BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Hellfire Doctrine is an Unscriptural Teaching

I will now answer Pros argument from round 2 All Loving God Can’t Send Someone to hell This argument makes no appeal to scripture whatsoever. For an argument to prove that Hellfire is not biblical it would need to use the scriptures to prove it. As much as a sentimental argument may be convincing to pro it fails in this debate which is about what the scriptures say. This is enough of a response to discredit pros position, but for fun I will answer the non-biblical sentimental objection anyways. First of all we must dispel the myth that God "sends" people to hell. Every soul that ends up in Hell ends up there because they chose to. God gives each soul sufficient grace to reach salvation, every soul that rejects this salvation, receives their reward which is Hell. Another way to look at this is to understand what Jesus says in John 8:34 "Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin " [1]. We also know from the scriptures that "Nothing impure will ever enter it (heaven), nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelations 21:27). So we have 2 truths, one is that anyone who sins is a slave to sin, and nothing unclean will enter into heaven. So God cannot let sin into heaven. When we sin and refuse to repent we have chosen to be salves to sin and to attach ourselves to that sin. In reality we love our sin more than God. So God who must throw out all sin from his presence does so, in turn the souls of the dammed go with their sin because they have chosen to be a slave to it. This is the understanding of why souls end up in hell which has been around since the being of Christianity. Pro who is a Jehovah Witness cannot wrap their mind around the eternal nature of Hell. But God has endowed every human with a rational soul, a rational soul which is immortal. Even the pagan philosopher Aristotle knew that the soul was immortal through reason alone [2]. So their reality of our human nature dictates that our afterlife, regardless of where we end up, must be eternal. I could go into the reason why our souls are immortal but I think that’s beyond the scope of this debate. It is enough to say the Bible nowhere advocates for the destruction of the souls in Hell. Conclusion In conclusion pro never uses the bible to show that Hell is unbiblical. So there is no way they can be credited with proving the resolution. I have provided evidence from the Bible to support my position. Sources: 1. http://biblehub.com... 2. https://faculty.washington.edu...;
The Hellfire Doctrine is an Unscriptural Teaching

My argument about Hellfire being neither loving nor just was not to say that this is about such. Rather, its purpose was to speak about God and His qualities of justice and love as described in the Scriptures. Does the God of the Scriptures sound like the kind of God that would murder and torture people forever? Jesus spoke of the two greatest commandments being to first love God with your whole heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. What are the purposes for these being the greatest? Surely it preserves order, but beyond that, it means that we are loved by Him. He cares for us as a loving Father. Would a loving Father burn his son for doing something he had been told not to? Actually, there are Scriptures that speak of God forbidding the forcing of children to pass through the fire. The Hellfire doctrine is not Scriptural and is in fact blasphemy against God as it basically in that sense calls Him a hypocrite. In truth, the historical evidence shows that Hellfire is a doctrine used by the medieval church to strike fear into, extort, and control the people so that the church would remain dominant. The first Scripture speaks of a second death. This along with the Scripture at Mark 9:43 refer to a furnace in Bible times known as "Gehenna" in Hebrew which was where trash was burned to ashes. As the Scriptures point out, dust returns to dust, so too do those who are wicked return to dust. That's it. No eternal life in torment, but rather, no eternity at all. The Hellfire doctrine again blasphemes as it alludes to a cooperation between the satan (correct grammar, for this is a Hebrew term meaning opposer and not the devil's actual name), and God by saying that the satan is in cooperation, burning the wicked as if the Earth were just a conveyor belt sending some to heaven and others to fiery torment. The satan is not only an enemy of God, but is the main enemy of God. Thus their cooperation ceased at the Garden of Eden when the satan slandered and blasphemed God.
Little brothers are less of a pain than older brothers

Sorry Pro, but you have provided zero evidence to support your claim, "Little brothers are less of a pain than older brothers". Even if you could prove that Little brothers learn to ride a bike easier than older brothers, that does not pertain to whether or little brothers are less of a pain. But to argue that point, you say little brothers pick things up easier because they watch their older brother. A big brother would watch and learn from his parents. And in most cases the parent would be a better bike rider than the older brother. So the older brother would learn how to ride a bike better than the little brother. But this is all beside the point. Pro has stated the resolution "Little brothers are less of a pain than older brothers", and has provided zero evidence supporting his claim. I accept your forfeit. Thanks for the debate.
Little brothers are less of a pain than older brothers

