube, should lube be art? No. That would P/O many happy familys trying to visit some art museum. If magic ISNT a lube, then that would P/O many artists trying to sell there art when same magician is holding up a sign that says "will show u sum fake trix for moneyz. i m a veterann," "Your face" is so last year. Your mother is a lube.
Dragonfire1414 is more of an idiot than Colucci

My opponent called me and idiot before I called him one, so I was just returning the favor when I said he was an idiot. I do not think my opponent is someone who is a "person lacking professional skill," I just accepted this debate because I wanted to show my cousin JP, and my brother charles15 how seriously Dragonfire1414 was taking my sarcastic remark about calling JP "a fool," or whatever it was. They both thought it was really funny when they saw the debate and when they realized that Dragonfire1414 was being dead serious in this debate. I really don't care about winning this debate I just wanted show my friends something funny. So I guess you could say I don't really care if I have to "bear the burden of proof" lol, I just think its funny that Dragonfire1414 acts like all of these debates are so serious, seriously take a joke lol. O well I guess some people are just arrogant and they want to argue with everybody that appears to be an "idiot" to them.
Dragonfire1414 is more of an idiot than Colucci

Although Pro does bear the burden of proof, I will present evidence as to prove that I am not an idiot (Colucci claimed that I am an idiot and I thought that he could try to prove it, since I do not believe I am an idiot.) and allow the judges to determine who will win. First I would like to define "idiot". Idiot is a word derived from the Greek "person lacking professional skill," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot 1: I would like to point out my opponent's postings in the comments section, and the personal insults round one. This shows that my opponent, does in fact, lack professional skill. 2: I will point out some of my opponent's previous debates and postings, and if you read them, you will see that my opponent lacks professional skill. http://www.debate.org... Note the comment that he posted. "u are a fool JP" That was an unprovoked personal attack, which my opponent posted because he was losing the debate, showing a great lack of professional skill, but showing immaturity. Also note this debate, in which my opponent forfeited rounds, showing a lack of being professional, as forfeiting debates is unprofessional. My opponent also posted a total of 20 videos in the "comments" section to try to convince voters by showing videos that have people argue for his side, instead of actually doing a full debate and coming up with his own arguments, which also shows he is unprofessional. http://www.debate.org... I will now allow my opponent to post his arguments, and will gladly respond to them.
Ghosts and Spirits' Existence

There are unexplainable things and many sightings of ghosts. http://terrifyingtales.blogspot.com... Explain that link nad these as well: http://www.ghostsofamerica.com... http://www.ghostsofamerica.com... http://www.ghostsofamerica.com... http://www.ghostsofamerica.com... http://www.ghostsofamerica.com... I think that is enough local tales from around the states.
Ghosts and Spirits' Existence

I would like to start off by first thanking the user "Im_always_right" for taking this debate. I also like to thank all the readers who may be reading this, and debate.org for making all this possible =] Now... let's get to business... I have read all the content presented on the web page which supposedly "proves that ghosts do in fact exist". I have NOT, however, find any contentions for the existence of ghost contrary to what the pro side has promised. The first three paragraphs on the page deal with definitions of "ghost" and how ghosts are described, as well as how science negates it. The fourth paragraph has informed me of the term "Ectoplasm". Apparently, it means "the substance from which spirits and ghosts are made of" However, there is not much information beyond this. No evidence has been provided for the existence of ectoplasm. The fifth paragraph... to put it mildly, is quite humorous. It says that "An astonishing fact is that the best details about the existence of ghost can be obtained from Garuda Purana" The details are as follows, "people who do sins will be reborn as ghosts [...] they consume vomit, waste, cough, urine and tears" The question why these "astonishing" details are the "best" about the existence of ghost is never answered. The final paragraph presents information that I am supposed to use against the pro side. It basically makes the case that people who believed that have encountered ghosts may be mistaken. So to sum up this round, the pro side has directed me to a web page, which was supposed to prove that ghosts exist. However, I cannot find within the page, even an ATTEMPT to prove that ghosts exist. I urge all the voters to go to the site and see for yourself. If you agree with me, vote Con!! final note, I also urge the pro side to present evidence and contentions directly on the site. It is easier to debate if we know the specific arguments you want to use.
Ghosts and Spirits' Existence

