BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Toy Story is WITCHCRAFT

Romans 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; If that is so, then Metallica IS BAD, as are you! Ecclesiastes 7:20 Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins. The problem as always, lies within the human Mind! You percieve significance where none lies. The knowledge of Men are limited by their own mentaltion, where as Gods mentation is the wisdom of the ages. The realities of This Life, from inception to beyond Life spans of Men goes on eternally. As such the wisdoms He gives also expands the timelines of normal life span. he makes possible the realities of Lives and times yet to come. Thus I see your demise, when you cannot? You cannot claim a thing not developed within you, for this cause, was the scripture :Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Do you do, the will of the father in Heaven? Batwinnerpro? ARE you truly NOT going to BURN in Hells Flames? One can but wait and see! Your profile shows:Religion:Christian - Protestant. You words suggest otherwise. Your actions suggest otherwise? Your ignorance of the Word suggest otherwise .... as a matter of simple review of your profile except for your placement of the Title? There is no way to tell you are Christian at all? Still that is Gods place to say. If you are not God will deal with you as He wills, if you are an undercover Christian then there is STILL, the. Mystery spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3 : 15 excerpt "will suffer loss but yet will be saved"even though only as one escaping through the flames." Escaping THROUGH THE FLAMES. Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Toy Story is WITCHCRAFT

my name isnt batwinnerpro... this debate was more of a joke... like you... metallica is not bad... unloess you make it... and James Hetfield is most likely a christian... he narrated a movie about pron addiction, he has a Jesus cross and an angel tattoo on his arm... and has religious topics in his music... i would highly recommend you forfeit this debate... and please quit life -_-
Toy Story is WITCHCRAFT

Greetings Batwinnerpro; I find a little down time would be good. And anything that leads to TRUTH of the Lord we serve is a worthy topic, especially those created by Mankind not in keeping with Gods Character, Nature and Reality. As in the Topic you bring up! As to MY beliefs? What God BELIEVES I believe, I hold no personal beliefs, in accordance with Matthew, Mark and Luke! Matthew 16:24,Luke 9:23 ,Mark 8:34 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Topic: Toy Story is WITCHCRAFT ANSWER: FALSE Toy Story is a Movie … I know it and so does most people. Nothing More! How does it offend God! God is the one who knows what offends Him no one else! Unless God Himself dictates to ME His follower a directive in relation TO the subject then I give the matter no thought at all? Nor should I? I do as I’m told, not as I please! The point is! God is in charge, I am not! If I truly HAVE denied myself (required for Discipleship)? How can I have an opinion on the matter? Granted there are some things that are a given, meaning no need for emphasis by God. For example hanging out and drinking at the Bars? Drinking is no sin, however drunkenness is, that having been said I do not drink to keep my witness pure! Strip joints, I cannot come up with any excuse to be found in one ever! Places where Porn is distributed, Drug Dens. Even IF legal in the State! Places that play crude or antisocial music or music which if heard by others damages my WITNESS of God, or causes another brother to stumble! Or sitting around the house listening to music that curses, promotes satanic worship … which is promotion of things I know God views AS evil. Someone driving by or coming over would become offended … thus I am to DENY myself and choose that which promotes my claim of Holiness as required by God! Then by directive of My Lord I am not to do it. 1 Corinthians 18:13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall. Romans 14:21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything to cause your brother to stumble. 1 Corinthians 18:12 12 By sinning against your brothers in this way and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:32 Do not become a stumbling block, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, Does that mean I cannot SEE the movie? Certainly not, though I may have to wait for it to be available by DVD or direct download! Do I think that it is witchcraft … am under no awareness of this. If I choose not to obey? Do I lose my salvation? Certainly not, my salvation is a gift! I certainly threaten my standing for inclusion in the Disciple position. As The Scriptures at the beginning make plain! DON’T DENY YOURSELF … no chance at being Disciple! It says that here: Luke 14:27And whoever does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple. What are your questions?
Sex education should be taught in public schools.

