BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood

Welcome everyone. I'd like to present a well informed opinion about this serious topic we have laid out on the table.I'm going to be supporting a syllogism in this debate that will help me uphold the resolution.P1) Child maltreatment causes violenceP2) Cadburry Creme Egg deprivation is a form of child maltreatmentC) Cadburry Creme Egg deprivation during childhood causes violence.Supporting P1I hereby provide a quote from a digest about a book or something:"The authors provide evidence that the apparent negative effects of maltreatment on children's propensity to engage in crime are real and not simply artifacts of other features of dysfunctional families. They find that being maltreated approximately doubles the probability of engaging in many types of crime and that the effects are worst for children from low socio-economic status backgrounds" [1].This is really all I need in order to prove that my premise 1 is true.I mean look at that. It's true.That evidence should feel proud of itself. http://i.imgur.com......; />Supporting P2Here is a heretic's review on Cadburry Creme Eggs in the form of a video [2]. He is a heretic because he is not absolutely in love with these little heaven-filled eggs. Even still, I have provided what he has to say about them. As you can see, Cadbury Creme Eggs are the best candy a child can have. I would also like to point out that child neglect is a form of child maltreatment [1]. Now, if a parent neglects to give their kid rich, beautiful chocolate filled with actual heaven, then they're committing child maltreatment.This is a year wide problem for some kids. Easter comes, and what happens? No creme eggs. It's clearly a widespread problem.Conclusion: I'm right.Now let's take a look at the whole word "largest" that I now have to support. We just need to realize how widespread this problem is. Almost everyone suffers from this. Since it's kind of a seasonal candy, a solid majority of America suffers from Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood because they only ate like ten per year. Can you imagine only breathing ten times a year? Yeah, didn't think so.What if parents forced their kids to only breath about ten times per year? Wouldn't that be child abuse? Yes, it sure would. So why are Cadbury Creme Eggs any different? They're not.I thank everyone for reading this, and I look forward to an exciting debate![3]Sources:[1] http://www.nber.org.........[2] The video http://www.youtube.com...[3] I'm the prophet of Morgan Freeman.
Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a debate that is close to my heart. Cadbury Creme Eggs are the most beautiful little pieces of heaven that exist on earth. Or at least I think so.I have selected David_Debates to debate me. After briefly glancing at his avatar, I immediately thought, "This gentlemen looks like the classic story of the intellectual challenge that I need." Just kidding, I stalked the crap out of him for like 10 minutes to make sure he writes in full sentences and doesn't forfeit debates (even the stupid ones). This guy's not a quitter, so I'd be happy to accept him as my opponent.(Leaving this in here, just in case): And another rule of the debate: When my waiter serves me your butt on a silver platter after the first round, please don't forfeit. Your life doesn't depend on winning this debate.Mine does though.AND TO THE JUDGES: This is a troll debate, so please treat it as such. If you are grading on the legitimacy of the points as they relate to what is actually real, you are judging wrong, and your votes can be reported as a vote bomb.(I'm assuming we still have a moderator. Do we have a moderator? Someone leave an answer for me in the comments. Hard to tell what authority still exists on DDO these days).However, if the David is generally funnier and/or cleverer than me during the debate, by all means, vote for him on those grounds.Voting is set to "select winner." I did this to make it more fair for myself and my opponent, because not everyone wants to have to justify giving a certain number of points in a debate that's clearly not serious.Format of the debate for me:1st round - Rules2nd round - Main arguments3rd round - Rebuttals4th round - Summary argumentsFormat of the debate for my opponent:1st round - Acceptance2nd round - Main arguments and rebuttals3rd round - Rebuttals4th round - Summary argumentsFormat of the debate for the voters:1st round - Read this2nd round - Read this too3rd round - Keep reading, you're so close4th round - Read this one for sureNow upon the acceptance of my opponent, we will fight to the death. Or not, because screw dying over this debate.
The Jewish People were mandate by God to reject Jesus as God or the messiah

