BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House opposes term limits for elected Heads of State

I have raised issue with my opponents "conduct violations" accusations in the main debate.org forum. I am going to leave that there, and the debating here. I ask that the voters vote fairly, and not give into cheap attempts at votes, and vote for who they think was the better debater. Since this is the last argument and my opponent cannot respond, I will post my conclusion and allow the voters to make their decision on what they think of this debate.Conclusion:I feel I have proven that there is more potential harm and risk within the lack of term limits, than there is with them. The impact of staying the same and not allowing as many new ideas to the table can be harmful to a country. There are harms and evidence of failing democracy that stand to show that the harms outweigh the benefits to outright removing term limits. After a great debate, I feel that ultimately there are more benefits to term limits, to any potential non-existant harms. No harms were pointed out in this debate for term limits, so we can conclude that the way we are doing things is safely working, considering I spent the whole debate arguing for why the lack of term limits were bad, rather than my opponent attacking term limit removal. I ask that the voters read the debate and vote fairly. If anyone believes the "conduct" violation my opponent pointed out to be a real intentional violation by definition, context, or situation, please read the source my opponent provided to see if what was in my round had anything to do with what he said.Thanks for reading.
This House opposes term limits for elected Heads of State

This debate forms part of the Official DDO Prepared Championships for Summer 2013. Please see the forums for details. (. http://www.debate.org......).FORMAT OF THE DEBATE:R1 will be acceptance only, with no new arguments to be introduced in R4. 8000 characters per round with a 72 hour response time, plus a voting period of 1 week. DEFINITION:Elected Heads of State: A Head of State or Head of Government who holds this office as a result of being elected, be it directly or indirectly, by the electorate. Therefore elected Prime Ministers and Presidents would be included; whereas Monarchs, appointed Prime Ministers and appointed Governor-Generals (such as those in Canada or Australia) are not included in this debate.
Math Debate - Vi-spex's choice of topic

I would like to begin by pointing out my opponent's misuse of the = sign. The proper usage of this symbol involves the equating of two expressions, and an expression can be any of the following:A number: eg 1, 14, 35293255235, etc.A variable: eg x, y, z, etc.A monomial: eg 3x, 28zy, 32x^4, etc.A polynomial: eg 4x 5, 7x^4 - 18x, etc.Given that, let us examine what my opponent has attempted to equate:"0=no time"RIght off the bat, we can see that "no time" is NOT an expression, as it does not fall into any of the categories for one. Additionally, 0 is simply a number, and can be used to express information, but scientifically, unless you use unit cancellation, you cannot simply add or remove unit names for no reason, even if we accept that 0 automatically means 0 seconds."no time=false"Neither of these are expressions. Additionally, they cannot even be said to mean the same concept. "false" is a descriptive word about the boolean aspect of a statement. "no time" is merely an amount of time. The two cannot be said to be equated."false=NOTHING"Irrelevant and incorrect for the same reasons as before."NOTHING=information"Ditto.The second set of faulty equations falls under the same rebuttals."so what happens when adding no time 1 time, to whatever the number 1 is defined by? what does that mean"What it means is that there is one occurrence of adding 0 to 1, which results in, not surprisingly, one."only the time of now is true"Settings cannot be "true", only statements can."1 0=1 is a false equation, as something can never be added to nothing, and nothing can never be added to something"Why not? If I have a salt shaker, and I do nothing to it, I am inactively adding nothing to it."any equation that equals 0 is false, so this can only be explained not equated"Why is an equation false because one of its sides is 0? That doesn't follow at all. Here is an example:0=0Clearly zero is equal to itself.Let's see if we can solve the expressions 1 0 and 1*0 by graphing them.Looking at the graphs of y=x and y=x+1, we can see that adding 1 to 0 results in 1, while multiplying 1 by 0 results in 0.Over to vi_spex.
Math Debate - Vi-spex's choice of topic

0=no time=false=NOTHING=information 1=time=true=something=matter so what happens when adding no time 1 time, to whatever the number 1 is defined by? what does that mean only the time of now is true 1+0=1 is a false equation, as something can never be added to nothing, and nothing can never be added to something 1+0 means, 1, or to show it didn't go through, 1+0(1) any equation that equals 0 is false, so this can only be explained not equated
The Bible does not teach that it is the sole authority

