BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is a religion of peace

OutlineI. War on SinII. Lucifer's/Satan's RebellionIII. The end times battleIV. Totalitarianism V. TribalismVI. HellVII. SourcesI. War on SinChristianity is a religion of war. Specifically a war against sin. "Winning The War Against Lust" [1] If Christianity was truly a religion of peace, sin would be of trivial concern. Nay, sin is to be opposed and not for followers to drown in. Even in the examples my opponent gave Jesus did not submit to the sin of Wrath. "Wrath – strong vengeful anger or indignation: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1)" [2]I repeat Christians are not supposed to be at peace with sin, therefore Christianity is a religion of war. Of course my opponent may have meant a different definition of war. Perhaps my opponent meant a physical conflict where blows took place.II. Lucifer's/Satan's Rebellion"When he finally led one third of the angels (Revelation 12:4) to war against God in heaven, God cast him and his angelic troops back to the earth (Luke 10:18)." [3] Clearly a war was waged in the above passage. III. The end times battle "Battle of Armageddon" [4] Again, war within the Bible.IV. Totalitarianism The Bible encourages totalitarianism. "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." [5].God has absolute power according to the Bible. As shown earlier what happened with Satan's rebellion. Totalitarianism leads to war as seen by the roman emperors. V. TribalismChristianity like every other religion encourages tribalism. Tribalism often leads to war. Key examples are the crusade/jihad and the Protestant versus Catholics, and so forth. Here is a long list of Christian atrocities caused in part by religious tribalism. [6]VI. Hell Talk about terror tactics, even the old testament did not mention eternal damnation. Jesus the merciful created a new convent that included hell. This would give strong motivation to attack other nations and to live life in fear. VII. Sources1. https://bible.org...2. http://www.allaboutgod.com...3. http://www.bibletools.org...4. http://www.endtimes-bibleprophecy.com...5. http://biblehub.com...6. http://www.truthbeknown.com...
Christianity is a religion of peace

Christians follow Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was a respected man and many people looked up to him and worshiped him. The reason why is because Jesus healed the sick, cure diseases and he is the only one in the bible who has never sinned. Jesus Christ loved everyone, from his followers to his haters. 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. While Jesus was being taken by the Romans, one of his disciples picked up the sword and started attacking the Romans and told Jesus to flee from the scene. Jesus told his disciple to stop then said, "Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" meaning whatever goes around comes around. Jesus then healed the Romans who were attacked and went peacefully with them. This proves Jesus loved peace [SOURCES] http://www.gotquestions.org...
Resolved: Cyber bullying should be a criminal offense.

1) If a person decides to create an account online then they are willingly taking the risk of running into overly rude people just as they take the same risk when they leave. The difference is however that people (for the most part) need to leave their houses, they don't have to create online accounts. Also, cyberbullying is okay, not because it's nice (it's obviously not and I'm not saying that it's a good thing) but because it doesn't harm a person in a way that they can't control. As I have stated earlier, simply ignoring the bully is the easiest solution, to which my oponnent has only replied that the victim shouldn't have to ignore the bully. I shouldn't have to deal with people who are horrible drivers but it's everyone's right to be bad at driving just as it's everyone's right to speak their mind. Also I would like to point out that my opponent gave no source for the statistics they presented. 2) I don't think that my opponent fully understands what "infringing on someone's rights" means. I have a right to breath. Making a law saying that I don't have a right to breath no longer changes what rights I have, it only means that I will be punished for what I should be allowed to do. I would also argue that, "defining what is okay to say and what is not", is a very dangerous concept that could quite easily be misused to put down political opponents for speaking their minds. *Looks at China* 3) Ignoring the obvious contradiction in my opponent's last sentence, I have already explained how legislation should not be an option in preventing cyber bullying and this debate is now becoming circular. To sum up: people have a right to say anything that isn't immediately dangerours like shouting "Fire" in a theatre, such legislation could easily be misused. 4) This point is basically a repeat of the third one so I will skip it.
Resolved: Cyber bullying should be a criminal offense.