The trinity is found in Hebrew scripture. http://www.godandscience.org... Yes we should start a debate on this afterward. However since you accepted that in the case I am correct let's continue from there. If the Lord is triune as I claim, and you accepted, then worshiping Jesus would Not be a problem. For they are one. Also worshiping Jesus is found in scripture which goes against what your saying. "Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!" (Psalm 2:12) The message is quite clear. http://www.godandscience.org... Your argument about the calf does not make any sense. If God raised a calf from the dead it's a miracle but unless ordered why would we worship it? We are told in scripture to worship God. We are told to worship Jesus. Hebrews chapter : "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." Quite contradictory to what you are saying. And it is clear from prophecies found in scripture that Jesus was mentioned in the old testament. Genesis 3:15; 9:27; 12:2-3; 49:8-12; Numbers 24:15-19; and Deuteronomy 18:15-18. http://www.gordonconwell.edu... You never did rebut my claim that God never specifically mandated against worshiping Jesus. While I gave concrete evidence supporting the worship of Jesus. In Conclusion... It is my belief that worshiping Jesus does not go against the word of God. I also believe it is clear that the people had clear warning about the coming of Jesus in the prophecies. For this reason vote con for I have shown you the multiple reasons why God supported the worship of Jesus both in the old testament and the old. My name is Brian N. Johnson and I thank you for reading.
The Jewish People were mandate by God to reject Jesus as God or the messiah

My opponent says "as long as god is a trinity" the Bible verses I used don't fit. Even thought the trinity is totally not found in the Hebrew Scripture and Deuteronomy 6:4 says that G-d is one. We could debate for days about the issue. Let just say that my opponent is right and see if my argument still stand. Deuteronomy 4: Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. Thus even if in heaven there would be a three gods unity. Deuteronomy 4 says "You saw no form" and don't worship anything you have not seen, Thus my argument stands. Worshipping a form or a host "Jesus" goes against Deuteronomy 4. Furthermore, I would like to ask my opponent, could G-d incarnate a golden calf? Would it still be wrong to worship that golden calf? Yes, because G-d warned against worshipping any created thing, thus worshipping Jesus is wrong. "prophecies are found throughout the old testament " This is a vague statement, when we look at the prophecies in details Jesus did not fulfil any of them. The Messiah could not go against the Torah. By using vague claims and not looking at any scripture in context, my opponent justify his Idolatry. If my opponent wants a debate on any of those prophecies, I would accept the debate. But we do not have time to use "Jesus fulfilled 355 prophecies" argument. Please use concrete example to prove your point. So in conclusion, because the disciple's parent did not know Jesus, he is a new arrival god. Worshipping created things goes against the Bible. Jesus atonement is not found in the Law, thus accepting Jesus atonement would be deviating to the right or to the left of what G-d say. Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Joshua 1:7
The Jewish People were mandate by God to reject Jesus as God or the messiah

My resolution is that "The Jews Were Not Ordered to reject Jesus as the messiah." Now I will work from there. No where in the bible does the bible force the Jews to deny Jesus as God. In fact prophecies are found throughout the old testament declaring the coming of the messiah or in other words Jesus Christ. This was to prepare the people for his coming. http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org... God does not mandate people to reject or accept anything. In the bible we learn that he gives us the choice to accept him as God or deny him as God therefore God did not force or order the Jews to deny Jesus and God. http://www.theheraldofgodsgrace.org... To rebut your claims is easy. most of them are not referring to God or Jesus but sacrificial animals. God and Jesus are part of the trinity. To say that the Lord is not Jesus involves first proving that God is not triune in nature. So when we wroship God we worship Jesus as well. When we worship Jesus we worship God. http://www.everystudent.com... So this disproves every thing you have said about worshiping other Gods since we know they are three in one . A trinity. Worshiping Jesus does not go against God or the bible. http://www.gospelway.com... In conclusion... With all things rebutted I hand the debate back to you and look forward to your response.
Legalization of suicide

Its simple, suicide is committed by people who suffer extreme hardship or are extremely weak-willed. I think suicide should be legalized as it would save up on cops' resources and reduce the demotivated population. It would save the police's time and resources as they won't have to write a report and investigate an illegal suicide. The paperwork would reduce marginally, and policemen can spend their time pursuing actual criminals. Suicide may happen due to harassment, but it can easily be reported and is not a justified reason for suicide. It would also reduce the hold of media as they use suicides to increase their newspapers or channels' popularity. As many of the weak willed individuals will die, the population would decrease and the world will consume lesser resources. Also, we would have only the motivated workers left. Suicide goes against the natural instinct for survival. It is a cowardly act and saving a person who would commit suicide will result in people discriminating that person and making life harder for him/her. It is better that they can end their life and that they won't have to endure more torment from society.
Gun control