Rebuttals:1) Proverbs 30:5-6 says 'Do not add to His words,', not 'do not add to the Bible'. I think I have given probable cause for thinking that the Bible is not the only words of God, as the word of God often referred to in the Bible is spoken, not written (cf. Acts 4:31, Acts 13:5, Acts 13:46, Philippians 1:14, and Hebrews 13:7).2) Sure it *could* not be limited, but I think it is. If that verse actually meant 'do not go beyond what is written', that would constitute a rejection of the later books of the Bible, such as the Book of Revelation.3) That's just an assertion. As I argued in Round 2, the word of God is spoken, transmitted orally, preached, and otherwise indicated as not being solely written. Now you must not add to the words of God, so you can't go beyond what is found in the Bible and the spoken word of God, but to stick to the Bible alone would be to neglect the Sacred Tradition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:14).1 Thessalonians 2:13 isn't speaking of the Bible, because the word of God so received was heard rather than read. ConclusionI don't feel like all of my arguments have been fully addressed, and for that reason I state that the resolution is affirmed.
The Bible does not teach that it is the sole authority

"No religious bias argument" would mean not bashing one's religion. You may probably Catholic, but on my part, I should not bash Catholicism, rather, keep on sight the topic, same thing with you. To be honest, I do not know where to rebut, so, I think, I will rebut your argument on Round 3, then being another argument on Round 3. Argument: The Bible is the only authority, and no one can go outside it. My main ground on all my points is 2 Tim. 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." First point: The Bible is our spiritual guide, not just a history book. Some people would have claim that the Bible is just a history book, and is not only the Word of God. Well, though the Bible may did not declare that it is only the must authority, we can also see that we must not go beyond it. "Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other." - 1 Cor. 4:6 Adding to the words of the Bible is not only limited by simply adding to it. Making new laws outside the Bible is also not permitted: "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar." - Proverbs 30:5-6 The teaching assurance of the Bible is also guaranteed in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and in 1 Peter 1:20 "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet"s own interpretation of things." 1 Peter 1:20 Second point: A sub rebut for Contention Two of Pro: The "Word of God" for every verses provided is the Bible itself, since, what they teach is what we see in the Bible: Gospel and Good News of Jesus. Third Point: Traditions and the Word of God, the Bible, is not separated. Baptism, fasting are part of the Bible. Conclusion and clarification: I do believe that Christian life is not just centered on the Bible, but it is the only authority and guide for Christians Ephesians 6:17 " Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Psalm 119:105 "Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path."
The Bible does not teach that it is the sole authority

I'm not quite sure what he means by 'No religious bias argument', but other than that I have no problem conforming to his rules. On that note, I probably should have mentioned this in Round 1, but I don't expect sources to be a major issue in this debate. The only external resource that I forsee being relevant is the Bible, and possibly a Greek lexicon if necessary. Arguments:My opening case will be quite simple, because I feel that the strongest argument in favor of the resolution is the lack of Bible verses that teach that the Bible as sole authority. Contention One: The Sacred Tradition of the Apostles is authoritativePaul wrote in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians:'Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. ' - 2 Thessalonians 2:14Clearly, Paul esteemed the oral teachings as equal in value to the written ones, which makes sense given that during the first years of Christianity, there was no New Testament. Also written by Paul, this time to Timothy:'And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. ' - 2 Timothy 2:2It is clear that things beyond the Bible, namely the Sacred Tradition which was passed on by the Apostles, was valued equally as similarly authoratative. This affirms the resolution, as a specific mention of other authorities by the Bible shows that the Bible does not teach itself to be the sole authority. I have heard it argued that the Sacred Tradition somehow vanished with the creation of the Bible. As far as I know, this theory has not an ounce of scriptural backing. In fact, Peter wrote:'But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you. ' - 1 Peter 1:25The Word of the Lord is that which was preached (not read/written) to Peter's audience, and it endures forever. A mysterious disappearance of the oral teachings would certainly prevent them from enduring forever. Contention Two: The Bible nowhere claims to be the sole authorityI'm not going to post the entire Bible here and say 'See, look, it never says it's the sole authority! ', however the only argument I've ever encountered in favor of the Bible claiming to be the sole authority is people mindlessly hollering that it's the Word of God, thus it must somehow be the sole authority. This is clearly not true, as there are numerous verses indicating that the Word of God is spoken as well as written, such as (for example) Acts 4:31, Acts 13:5, Acts 13:46, Philippians 1:14, and Hebrews 13:7. Conclusion: I've tried to keep my arguments reasonably brief, yet enough to get my point across. By the words written in the Bible, we can tell the Bible does not teach itself to be the sole authority.
The Bible does not teach that it is the sole authority

Despite my clear lack of aptitude for this particular topic, I'm having at it again. Format: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening arguments Round 3: Arguments Round 4: Conclusions, no new arguments I reserve the right to use any of the seventy-three books in the Biblical canon as defined by the Synod of Hippo. Burden of proof is shared, but is more on me than my opponent. Good luck!
The Bible does not teach that it is the sole authority