No problem! I'm in school too, I completely understand. But yes, on to the debate! 1) My opponent says that you can choose to ignore the person online, however, what about sites such as Formspring? You cannot block a person on Formspring, and it should not be the victims problem to have to delete their account online: we should be punishing the bully. Also, by not creating a law against cyberbullying, we are essentially saying that cyberbullying is okay. We are not promoting it exactly, however we are complying with it, because we see that it is a problem, but we choose to ignore it. And yes, by creating a law against cyberbullying, less people would do it. 23% of people said that they would be less likely to cyberbully if it was made illegal. 2) I agree: it is a cop out method. Just because something is hard, doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. Cyberbullying is a huge problem in our nation today, and we need to create a law that says that it is not okay to cyberbully people. We will not be infringing on a person's rights, because laws are there to eliminate the gray area; we will be saying: this is what is okay to say, and this is what is not. No one will be wondering "if I say this, will I be in trouble?" because the law will define what is okay to say and what is not. 3) Education is a great option, and we can have legislation and education, however cyberbullying should be a criminal offence for the reasons I have already stated: it is a widespread problem, it is invasive of privacy, we would be saving lives, and we would be giving victims a method to stop the bullying. Education can only prevent people from cyberbullying another person, education can't actually stop someone from cyberbullying another. 4) Like I stated in my previous point, we could have both education and legislation. However, education will only go so far. Education can't stop someone from cyberbullying another, but having a law can. Education is a great option, however we are debating whether or not cyberbullying should be a criminal offence. I believe that cyberbullying should be a criminal offence, and I believe that you must vote Affirmative because education can only go so far. Once someone does cyberbully another person, what use will education be? Absolutely none. This is why I believe you must vote Affirmative on this resolution. I thank my opponent for debating me on this topic, it was a great debate! Good job, and good luck in your final speech. I would ask, for reasons of fairness, that my opponent doesn't bring up any new arguments in their last speech because I can't respond after this. Vote Affirmative, and help crack down on this serious problem in our nation today. Thank you.
Resolved: Cyber bullying should be a criminal offense.

I apologize for the delay of my response but exams are fast approaching and so I have to dedicate time to studying. On to the debate! 1) My opponent points out that there are laws against harassment and stalking in the real world and asks why we can't have such laws online. As I have already said the difference between online harassment and real world harassment is you can easily choose to ignore online harassment whereas you can't in the real world. If a person is constantly following you around school, for example, taunting you and teasing you, you can't simply press a button and make them not be there any more. That's why we need harassment laws that pertain to the real world. Online however you can essentially choose whether or not the bully is "in your room". If you don't want to hear from that person then choose not to be on Facebook at that time, or tag their e-mail address as spam, or auto-ignore their texts and calls. My opponent also says that legislating cyber bullying would make it occur less. While that may be true, the real question (and the one we are debating) is whether or not cyber bullying should be against the law in the first place. Just because something is distasteful to people does not mean that it should be made illegal. I will elaborate more in point 2. 2) My opponent states that "Everyone has a right to be on the Internet. .. " which includes the victim and the bully. While anyone has the right to surf the web and do almost whatever they want on the internet, people also have the right to be rude. If you criminalize a person's ability to be rude then you will assuredly infringe upon their right to speak their mind. While ignoring the bully may seem like a cop out method, it is the only proposed method that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. 3) If you want to teach someone that doing something is bad, making it illegal should not be your first option. Education should always be the primary method and then if that doesn't work consider legislation. However, legislation should not even be an option here since as I previously stated people have a right to be rude no matter how much you may not like it. 4) When parents put their children in time out for doing things that their parents don't want them to do it is because the children don't already know better. Cyber bullies like the ADULT woman who bullied Megan Meier do already know better since most cyber bullying occurs between teens and other people who are old enough to have been educated about what is right and what is wrong. The reason most cyber bullies still do it is because they simply don't care enough that what they are doing is rude and hurtful. That's why legislation won't work, it will only make the offenders resentful and most likely will cause them to do it again.
Chinese colonisation of sub-Saharan Africa would be beneficial to all concerned

