BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should start a second holocaust

Hmph. Just as I predicted. A simple minded plankton like yourself would not even begin to comprehend the master class debate tactics I have employed here. I now have you trapped exactly where I want you. Say your last words, For this will be the last debate you shall ever have! To address your first point, There is one fatal flaw. Who in their right mind would want to live within 10 kilometres of a goddamn nigger, Gay, Chink, Or jew? We need at least a 10 kilometres distance from any concentration camps established. In addition, The world is mostly unhabitable as the vast majority of it is ocean. This percent will only increase once my turbo tsunami bombs begin production. I will bring a dark vengeance unto the entire world that rivals the great flood sent by God. Secondly, To address your other point, There is a clear explanation to why the crime rates in America is higher. Crimes must be commited by people. Afterall, You can't give a dog a court trial. And of course, The majority of citizens in Israel are jews, Who aren't people, But rather animals. Thus, It would only make logical sense why the American crime rate is higher. Because we actually have people, Not barbaric savage jews or niggers, Living here!
We should start a second holocaust

I know you are joking, But I'm bored. So I will destroy your arguments. First of all, The earth is overpopulated. I would beg to difer. Let's assume that there is approximatly 7 billion people on earth. He area of Texas is about 262, 000 mi2. Dividing this figure by the current human population of 7 billion leaves each person with less than 100 square meters, A small plot the size of a big room about 10 m x 10 m. I don't propose we use texas, As that place is mostly desert anyway. However, The world is far larger then Texas. Concerning your arguably racist remark that all jews are theives. The crime rate in the US is higher then in Israel. Therefore, Instead of killing all jews, Lets kill all the americans. They were probably going to start WWIII anyway, We would be doing them a favor.
We should start a second holocaust

Last night, I read the book Mein Kampf, Written by the great hero of Germany, Adolf Hitler. It was for a university assignment, And afterwards, Our professor told us that all Hitler wanted to do was solve Germanys overpopulation problem. He was just a misunderstood patriot, Was all. So my first point is that the holocaust was for a good cause. And i don't think anyone can deny that we have a real overpopulation problem, Especially in places like India or China. So if we were to start an Indian holocaust and kill all Indian people in India, For example, It would really help with overpopulation. In addition, Adolf Hitler was justified in his actions. Jews are natural born thieves, And are able to sniff out coins like a nigger sensing that his whipping's about to come. In killing the jews, Adolf also solved germany's economic troubles in one bold move! And of course we know America is $20 dollars in debt, So if we killed all thieves on site, Then we kill solve our national debt!
plus is minus, and minus is plus, equal is logic

Loooook spexie boy. Spexinatior baby face! You logic is bad man"you cant give me an apple, without taking an apple from somewhere"Suuuuure thats conservation see. But consevation dont mean giving is taking. If I take away a baby from the world you dont get anything (except immense joy) but thats abstract.Addition and subtraction are abstract wit clear definitions. One isnt the other and givin a real world example is a fail see because its an abstrart baby. Ring a ding. Here'sa puppy because many of the readers prolly hav a headache from reading spex http://upload.wikimedia.org...; width="1453" height="969" />
Jesus fulfilled no prophecies

First off, I never said Isaiah was speaking, I still can't see how you are coming away with all this made up trash. Isaiah: Yes the tense is present, I'm glad you finally figured something out. The tense is present because it is saying that this event will happen in the future, which it did. I rest my case, I hope my opponent can realize that his arguments were riddled with fallacies and that he will actually take the time to read and notice things that he overlooked.
Jesus fulfilled no prophecies