Rebuttals: 1) I agree, during the time of the Apostles, they just spoke the Word, rather than reading (They don't have the Bible). But, whatever is spoken by them is also written, and so, we cannot just "disregard" the Bible. Traditions like baptism and fasting is part of the Bible, too. The Bible is indeed the only Word of God as it is inspired: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet"s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." From 2 Peter 1:20-21, the verse above, it was said that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible does not give guarantee that other people can "deliver" the Word of God. And in Revelation 22:18-19 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." - Revelation 22:18-19 We are assured that we must not add and subtract words from the Bible, just like in Proverbs 30:5-6 2) It won't constitute rejection to latter books in the Bible like Revelation, since Revelation itself is an inspired book. 3) Baptism and fasting and any biblical tradition, from the word "biblical", means, it is found in the Bible. "Sola Scriptura" does not mean neglect traditions and practices, in fact, it teaches us those things. The Bible is our guide (Psalm 119:105) "Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path." - Psalm 119:105 Conclusion: Let our Bible be the guide in our Christian life. Depending on preachers and pastors (or whatever you call to your church leaders) is ok, but do not let yourself be disalign from what the Bible says. The Bible is higher than the church, as it was the Word of God. "Sola Scriptura" does not literally mean, "Bible alone, Bible alone should be the basis", rather, it means, "Let the Bible be our highest authority since it is the Word of God alone" Thank you for a nice debate. God bless us all.
It is acceptable to mock someone's religious befiefs.

I dont contened to argue with you that people are often wrong in what they do in the "name of god" or whatever but i and some of the things they do blow my mind and yes it seems like the things they say deserve to be mocked, but the truth is we do plenty of stupid things our selves and just cause we dont do it in the "name of god" dosnt make us higher than any other. as my jesus said the one of you who is sinless may through the first stone. Now unless you are perfect you should not mock someone and especially cause of there beliefs.
It is acceptable to mock someone's religious befiefs.

As far as I can disseminate your argument, you postulate that because your god tells you not to mock others (and you presumably obey his word), non-believers should not mock you, or other religious people. It is true that most people would not find a joke about an harmless old lady innocently visiting church every Sunday very funny and, consequently, they are rarely made fun of, but they are not representative of all religious people. In the news right now: The Pope, the head of the Catholic Church, which is embroiled in accusations of widespread sexual abuse amongst its clergy – is warmly welcomed to the country by the President of United States of America. Mormon fundamentalist holed up in a Texas ranch where polygamy and child rape are reported to be commonplace are surrounded by police. Jewish settlers in Israel illegally occupying Arab land attempting to justify their crimes by referring to their scriptures claiming they are "God's Chosen People" and that He has gifted them the land under a covenant. Muslim extremists in Afghanistan and Iraq persuaded by Islamic clerics to murder innocent civilians in suicide attacks by promising them martyrdom and seventy virgins in heaven on completion of their task. I could go on about the Scientologists, the Spiritualist Churches, The Voodoos, The Shamans, etc., but the point I want to make is there are some religious people that justify some ridiculous beliefs and many immoral practices in the name of their faiths and they, therefore, deserve to be ridiculed, if not reviled.
It is acceptable to mock someone's religious befiefs.

ok thank you now comes the next part which is even more absured than the last. i ask you a question is it proper to mock any one we often feel guilt for it a nd in some countries for mocking the king you get thrown in jail and my god tells me to mock no one now i want you to look at this by is it right to mock any one and as soon as you can turn your back on your concious and split your insults between regualr and between relgious belifes you also accept relgious xenocide because all that is is killing relgious people nothing else you can kill them there christians.
It is acceptable to mock someone's religious befiefs.

Thank you for joining the debate and tacitly accepting that freedom of speech is a valuable human right. In return, I will accept that Christians consider attempting to convert non-believers to their faith to be a duty and that it is done with genuine goodwill. On the face of it, therefore, it may seem insensitive for atheists to ridicule pious individuals for their religious beliefs, but I would contend that they do this because they don't believe in God just as vehemently as Christians do believe in God, and that they view all religions as archaic at best, and dangerous at worst.
It is acceptable to mock someone's religious befiefs.

ok well here lets say it this way its your choice to mock someone thats what nice about this country we have freedom to press and speach but then i want you to think of this think if you were a christian(the biggest relgion out there) and you know that all of the world is going to burn into hell and those who have accepted Jesus are going to the most awesome place ever would you make fun of others or would you try to convert them.
Buddhism should be abolished.