My opponent says that 'Chinese citizens are free to practice their religion and express their views'. But Catholicism is outlawed in mainland China and only 2 state - approved protestant churches are legal. This is not freedom to practise one's religion. You say they're allowed to express their views, yet they have restricted online amenities. For example, look at this comparison of a Google search in China, and one in the U. S. . http://en.wikipedia.org.... As well, any words, such as democracy, are banned in chat rooms. This is proof that they cannot 'express their views' if they can't even use the word democracy. 'An invasion without the sanction of the UN would be controversial, I agree, but it wouldn't be unprecedented – the US and the UK invaded Iraq without any resolution from the UN. '. yes it is true, but they invaded 1 nation, not a whole region of a continent. As well, the U. S. and U. K. comply with most U. N. rules and regulations, whic hbrings me on to my 3rd point My opponent claims that 'highly questionable that developed nations would have the resources or inclination to ratchet up the pressure on China'. What about Japan, Indonesia Australia & India? They all have little or no commitment to the current war on terror and have a combined force of 2.114.000 troops, enough to have a lot of pressure on China. My opponent claims that rebels are 'bandits' and 'don't have anyone's best interest other than their own at heart'. But who is more sympathetic with the people? The rebels of the nation in hand, or a foreign communist force ready to inflict any ideology it desires, and rape the natural resources and keep them away from the people. I accessed my opponents link, but found nothing relating to the issue of low GDP. This is what I was directed to . http://www.chinadaily.com.cn.... Yes, China has lent U. S. and Europe money, but they have the recession in their hands as well. The central banks in China are slashing bank rates. We are talking about Africa, not the U. S. , colonizing Africa. it is true the U. S. has a terrible Co2 emission problem, but that should not reflect onto China in any way, and Vica-versa. To conclude, we are over the age of imperialism. China, or any nation, is not fit to colonize any nations. They should give foreign aid, drive out the warmongers and set up lasting democracies. China shouldn't colonize Africa ever, but should send peace keepers. I urge you to vote Con, as China will simply worsen the situation. Thank you.
Chinese colonisation of sub-Saharan Africa would be beneficial to all concerned

With many thanks to "I-am-a-panda" for his considered and informed response, I would like to reply to his comments as follows: China's record on human rights and freedom of expression has been rightly criticised in the past. However, these days, Chinese citizens are free to practice religion and express their views, within certain parameters. However, these parameters are a lot less draconian than those found in sub-Saharan Africa. An invasion without the sanction of the UN would be controversial, I agree, but it wouldn't be unprecedented – the US and the UK invaded Iraq without any resolution from the UN. With regard to a second cold war, given the economic dire straits America and Europe are currently in and their pre-existing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the growing tensions between the West and Iran and Russia, it is highly questionable that developed nations would have the resources or inclination to ratchet up the pressure on China to withdraw from Africa – particularly if they could see tangible benefits accruing to the native populations. I relation to my opponent's point about rebels, rather than the national governments, controlling the natural resources: I concur this is often the case. However, I disagree that these bandits have anyone's best interest other than their own at heart – it really is all about the money. Yes, China has its own problems with corruption, but when cases are uncovered, the culprits are executed. In Africa, the crooks just pay the government off. Also, while I accept it is true that there is a divide in prosperity between the wealthy cities and the impoverished rural areas of China, which results in an overall low GDP per capita statistic, this problem is now being seriously addressed. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn...... In any case, China is the world's second largest economy, has the world's largest foreign currency and gold reserves and has lent the US and Europe most of the money required to bail out their faltering economies. This is yet another reason why the West wouldn't challenge China's intervention in Africa – China would react by pulling the plug on foreign lending and their economies would go into freefall. http://siteresources.worldbank.org...... http://www.bloomberg.com...... My opponent's final point about the environment was a valid one, but needs to be put in context. Chinese people produce far lower CO2 emissions than Americans, who with only 5% of the world's population, nevertheless, produce 25% of the world's pollution. All considered, I believe that the Chinese colonisation of Africa is a long overdue solution to the world's greatest humanitarian problem. Many thanks.
Chinese colonisation of sub-Saharan Africa would be beneficial to all concerned