My Arguments Twenty-seven percent of all teens are sexually active. Now what makes more sense? Giving those teens the knowledge on how to avoid pregnancy and diseases, or rather simply teach them that it's wrong, even though these teens may still have sex anyway. Sexual education class is very important and should be taught in public schools. Sex ed provides teens with needed information, makes sure that the information is displayed properly, and is already supported by the community. It's no mystery; teens have sex whether parents want to admit or not, and nothing will change that. The schools should not ignore this issue, nor should they simply teach them that it's wrong. The schools should instead help the teenagers, by providing them with the information needed to prevent diseases, pregnancy, and other issues. Now by no means am I saying the school system should promote sex. I am saying the schools should simply provide the students with the information needed to take precautions, if in case they do find themselves in that situation. Imagine a girl who is a straight "A" student and is on the road to Harvard. However, in her senior year she accidentally becomes pregnant. Her dreams of going to Harvard, and obtaining a luxuries career have now vanished. If only she had been aware of birth control or other contraceptives. Having sex ed in schools could have prevented this case of teenage pregnancy and many other like it. My Rebuttal I can see what you are saying about the groups, however I believe students will pay more attention to this this than you give them credit for. The students would not be learning about geometry or English, they are learning about a topic that affects most of them. Even if they are not sexually active now, most people will experience intercourse within in their lives, and this information may still be useful to them. As for who should teach it, who is to say that the parents are any better than teachers. Parents would surely be teaching their children their own morals and beliefs, rather than presenting them with information and allowing them to make decisions on their own. And as for the "already know about sex" group, who learned their information over the Internet, how do they know that the knowledge they learned is true. A teacher would be able to clearly present these facts to the students and could clear up any myths the students could have heard about over the Internet.
Sex education should be taught in public schools.

This is a rather challenging debate but nevertheless, I shall win ! Short Arguments: Often, sexual education can go against an individual's moral or religious beliefs. Many schools do not teach "abstinence only" but teach how to have intercourse safely, whereas many religious and family values stress marriage before intercourse. Teachers are not always trained how to properly teach sexual education courses and may lecture their own beliefs or morals and faith into the subject matter rather than stick with the facts. My main Argument: There are 4 type of groups: 1.Ill call this the "I don't care" group. a) This part of the group simply doesn't care because they've seen it all on the web. The education (advice and things unsaid on those websites) are ignored by this group because they don't see it as important. I am a part of this group and I can say that the only thing I could think about was all the boring classes I skipped. b) This part is just like the previous part of the group and the only difference is that they are the comedians in the class. Their focus is to make funny remarks and not learn. Furthermore I must add that its distracting to anyone who wants to listen not that anyone listens (with few exceptions). 2.Ill call this the "Best life now" group. a) Students who spent long hours near the computer or their PS3 tend not to listen. Mostly because this doesn't effect them especially when considering the near future. What can I say they're gamers. b) They are party animals who do what they want despite what they are told. Most of them are normal people but they like to drink a bit too much alcohol. 3.Ill call this the "Individuals" group. a) Teens who are consumed by other things (friends,reputation,education). As a result they have other things to think about. b) Anyone with money, they have their life prepared by parents hence they are carefree. c) Some students simply don't listen d) Many many students don't take these classes seriously and instead of listening they rejoice their skipped classes. e) Students who have been thought by their parents already know everything 4.People who learn I'm not familiar with this group. Please respond at the last hour because if you don't I may end up forfeiting a round for no reason.
Students should complete a community service requirement to graduate from high school.