This debate is not about whether or not the government should have the only access to firearms. A balance of power has indeed been established in The Constitution; it is obvious that the country would be sent into an uproar if this were to be challenged. On the topic of The Constitution, Amendment 2 in The Bill of Rights states that, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Some familiar synonyms for "well-regulated" are orderly, proper, appropriate, consistent and, most importantly, controlled. Gun control contradicts The Constitution? Really?
Gun control

Not every person in the United States is responsible enough to own a gun. The two students involved in the Columbine High shooting had easy access to this weapon, and they ended up killing 13 other students. Columbine High is the site of the -fourth- deadliest school massacre in history. From this information, it is evident that people have indeed abused the privelege of owning a gun time and time again. If gun control was to be strictly implemented, over time access to illegal and unregistered guns would become increasingly difficult. Many US citizens have used guns for protection in their own homes; this is a positive aspect of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. However, does the latter outweigh the innocent deaths that occur from the abuse of gun priveleges, as mentioned in the former?
Black Lives Matter Movement/Protests

Thank you for your reply. Let's start with some statistics. I'm sure you've seen this statistic commonly around the internet but nonetheless, it is still viable information. "1. Cops killed nearly twice as many whites as blacks in 2015. According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. The majority of these victims had a gun or "were armed or otherwise threatening the officer with potentially lethal force," according to MacDonald in a speech at Hillsdale College. Some may argue that these statistics are evidence of racist treatment toward blacks, since whites consist of 62 percent of the population and blacks make up 13 percent of the population. But as MacDonald writes in The Wall Street Journal, 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties." http://www.dailywire.com... The largest killer of blacks are blacks themselves. Roughly 90% of all African homicides are by others of the same race. If. This year around 90 cops have been killed. This year an estimated 126 blacks have been killed by police. The numbers are very close. http://www.dailywire.com... BLM claims that there is a growing oppression of blacks in this nation, yet they refuse to acknowledge their own races crime against itself. Over fourth of july more than 60 people were shot. Most were black yet we don't hear them protesting guns or gang violence. They protest the small percentage of white on black crimes that seemingly are unjustified, yet we later find out were justified in some cases such as trayvon martin and the ferguson shooting. http://www.copinthehood.com... Don't get me wrong. Of course there is oppression against blacks and of course there are violent hate crimes that cops commit. To those cops that commit such actions, I say they can rot in hell for all eternity. The bottom line is that BLM don't care about black lives really at all. If they truly did, why do they not address the more important issue of Gang violence and that 90% of all blacks killed are by other blacks. http://newobserveronline.com... This is the most sickening of all of the information I will present to you. "BLM agitators have also used the refrain "pigs in a blanket, fry "em like bacon!" on numerous occasions to promote violence against police officers." http://www.infowars.com... On the source I have given you there are videos of BLM protestors chanting to "Kill cops" This whole organization doesn't care about black lives and here's some more evidence of why: To conclude, BLM claim there is an outstanding oppression against blacks yet refuse to fix the bigger issues first. They claim the "#AllLivesMatter is like saying that all bones matter but you need to fix the broken one first." Is so rediculous I cannot get over how ignorant that statement is. If black lives matter, fix the bigger issues. The more profound ones.
Black Lives Matter Movement/Protests

The Black Lives Matter movement brings needed attention to police brutality in the United States. (https://www.theguardian.com...). The unnecessary violence committed by civil servants on American citizens is shameful and against the very values of this country. Our country's treatment of the black community is a stain on our good name. (https://www.rt.com...). It complicates our standing in the international community while fighting for human rights. (http://www.newsweek.com...). Since it's inception the United States government has been systematically oppressing black people. From slavery to Jim Crow to a broken criminal justice system and a rigged economy the black community has had to face overwhelming adversity in their pursuit of the American Dream. (http://www.latimes.com...). When people are being murdered by the people they pay to protect them it is every Americans duty to exercise their rights as citizens and protest this atrocity. (https://www.law.cornell.edu...). Our criminal justice system needs to be reformed. We need more transparency and more accountability. We can not allow murderers to escape justice. We can not allow the police to obstruct justice when they murder civilians. (https://www.hrw.org...). We can not allow prosecutors to act like defense attorneys for their friends in the police department when they are in front of a grand jury for taking the life of a civilian. (http://www.msnbc.com...). We need higher standards for use of force. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty so we need to err on the side of the civilian. Police can't just go around killing people when they get scared. (http://www.fox9.com...). I understand they want to go home at the end of the day but it's a dangerous job. That's what they signed up for. That's what we pay them for. We can not allow a 12 year old boy to be gunned down within seconds of the police arriving on the scene because he was playing with a toy. (https://www.theguardian.com...). I don't want that in my community and I'm sure they don't want it in their community. We must demand justice for all.
Troll debate: Spider-Man is a dork