Firstly, I will say my points: 1. China is not fit to secure foreign soil. There's a reason Tibet is an outrage. It is because they suppressed the people's religion and thoughts. 90-100% of all African's in the nations you mentioned believe in religion,so why should they be forced into Atheism? . If someone said after 5 years 'Let's start our own government' China wouldn't let them. They would execute him in the middle of the night. My opponent mentioned no form of U. N. supervision, so there would be no supervision of this. 2. It would create a new cold war. The reason the cold war began was because there was a division between communist and capitalist nations. If China were to colonize Sub-Saharan Africa, they would fight the capitalist countries. The U. S. would transport arms to Africa, and the whole mess would start again. If China colonized Africa, they would see themselves fit to colonize areas of other distress, such as rebels in South America or civil wars in Eastern Europe. This would even further hostilities. Now to rebut my opponents points: He says this will secure the resources China needs. So, are you saying China should get free or extremely cheap resources off Africa because they pushed out the rebels, who sometimes have the best interest of the people at heart. You also mention Chinese infrastructure. But what about China's problems? Surely it should sort out it's own people before it start collecting an empire. China has a Human Development index of .77, leaving it with low-middle wages for the average Chinese person. It also has the 105th lowest GDP. If you also look at China's industry, they pollute the world with tonnes of Co2 and other harmful gasses yearly. So, if China were to colonize Africa and set up shop, we would be that much closer to the ice caps melting. In summation, Is submit China is in no position to colonize Africa or an other nations for the foreseeable future. Thank you.
Chinese colonisation of sub-Saharan Africa would be beneficial to all concerned

China has the military capability to simultaneously land massive numbers of ground forces on the Atlantic coast of Democratic Republic of Congo and the Red Sea coast of Sudan and move through both countries, occupying Kinshasa and Khartoum, meeting at the border and branching out into Rwanda, Central African Republic and Chad en route. This would secure China huge reserves of desperately needed natural resources. Furthermore, Chinese investment in the public infrastructure of the region would bring stability and prosperity to some of the poorest, most corrupt, war-torn, famine-stricken countries in the world. As China has no history of colonisation of Africa, this arrangement would not be seen as a return to the days of European imperialism and, furthermore, none of the aforementioned countries are part of the British Commonwealth so their leaders could not turn to the UK for military assistance. Therefore, in view of the benefits that would accrue to all concerned, I submit that China should invade sub-Saharan Africa without any further delay. Thank you. Country Profiles: Sudan http://news.bbc.co.uk... D.R. Congo http://news.bbc.co.uk... Rwanda http://news.bbc.co.uk... Central African Republic http://news.bbc.co.uk... Chad http://news.bbc.co.uk...
British Monarchy: The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

Con is under the impression that we are debating if the United States should join the United Kingdom. This is not the case. All arguments are extended. This debate, as the tittle states:...."The United States should have the Queen as Head of State".Currently the President of the United States is both Head of Government[1] and Head of State[2]. We believe that the American public would be better served if these positions were separate, with the latter being held by an un-elected, non-partisan monarch. "The American people are increasingly waking up to the fact that nothing ever seems to change in Washington D.C. no matter which political party is in power. An all-time high 53 percent of all Americans believe that neither party "represents the American people". Over the past several decades, we have sent a Bush, a Clinton, another Bush and an Obama to the White House, but the policies coming out of Washington have remained pretty much the same the entire time. The mainstream media would have us believe that the Republicans and the Democrats are constantly fighting like cats and dogs, but the truth is that the Republicans want to take us to the same place that the Democrats want to take us - just a little more slowly perhaps. And behind the scenes, Republicans and Democrats have a good time with one another and they are ultimately controlled by the same set of oligarchs. The Americans people are really starting to recognize what a sham our system has become, and the numbers show that they are quite fed up with it."[3] According to Simon Upton, New Zealand Environment Minister, March 1994, he says: "The public are sick and tired of politics, they are sick and tired of the machinations of elected office in a media age, and I think it’s quite good having a Head of State that’s completely to one side of that." Stability is one of the biggest advantages. In Canada, they know who the Head of State will be probably for the next 60 to 80 years. The Head of State is above politics, so does not have to cater to one side or the other to get voted in. E.g., in the USA, the Republicans pretty much range from dislike to outright hatred of Obama, no matter what he does, good, bad, or otherwise. In Canada, the Queen is not "for" nor "against" any of the parties. It is also a lot cheaper[5]. While in Canada, they elect MP's[4]. There is also a huge "coolness" factor.[6] The Queen is someone they can all look up to, and take pride in.[7]Sources: [1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...[7] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...