Life is full of many opportunities. Serving is one of them. Just like most things in this world, they don't start out fun and enjoyable. Take sports for example. When you first begin to train you don't like it at all. It is tedious and often we don't want to do it. In the same way, when we first start to serve it isn't great. It isn't particularly enjoyable. Yet I have to return to my first point and that is that serving brings you to a point beyond yourself. It brings you to the idea that maybe this whole world isn't all about you. Maybe there is more to life than yourself. Not only are there health benefits to serving it broadens your worldview. There is more to life than just you. Given if this is carried out incorrectly it CAN have negative effects but like most things if it is lead well and wisely it can have lasting effects on the students. Students would begin to realize just how much they actually have (education, a home etc.). Serving in schools can change lives. Now like I said and was quoted on before some will like it some will not. I am not talking about serving outside the schools. That is a different case. Sometimes we have to do things we don't enjoy or like so as to get to a better place. Once students are in the habit of serving (which is not a form of slavery) they will begin to serve more and begin to enjoy it. Like many things in life they start out unenjoyable but become better and better as they mature and grow. There are benefits to serving while there are no benefits to being a slave. It is incomparable. Serving has benefits in schools in terms of getting scholarships for college and getting into colleges. The biggest thing though is that serving in schools can broaden peoples mindsets and worldviews. The way one goes about doing this will indeed change the experience of the student.
Students should complete a community service requirement to graduate from high school.

In this speech I am going to refute what my opponent has said. They basically talk about two things, so I will respond to them in the order they are said. First, my opponent says that "given some people will probably not benefit from the service projects in the community, that does not give a sufficient response as to why the entire idea should be taken away. One can not please everybody. some will benefit and some will not benefit". See my opponent is saying that just because one person doesn't like community service doesn't mean it should be taken away, but this isn't the case. I am not arguing that there should be no community service, but rather that community service should not be forced on students in high school to graduate. What I am saying is that service should be voluntary, not required to graduate. If somebody wants to do service, they are free to, but if somebody doesn't want to, they shouldn't be forced.Second, my opponent asks if I would "use the same standard for whether or not one would like to do math or science in school". And no, I wouldn't use the same standard. If you look at the 13th amendment (which is what I mentioned) it says "involuntary SERVITUDE". Community service is "servitude" (you are doing services), math and science are not (you are not doing services). This means that required community service violates the 13th amendment, but math and science do not. These do not fall under the same category, and do not violate the constitution, but required community service does.Hopefully you all see that I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments. Vote Con if you don't want to violate the constitution and don't want to reduce the amount of community service done. Thank you.
Students should complete a community service requirement to graduate from high school.

There are various community service outreaches. Like any subject in school, you may enjoy it or you may dread it and feel like it is a burden to you. Take the subject of math for example and compare it to community service. There are various areas of community service just like there are many areas of mathematics. There is algebra, geometry trigonometry, calculus and many other areas of math. In the same way community service has many areas. One could help the community by feeding the poor, picking up trash in the neighborhood and many other things. Some people hate geometry but love algebra in the same way that some people love helping the homeless but feel like it is a burden to pick up the trash. Different areas are for different people. Given some people will probably not benefit from the service projects in the community, that does not give a sufficient response as to why the entire idea should be taken away. One can not please everybody. some will benefit and some will not benefit. In response to what my opponent said about community service being in equivalent to slavery, I have a few words to say. People treated like dogs. They were not treated like human beings. Is then a student doing math or science that he/she does not enjoy also considered slavery? It is also considered involuntary. You see just because one does not want to do it does not make it unbenneficial. Involuntary community service can by no means be compared to original slavery. The standard my opponent uses for community service being equivalent to slavery and a violation of human rights is not being used in all aspects (would you use the same standard for whether or not one would like to do math or science in school). Does not math or science or anything the students don't like change the atmosphere in a school? The example my opponent gave about a student who has to feed his family is a specific case. The entire school does not have that situation. One can not base the entire decision on specific cases. I hope I have convinced you well enough.
Students should complete a community service requirement to graduate from high school.

In school its all about you (the students). From day one it has always been about you getting good grades, you making friends, you being popular. While those things are nice, they are not what life is about. When students or most people for that matter are asked "What do you love to do" normally it is something that benefits them. What the really love is the emotion of joy. The idea that material or self service will satisfy them. What most fail to understand is that there is joy in serving. While it is good to take care of yourself, serving others is important in teaching students about life. Students must understand that there is more to life than themselves. One feels deep fulfillment when they serve and give to others. There is a saying "you reap what you sow". When we see and give joy to others it seemingly gives joy to us. http://www.becomingminimalist.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Students should complete a community service requirement to graduate from high school.