Although they may be interesting stories to read, they are of no value whatsoever scientifically. It will take a lot more than ghosts stories to prove that ghosts exist, especially if the stories are found on a website that is for entertaining purposes. Anyone could submit their own story to the site and it would be published. There will be no need to provide evidence that the story really happened. In fact, it is almost a guarantee that all the stories found on the site ghostofamerica. com (which is the site 5 out of the 6 stories my opponent has provided came from) are fabricated. At the bottom of the home page, there is a disclaimer that states "the material on this site is for entertainment purposes only". It further says that all resemblances of its stories to actual people are coincidences only. Even if those stories are coming from people who genuinely believe they have encountered ghosts, one still could not take their words as evidence that ghosts exist. If I say I saw a flying spaghetti monster, no one would believe unless I show some concrete evidence. Even if I am able to provide photographs, they would need to be checked for genuineness. In science, anecdotal evidence can not prove anything. My opponent would need to provide more concrete evidence from a reliable source that ghosts exist.
Tests and exams should be banned at schools

I know that many of you will automatically vote against this topic because many of you hate tests and exams. But for the sake of the educationally value in today's round, I hope you can step aside and consider both teams arguments. Starting off, I would really like to thank my opponent for hosting this debate, a real opportunity to see a real world problem. I negate. Resolved: Tests and exams should be banned at schools. For efficiency of this round, definitions: Tests/Exams: a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use. - Merriam-Webster Framework: Since the resolution writes that tests and exams should be banned at school, then we should value education. Whichever team solves for education in today's round, wins. Observation 1: Tests have been around for when education was started, if people thought that tests were bad, it would've been voted down way before this debate. Lets begin. Contention 1: There's no such things at "banning" tests You may ban final exams in school, but ultimately when you ban these things you can't see how well students are doing in schools. This will result into many administrators finding other ways to "find" your skills and see your level, which ultimately is still a test, as I provided a definition stating that "it is a procedure to find the quality in someone/something". Therefore, it is the burden of the affirmative to not only prove that testing is bad, but also prove that when you ban tests you can still measure skills without linking back into my definition of tests. As the Brooking Institute explains on August 3rd of 2015, that even if you ban tests, there's not way of measuring skills, not letting us prove which person is more fit for a position or job, resulting into a backward step in our world. Contention 2: Tests provide a guide to education Whether to identify struggling students who need help, or gifted children for possible advancement, standardized tests provide benchmarks of average performance so this is possible. Powerlearning explains that standardized testing can provide benchmarks for parents and teachers. This allows parents and teachers to see how a student is doing compared to other students in his or her class, city, and country. It provides guidelines for curriculum. Standardized tests give teachers a structure of what needs to be taught. This helps keep classroom material consistent across the country. Contention 3: Majority With 95% of legislators standing for tests and exams, there's no way that standardized testing and exams are going to be removed. Make it also the affirmative's job to prove to you that there's some miracle that comes and changes the minds of these legislators. Along with that, a BBC poll done in an anonymous school showed that in fact, 80% of kids in elementary, secondary education supported exams and tests. There is no existing problem in the status quo, so there's no reason to change what has been working for thousands of years and has the majority of support. With this, I proudly negate for the sake of education.
Tests and exams should be banned at schools

A lot of people, specially teachers, believe that tests are necessary just to see their students' progress at different topics.Then why are students so anxious about having a test if it is not that big deal?Let me explain you why. Albert Einstein once said: 'Everybody's a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.'That is what our schools does, they are judging every student the same without realising that everyone is different,scientists can tell you that no two brains are the same, everyone is good at different things, but our teachers are making students compete with each other. 'Oh, John got an A, but I got C, I'm useless'Many kids can not reach their goals, or find their gifts because they believe they are stupid.School, that is what you want to succeed? Well done then you did it.You claim to prepare students for the future?Then why don't you learn us how to cope with lifes difficulties or how to get a job?The world has progressed and now we need people who think creatively and innovatively, that is how they are going to succeed. Not with a paper with lots of questions.That's what I had to say, the decision is yours.
"In God We Trust" on the currency is unconstitutional and should be removed.