I accept. Observation: The burden of proof is on Pro to demonstrate to us conclusively that Spiderman is a dork. He claims that I must agree first, so I will do that. However, it woud be unfair for me to give an argument in this opening round because that would mean that I would end up with one more argument than Pro. Therefore, I'm going to delay my opening contentions until the next round. I believe this is fair in light of the fact that (1) the person with the burden of proof (Pro) is always the person to argue first and (2) Pro hasn't laid out any structure for debating, so we are left to assumptions.At this point, I'm merely going to include some definitions, as Pro hasn't included any in his opening remarks. Dork [1. http://tinyurl.com...]: 1. "a silly, out-of-touch person who tends to look odd or behave ridiculously around others; a social misfit."The next definition depends largely on whether we're referring to Spiderman the fictional super hero and comic book character, or spiderman as a common noun. I'll include both definitions. Interesting to note is that "Spider-Man," which is hyphenated, appears with this spelling on Wikipedia, so I presume this is what Pro meant. Spider-Man (super hero) [2. http://tinyurl.com...]: 1. a fictional character, a comic book superhero that appears in comic books published by Marvel Comics. Spiderman [3. http://tinyurl.com...]1. a person who erects the steel structure of a building Back to Pro.
Griffin v. Love

1) Definitions "I never intended the debate to be against. Since alternative to is also a definition of versus." You should have made this clear since "against" is the most common interpretation. 2) My opponents argument "The Timberwolves are a very weak team compared to the Clippers. The Clippers have B.Diddy, E. Gordon, C. Kaman, and D. Jordan." 1)The steals, the blocks and the shooting have to do with how you deal with the other team. 2.5)On one hand with a bad team you'll get more chances but on another hand you'll be exhausted in no time if you take every chance ! Furthermore, its more likely that they'll join together against you if you're the best player. So even with that considered it all depends on ones own skill. Conclusion: Because the steals and the blocks are what make good defenders good, Love would win against Griffin.
Griffin v. Love

Griffin may be named as a rookie , but he was drafted last season. He got a season ending injury before he could step on the court. The reason why Love was drafted before Griffin was because Love was more NBA ready then Griffin was when they were both freshmen. I never intended the debate to be against. Since alternative to is also a definition of versus. Versus: against, alternative to However. I totally disagree with your last statement. Love is not only a better teammate, he is a better player. The Timberwolves are a very weak team compared to the Clippers. The Clippers have B.Diddy, E. Gordon, C. Kaman, and D. Jordan. The Timberwolves have Ridnour as a starter, along with a bunch of no names.( C. Brewer, J. Flynn, and M. Webster) D. Milicic has made a minor comeback, and the second leading scorer on the team Beasley, only last year shared 27minutes with Haslem. This is a team where it would be easy for a player to perform to fill out the stat sheet.
Griffin v. Love

1) "Griffin v. Love" implies a match between two. .:. We are debating who would win when they fight one on one. 2) Love has been in NBA for 3 years while Griffin is still a rookie. .:. We should expect Love use his experience to his advantage. 3) Love has better defense "In their one head-to-head matchup as pros, Griffin edged out Love's point and rebounding production — Griffin had 26 and 17, while Love had 24 and 14 — but Love trumped him in every other major category. He put up two more assists, two more steals, and one more block, not to mention shooting 63.6 percent from the field and 100 percent from the free-throw line to Griffin's 54.5 and 40 percent shooting stats." http://www.zimbio.com... .:. When it comes to team game then yes Griffin is definitely better. When it comes to one on one matches then the one who has the better defense wins since its almost impossible to defend your position in this type of game. Hence, Love wins.