Isaiah 50:6 I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting. In Isaiah 50, there is no reason not to believe that Isaiah himself is speaking. So said the Lord, "Where is your mother's bill of divorce that I sent her away? Or, who is it of My creditors to whom I sold you? Behold for your iniquities you were sold, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away. Why have I come and there is no man? [Why] have I called and no one answers? Is My hand too short to redeem, or do I have no strength to save? Behold, with My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make rivers into a desert; their fish become foul because there is no water and die because of thirst. I clothe the heavens with darkness, and I make sackcloth their raiment. Isaiah 50:1-3, the L-rd is speaking. I clothe the heavens with darkness, and I make sackcloth their raiment. The Lord God gave me a tongue for teaching, to know to establish times for the faint [for His] word; He awakens me every morning, He awakens My ear, to hear according to the teachings. The Lord God opened my ear, and I did not rebel; I did not turn away backwards. I gave my back to smiters and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I did not hide my face from embarrassments and spitting. But the Lord God helps me, therefore, I was not embarrassed; therefore, I made my face like flint, and I knew that I would not be ashamed. He Who vindicates me is near, whoever wishes to quarrel with me-let us stand together; whoever is my contender shall approach me. Here Isaiah is speaking. Those who smite and pulled his hair were actually the house of Judah. There is no reason to see those verses as prophecy or messianic. (Taking out of context) Nowhere in the New testament Jesus beard was pulled. And furthermore, many people were scoff in the world without answering back. This cannot prove Jesus to be the messiah, nor can you use that Bible verse to point to Jesus. Taking out of context, you could say that Martin Luther King Jr. fulfilled it. He did not answer violently to people and he was like a flint against racism! To come back with Isaiah 7... the tense is present, not future in the original Hebrew. behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. http://www.chabad.org... And still the context does not fit with Jesus at all... So my opponent has not show any bible verse that Jesus fulfilled, and only him could fulfilled. Thank you
Jesus fulfilled no prophecies

In Isaiah 50:6, the prophet (it is not known who) writes about a servant of God who endures abuse at the hands of sinful people. This servant offers his back to those who beat him, his face to those who rip out his beard, and himself to those who mock and taunt him. Christians historically have acknowledged this Old Testament prophecy as being fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who lived about 700 years after Isaiah. Jesus, as explained in the New Testament, was beaten, mocked and taunted shortly before his crucifixion by the Romans. In Matthew 26:67 (NIV translation), for example, it says: Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?" Isaiah 50:6 I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting. I am going to bring up Isaiah again, same verse. Prophecy: Isaiah7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Fulfilment: Matthew 1:23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" Yes they are nearly the same but Matthew outlines the birth details of Jesus while he is being born and therefore fulfills the prophecy.
Jesus fulfilled no prophecies

First, I did not say that Mary was not a virgin... I am saying that Isaiah 7 does not talk about her. It is actually possible for a virgin to become pregnant, you may want to do a Google search and tons of girls are asking that very question and are worried they are actually pregnant, wile still virgins... (Let's not go more in detail, I think you can understand). In fact, it does not mater if Mary was a virgin or not. Why? Because nobody could have check! Even poor Joseph wanted to dispose of her secretly, because he thought she was not a virgin any more. "since you are so sure that Mary was not a virgin then prove it to me. " Finally, the burden of the proof is on you, as I said in the first round of the debate "My opponent will have to prove reasonably..." Because there is more space available, I will ask my opponent to read Isaiah 7 in context, he may be able to see that it does not talk about Jesus, because that child will be born before the land of the two kings be abandoned... http://www.chabad.org... For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." Thank you
Jesus fulfilled no prophecies

First off, I specified the verses because I didn't want you to pull something from nothing, which you did and completely skipped the whole track of things from my first argument. Secondly since you are so sure that Mary was not a virgin then prove it to me. You are also twisting things to your own advantage by saying that it should not be translated by this, but by that. You are refuting points that I didn't even bring up! I can't say anymore, that will have to wait for round 4. I hope that anyone looking at this won't be fooled by FACTS that have been twisted to one's advantage.
Jesus fulfilled no prophecies

My opponent uses Psalm 2. "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion." This is one part of Psalm 2. The "anointed one" is a King. Jesus was not a king, he actually say "my kingdom is not of this world. This is the third poin (Fulfilled in heaven or in the spiritual realm). Furthermore, psalm 2 also say: Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break[a] them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter"s vessel."" So this king will have dominion over all the earth. It falls on category (Have not happened yet) as Jesus never ruled over all the earth. Finally Psalm 2 says: Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, The word "son" is not "son" in hebrew (ben) but son in Aramaic. This would be the only word in the book of psalm that would be an Aramaic word. The word "Bar" should not be translated as "son" but as "purity". Thus it fits in the (Wrongly translated). If my opponent insists that it is son, all kings need to obeyed anyway, that would not mean "worshipped" as Christians would say. For Isaiah 7, this is an awful prophecy to prove Jesus. This is totally taken out of context. First the word "Alma" should not be translate as "virgin" but young woman. Look at Proverbs 30: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a young woman (alma). This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, 'I've done nothing wrong.' Proverb 30:20 This young woman was definitively not virgin. So it falls in the category (Wrongly translated). But again, my opponent will tell you it really means virgin, but even if it would be a virgin, the whole context of this Bible verse does not fit Jesus. King Ahab was worry that the king of Syria (Rezin) and the king of Israel (Pekah son of Remaliah) would invite Judah. God give Ahab a sign: Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.16 For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." You see, the child will still eat curd when those two kings (Rezin and Pekah son of Remaliah). Jesus was born 700 years later! That falls then in the category (Taking out of context). Thus those two verses quoted by my opponent don't fit with Jesus and cannot be used to prove him.
Jesus fulfilled no prophecies

Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of being the Son of God stated in Psalm 2:7 which says, "I will proclaim the Lord's decree: He said to me, today I have become your father. (note this is a new testament prophecy that was fulfilled) And if you do not believe that Jesus is the son of God and you prefer an old testament prophecy then here it is. In Isaiah 7:14 it says "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin* will conceive and give birth to a son. "
Abortion should be legal

1) Constitutional Right in the US In Roe vs Wade it was ruled as a violation of the Constitution to prohibit abortions under the 9th and 14th amendments. It is a woman's choice and right to her own body in regards to having an abortion ( http://www.lawnix.com... ). 2) Self Defense We have the right to self defense in the united states. If and when a fetus is damaging a woman to the point it can endanger her life, the mother should be able to reasonably defend herself against the fetus. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) This basically states that someone can murder another person ( assuming the baby is a person ) under the pretense of self defense. Think of it like this, if someone is coming at you with a knife do you have the right to kill that person? The answer is yes. If a fetus is endangering your life, you should be able to reasonably defend yourself. a) consequences This should be the mothers choice to end the pregnancy. The fetus is sapping nutrients, increasing how tired the mother is, making her miss work, etc. This could effectively mess up her real life. If you cannot maintain having a baby, and a fetus was conceived on accident, you should be able to opt out. Some people are not financially capable of carrying out the entire pregnancy, and missing work, the effects it has on their health, and other impacts could negatively impact their life in a way where they may actually grow to hate the child and or give it away. Child's that are adopted are three times more likely to commit crimes, than those that are raised properly. 3 ) Rape Almost 1 percent of all pregnancies are from rape ( http://www.operationrescue.org... ). Rape is a net detriment all around, as the mother has no choice in the pregnancy. The most applicable scenario to this is the violinist analogy. ( http://spot.colorado.edu... ) This basically asks you if you were at a party and someone smacked you upside the head. They then proceeded to drag you to a room where you had no say, and while you were still knocked out they connected a man to you via a tube that was keeping him alive. When you woke up, you realized you had this man connected to you. If you removed the tube he died, if you did not he lived. The issue is this tube causes you severe emotion distress, health problems, and other things that you must endure for 9 months and you were put in this situation by no fault of your own. Is it wrong to pull the tube out? Most would say no as you had no choice about whether or not you were put in that situation. A situation that could possibly kill you, endanger your health or various other things. The same thing applies to rape. You are telling a girl who had no say in the matter, that she must have a child that she does not want because it's her responsibility. That is literally just wrong on so many levels.
Abortion should be legal

"Dropped - Self Defense" As mentioned, my opponent is using a legal document to prove this point. We are arguing whether or not it SHOULD be legal, and using existing legal documents to prove this is the same as using the Bible to prove the existence of Jesus. "Dropped - Bad Childhoods /Mother can not take of the kid" As mentioned, if the woman cannot take care of a child, it is HER responsibility not to have one. "The reason it already is legal is because it *should be* legal." This is silly logic, as the legality of something does not mean it should be. The fact that something happens doesn't mean it should happen, just like since rape happens, that doesn't mean it should. "A woman has her right to her own body as does anyone. Taking that away from her is going against a document that was made to provide us with the greatest possible freedom." The problem with this statement is that we're not talking about the woman's body, but the growing body inside her. No one has the right to the growing human. "What he is stating is that is is perfectly fine to tell around 30,000 women yearly that they have to carry a child because they were sexually assaulted on no fault of their own, even if it could mess up their lives forever." I have not once said that. I said that the negatives of abortion outweigh the positives of far less than 1% of pregnant women getting an abortion. My opponent fails to provide a source for his "30,000 women" statistic, so I could ignore this all together. "My adversary just asserts that an embryo is a living human, without providing any evidence to support it." My opponent questions if a fetus/embryo can be called alive. A fetus/embryo is made of living cells, making it a living organism. "You are not terminating a life, but the chance of a life existing." My opponent is mistaken, as he does not believe an embryo is a living thing. I proved above that an embryo is, in fact, a living thing and therefore, abortion is the killing of that living thing. I would like to note that my opponent has dropped my argument about the devaluation of human life. "He just asserts contraceptives work all the times" I never said that either. This is the second time my opponent is putting words into my mouth. I said that contraceptives are easily accessible in most modern societies and that they are a better option than abortion. Indeed, contraceptives don't always work, but they are very effective. The best methods fail only 0.05%! http://www.cdc.gov... "so the numbers are drastically smaller than my adversary makes them out to be" I did not include any numbers other than rape statistics in my Round 2 argument. I do not know what my opponent is referring to (it is now up to the voters to decide). "... it prevents bad cases of children being raised in homes that cannot afford them" Once again, if the couple cannot afford, it is their responsibility not to have a child. Thank you.
Abortion should be legal