-No semantics or ad hominem attacks. -Use actual evidence and cite sources please. -Have fun! A couple other things about my speeches: -If anyone doesn't know, a contention is another word for point or assertion, I will be using this word in my speeches. Also, c means contention as well (like if I say C1 it means Contention 1). -Also, a criterion (also called standard) is something which the judge chooses who wins the debate by, it is part of framework. For example, if the criterion is health (and both sides accept this criterion), then all arguments that don't involve health are invalid, because the judge, or in this case the voters, are only focusing on health. -Lastly, if, at any time, I say "we", "our", or similar words in my speech, it means my team, which in this case is just myself (sorry, used to typing out cases for a team of multiple people).
Taxes should raised on the rich peoples

It appears that you have something against rich people. Rich people may have gotten rich by luck but some, Also more commonly done, Via hard work. Thousands of hours in a room working hard on a product which then finally gets its big break. It is nobodies moral duty to "share" what they have. If you earn something, It's yours. You may choose to give, Spend or keep. To put it in simple words, If you were to earn lots of money via hard work, How would you feel to have a large portion snatched away for simply the reason of you earning it. I recommend researching anarcho capitalism, It'd be beneficial to you :>
Taxes should raised on the rich peoples

I'm not sure about 70% but taxes definetely should be raised on the rich, Progressive taxation is the only moral way to go. If you have a lot it is your duty your moral obligation to share i remember learning that in kindergarden and sunday school, If you are lucky enough to be rich and don't give me this crap about how hard you woked because i have been around wealthy people all my life and poor people too, The very rich and very poor are lazy and indolent but the working poor work very hard the middle class works hard, The upper classes, They got lucky thats all, No one deserves to be rich if some are poor
Pleasant Grove City vs. Summum (a first amendment case)

It is unfortunate that my opponent missed R2 - for I have a feeling he may have some things to say about my following statements. But, alas...My closing arguments. My opponent states in his first argument that the 10 Commandments monument does not constitutes making a law respecting Christianity. He uses this as one of his primary supporting statements. In my rebuttal, I state it constitutes exactly this. Now he backtracks and states- "Furthermore, the case in this debate, the one that the Supreme court will hear, does not regard the establishment clause. Summum's case regards their free speech to display the Aphorisms in a public place. The government owns the ten commandments monument, it was given by a private organization, but it is the speech of the government." I beg to differ. True, the case has not been tried as an Establishment Clause case ; rather it is a Free Speech Clause dispute. But that distinction did not dissuade the Justices, from the earliest point in the argument, from pressing questions about whether the city's embrace of the Eagle' granite donation was a form of endorsement of its decidedly religious message. Jay Alan Sekulow, the Washington, D.C., lawyer for the Utah city, had barely begun his argument when Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., told him:"You're really just picking your poison, aren't you? I mean, the more you say that the monument is Government speech, to get out of the Free Speech Clause, the more it seems to me you're walking into a trap under the Establishment Clause." My opponent states- " My opponent lists documents that he says are "more relevant to legal development than the ten commandments". The park is more centered on the social development of the region when it was first settled then legal development. (Also, I think there is a strong basis for argument that the ten commandments are at least as relevant to legal development as the Magna Carta, Hammurabi's Code, and the US constitution, etc.)" IF this is a monument to "social" development, then where is the statue of Joseph Smith holding the Book of Mormon? By the way, if the 10 Commandments were as vital to legal development as my opponent states, why is it our laws only reflect 3 of said 10? My opponents whole argument stems on his assertion that the Ten Commandments are NOT a tribute to the Christian religion. It sure sounds like the City is trying to water down the religious significance of the Ten Commandments in order to push wider dissemination of the Ten Commandments. I must deny thee to defend thee. Wow. No matter if the city built the park as a public forum or not, it is one by virtue of being PUBLIC - where is it legal for everyone to go? Where do most protests occur? ON PUBLIC LAND. The majority gets to promote its religion through government as long as it's dressed up to appear as history.