C.1 Religion is a right, and it should be regardless of the country So regardless of what religion it is, it is your right to express it. People have the right to believe in what they want to believe, and no one can effect that. In fact, just because someone shares a religion, yet performs wrong things, the religion or the idea is not really at fault for the person’s actions. It is the person’s. Also, why should others be stripped of their right because someone else does something wrong? My opponent logic follows -Two people have the same Apple product, and live on the other side of the world -One of the person does something wrong -It is completely justified that the other person on the other side of the world is taken away of his/her Apple product. See how the Apple product is irrelevant? This is wrong logic since the person had nothing to do with the action. C.2 Buddhism is a very peaceful religion Buddhism teaches people that the real source of happiness is inner peace. If our mind is peaceful, we shall be happy all the time, regardless of external conditions. External conditions can only make us happy if our mind is peaceful. We can understand this through our own experience. For instance, even if we are in the most beautiful surroundings and have everything we need, the moment we get angry any happiness we may have disappears. This is because anger has destroyed our inner peace. Some people may believe that Buddhism is rather selfish because it seems to be concentrating only on inner peace. This is not the case, however; Buddha’s main purpose in teaching people how they could achieve inner peace was so that they could then go on to share that experience with others. Buddhism teaches that this is the most effective way in which it is possible for them to benefit others. (1) How in the world does Buddhism promote pessimism and and depression? This is the exact opposite of what the Buddha taught! R.1 My opponent’s claims are coming from sources, that many do not even mention Buddhism! He/She brings up claims that is in fact, are completely irrelevant to Buddhism!1. . http://www.parami.org...
Buddhism should be abolished.

I hereby believe Buddhism is a harm to society. Here is an excellent example of a well-known Buddhist promoting hatred and racism: An example of a Buddhist-influenced terrorist attack: http://www.japantimes.co.jp... Also, here is an actual war ignited by Buddhist ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org... Additionally, Buddhism promotes a life of pessimism and depression that leads to suicide. http://www.nytimes.com... Suicide rates in Buddhist countries tend to be higher, though Orthodox countries have high suicide rates as well: http://en.wikipedia.org... My main statement being that Buddhism should be abolished because it promotes needless violence and pessimism. Later, I'll make a debate explaining why we should also prohibit the practice of Christian Orthodoxy.
Artificial Intelligence is impossible

Good job, CON, let's keep it up! "I have refuted every one of your points, and I never said that I could prove existence." "Wrong, we can be certain some things exist, such as, Debate.org, we know that exists, life, we know that exists, etc. ." You have attempted to prove that existence is obvious ergo, you tried to prove existence. "Debate.org - We know it exists as we are using it right now to post our debates. Life - We are living, and that is enough evidence to prove life." An illusion is something that tricks the senses. If we think we are typing a debate, but are not, that is a trick to the senses. You cannot prove existence. "It is not relevant because it does not relate to the resolution." I have already said it is because I have made it a debatable point. "The only way to get Artificial Intelligence is through programming. " Yes but in your case, Gamecube or Debate.org is simply programming, not AI. There is a difference between simple programming and human-like AI. "Debate.org has intelligence, as it can learn and can understand. In fact, right now, it understands that I am writing an argument, and in a little while it shall understand that I wish to post this argument. Debate.org has also learned my password and username, among other things. Although that may be just programming, Debate.org's programming is part of Debate.org, and should be treated as such. The gamecube, has intelligence. It can learn, although it may need help from memory cards, it has an understanding that I want to play games on it, it can reason the different types of ways I input commands through the controller, such as hitting one button or the other." This is not learning. These devices are limited by their programming, they cannot learn. "I know I haven't. I said that if I was, I would surly win this debate. I never said that I would prove existence, and the reason being is because this debate is weather 'true AI' is possible or impossible." Thank you for conceding that point. "No, it isn't. I can prove AI. How about, this time around, a Radio? It has AI. It can learn which stations I like through presets that I set, it can reason that I am on FM and not AM and that is should get FM stations, and it can understand what volume I want. Of course, all of these features rely on human input, but the features still work and the radio still does its job because of it's Fake(Artificial) Smarts(Intelligence)." But again, that is not human-like intelligence it's man-made and man controlled. "Deep Blue can think full and almost exactly like a human being while playing chess, so it would qualify for having true AI, even though all it does is play chess." But to think even almost as a human being, you need emotion, understanding logic, etc. My opponent is conceding, not refuting, and simply dropping points. You can only logically vote PRO. Thanks, -EG