Dropped - Self Defense Dropped - Bad Childhoods /Mother can not take of the kid Rebuild) Constitutional Right My adversary says we are debating about whether it should be legal and I agree. The reason it already is legal is because it *should be* legal. The constitution was established because it granted us the greatest possible freedom. Denying someone the right to govern their own body denies them the freedom granted under the Constitution. A woman has her right to her own body as does anyone. Taking that away from her is going against a document that was made to provide us with the greatest possible freedom. The same is true in other countries, which is a womans body is her own. Rebuild ) My adversary says because of rape being such a small number, we should then enforce it because there is such a massive number against it. What he is stating is that is is perfectly fine to tell around 30,000 women yearly that they have to carry a child because they were sexually assaulted on no fault of their own, even if it could mess up their lives forever. HE is basically saying that 30,000 people could be traumatized and it would be okay. Also per the analogy it's telling someone they have a moral responsibility to keep someone alive (if the fetus is even a life). HE left the analogy untouched. A fetus is not the same as a person that has been living for years. They already have a life, the fetus just has the potential to be a life and the terms by which a fetus is a life is *so* subjective that it varies state to state and from country to country. Fetal homicide laws literally vary, so these numbers my adversary are saying, are not considering when a fetus is considered viable, but the total number of abortions (this is not accurate). Rebuttal ) My adversary just asserts that an embryo is a living human, without providing any evidence to support it. A fetus has the potential to be a life, but the stages at which it is considered to be a life *vary* everywhere. That is how subjective this issue is. We have been looking over this for years, and no one can determine viability well. Viability in most senses is commonly around 20 - 28 weeks which is basically a late term abortion (most are already illegal as is) so the numbers are drastically smaller than my adversary makes them out to be Rebuttal ) this is an assertion with not facts. People should be able to opt out of abortions because it prevents bad cases of children being raised in homes that cannot afford them, or going through adopted care. If you can stop the life while it has the potential to become a life, to prevent harms that should be allowed. You are not terminating a life, but the chance of a life existing. Contraception ) He just asserts contraceptives work all the times, and cases where they don't work the women still should be forced to carry a fetus. A fetus is the potential to become a life, and contraceptive don't always work. People should be able to opt out.
Abortion should be legal

1) I believe this to be an irrelevant point as we are arguing whether or not it SHOULD be legal, not whether or not it IS legal. 2) Once again, my opponent is using already-existing legal documents to prove his point. I believe this should be disregarded for the same reason as his first point. a) If the mother cannot handle a child for whatever reason, then it is her responsibility to make sure she doesn't have one. 3) My opponent mentioned that not even 1% of pregnancies are from rape. In fact, his source says that "LESS than 1% of all abortions take place because of rape and/or incest. " So, part of that "less than 1%" is incest, meaning that even less is rape. Now, considering that minuscule percentage, I believe that the downsides of abortion heavily outweigh the benefit of less than 1% of pregnant women getting an abortion. (Plus, not all women want an abortion, even after rape. So the percentage becomes even smaller). Now, onto why abortion should NOT be legal. A) Killing a person: Abortion can be compared to murder, as it is the killing of an embryo, a human. That embryo could have been a great benefit to society, but will no longer be. Abortion is murder, just under a different name. B) Devaluation of human life: Abortion is like a "cancel" button. The cancellation of human life becoming a regular occurrence makes human life worth nothing as you can simply make it or take it away at any time. C) Less responsibility: Legal abortion results in men and women taking less responsibility for their actions as they can just cancel it at any time, which leads to the further devaluation of human life. D) Contraception: In our time, contraceptives are very accessible. This means that couples have no excuse to have an unexpected child, and if they don't want one, then it is their responsibility to use contraceptives. Use of contraceptives is a better alternative to abortion in every way. I await my opponent's response.