The quote, "In god we trust", was put in action in the 1800s, when the USA was predominantly Christian. Just because a minority does not believe in a God that does not mean that the majority cannot. The government is supposed to represent the majority of America, and is it wrong to say that the majority of America believes that there is a God??? Also, just because that Constitution wants a "separation between church and state" does not mean that the government has to be an atheistic one. In addition, "separation of church and state" is reffering to establishing a national religion. "In God We Trust" is just saying that the government respects the fact that thre are people in America who do believe that there is a God. Again, if you are going to take "separation of church and state" literally, then why aren't all of our politicians atheits? Almost all of our Presidents have had a religion that they follow! If we are really going to follow "separation of church and state" then all of our Presidents should be Atheists! Are they? No. Also, if we are to take "In God We Trust" off our currency, then we must also have to change all the things in America that have any religous connections. No San Fransisco, no St. Paul, no "under God" in the Pledge, none of the things that help make America, America! If you take off "In God We Trust," something that has been with our country for over a century, then we may as well take away everything that has made our country unique that has any connections to the government and religion. In conclusion, what is wrong with respecting other religions through our currnecy? The constitution only says that we cannot establish a national religion that is the one that the government recognizes as one we must all follow. Thank you
"In God We Trust" on the currency is unconstitutional and should be removed.

Hello. I am accepting this challenge on the grounds that I don't know very much about this subject, but I will try my best. True, "In God We Trust" is a religous statement, but we must remember that our country was founded by people who were Christians, and they are a part of the USA heritage. To say that Christianity is not part of our heritage is just like saying the USA was not part of WWII. Christianity has been linked to our society since the beginning, and is it wrong to honor the USA's heritage? Also, the Constitution only states that the government is not allowed to establish a national religion. Saying "In God We Trust" is in no way establishing religion."It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." Arownow V. United States. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Thank You.
"In God We Trust" on the currency is unconstitutional and should be removed.

If it is so unConstitutional, then why is it still on our money? Surely someone would have taken it to court and it would have been undoubtedly removed. But it has not. Why? Because it is not advancing religion or putting in place a national religion. The Constitution states that the government cannot institute a national religion. "In God We Trust" is just saying that the majority of America believes in a God, and since the government is supposed to represent the most people possible, then is it wrong to say that "we", being the majority of America, cannot believe and trust in a God? The government is not setting up a religion for which everyone has to adhere by. They are not setting up a church. They are not trying to turn you to Christianity. So they are not fighting for the advancement of a religion! << Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.">> In what way is the government participating in a religious group? If the "wall" is so important, then why do we have so many religious references in our government? On the wall of the Supreme Court, the quote,"In God We Trust" is hung. If it is so unConstitutional, wouldn't the Supreme Court have stated that? Wouldn't they have required that the government stop printing money with it on it??? Isn't that the job of the Supreme Court to see what is unConstitutional with what our government does and make sure it is Constitutional? If they have not done anything to change it, then it must be Constitutional! They have had over a century to stop it, but they haven't. Why? Becuase it is constitutional becuase it is not establishing a national religion or advancing one, which is the only thing the Constitution says the government cannot do in this case. Thank You.
Nike should be banned from the USA!

~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~ ///Point 1. /// I don't see how overcharging for a product means that Nike should be banned. As a consumer with a brain and free will you can choose to not buy Nike brand items. They are not holding a gun to your head and telling you to fork over your money. ///Point 2. /// This isn't really a point, all it says is that most of the money goes to advertising and that all you are paying for is a name. In society names hold a lot of power. For instance a lawyer that has a Harvard Law degree can pretty much have his pick of any job involving law; an engineer with a degree from MIT can likewise get pretty much any job in that field. Names are status symbols. Does a Rolex watch tell time any better than a working five dollar watch you got from a street vendor, no. His point again fails to supportthe resolution that Nike should be banned. ///Point 3. /// To answer your question; because I both can not hear them and I don't care. Now back to topic. These sweatshops are in countries where there is no minimum wage and therefore these places can pay them this small amount of money. Another factor to consider is that for many of these workers it is either $.16 an hour or nothing. If Nike wasn't buying shoes from these places then they couldn't pay their workers.