I would love it if tjordan (con) would support his side of the argument without saying you cannot prove it, but he doesn't have any proof at all to support his side of the argument. I have provided my main reason that little brothers are less of a pain than older brothers. Although it isn't full proof it is more than tjordan has to support his side of the argument. All he can say is that i can't prove it which is true, but i've provided more reason to vote pro than he has provided to vote con. I challenge tjordan to actually support his side of the argument, and not say HE CANNOT PROVE IT. I thank my brother for the debate.
Little brothers are less of a pain than older brothers

My opponent still has not come anywhere close to proving his statement. He says, "Little brothers are less of a pain than older brothers". He must back this up with more than just opinion. My opponent says "This debate is not on scientific fact it is about who can support their argument better." This is untrue. He has the burden of proof as he backs the resolution "Little brothers are less of a pain than older brothers". If my opponent cannot provide any proof, then he forfeits this debate. Look forward to your response.
Little brothers are less of a pain than older brothers

This debate is not on scientific fact it is about who can support their argument better. And just for clarification i'm not saying little brothers are better than big brothers. I'm saying that they are little brothers are less of a pain than big brothers. Number one I think little brothers are easier on parents than older brothers. Here are some of the reasons, little brothers are easier to teach things than older brothers. Little brothers pick up things from like watching thier older brothers do things. Here is a example. The little brother watches the older brother ride a bike. He learns alot about how to ride it before he even steps anywhere near a bike. When it's time to actually ride a bike he already knows how to do basically everything.
Little brothers are less of a pain than older brothers

In your opening statement you use the word "think". Think: "to have as an opinion"[1] So you have an opinion. Opinion: " belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge"[2] So you do not have positive knowledge as to whether "Little brothers are less of a pain than older brothers". Your statement implies that this is true in every situation. Also your statement implies that all older brothers are a pain. You have the burden of proof. :) [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Cats are superior pets to dogs.

A dog is a playful and lovable animal. We can all give a smile to when they jump around and chase their toys. But what about cats? Many people don't like them because they are "little demons" but in reality, they are easier to take care of, have a more docile nature, and are more rational than dogs. I would first lie to state how dogs are usually pack animals. This means that they function in a pack, and when alone will not receive any social interaction. A dog lover might say that dogs can be very sociable, but studies have shown that without proper training a dog will become phobic of certain things, and claim dominance over their owners. If they do this, than they will become possessive, and often times aggressive against humans and other dogs. I know about some dog psychology, and I have found that if an owner spoils and treats a dog like a king than it will become over dominant of its owner. Cats on the other hand consider themselves as kings of their own world. Many people may not enjoy this, but cats are often more rational by taking this approach. Dogs are insanely more difficult to train, and if spoiled will be even harder to train. A puppy is trained mostly by it's owners, while the mother cat teaches the kittens how to use a litter box and how to sharpen claws and what not. One could say a cat can scratch furniture, but they can be declawed of their front claws. This is what I did with all of my cats, and my furniture has never been scratched. This method is performed by a veterinarian and can stop the cats from severely hurting each other. If you have to many cats, than they will fight for leadership. 2-4 cats is a good amount to own, and if you only own one, than you can care for oit more easily. While dogs go around chewing and peeing on everything in your house, cats will remain domestic and become your sidekick, not just a follower.
Who would win, Spartacus (pro) or King Leonidus (con)

Good Points. But I am not using the men that fought on his behalf, I am simple trying to explain that Leonidas, out of thousands of people was the most powerful and best fighter. Spartacus would of been a general in his army not the king. The history books serve to show that the Persians were a far more technologically advanced civilization so to the Spartans yes they would seem like Demons. But yes in a one and one fight things would be alot closer, however have you thought about what environment this fight would happen? What weapons would they have? What armor? Arena? Field? All these factors would come into place. A really close range fight I think Leonidas would win with the famous Spartan short sword know for its penetrative force. However in the Gladiator arena I do think that Spartacus would be the favorite. Although as a martial artist and fighter myself I know that anything can happen in a fight and anyone could win. But in a one vs one fist fight Leonidus would win as he was known for having a big physical structure which would give him the upper hand but anything can happen. In conclusion Leonidus is the better leader, better warrior and better strategist. However in the arena is a different ball game.
Who would win, Spartacus (pro) or King Leonidus (con)

But sir, you are using the men Leonidus fought with on his behalf. You compare Spartacus fighting 4 trained gladiators on his own compared to Leonidus killing 20,000 men with his whole army. And they might have thought the Persians were demons but that doesn't mean they actually were. He CLAIMS to be a descent of Heracles, but many men claimed to be something back then. Of course they called Spartacus the "God of the Arena" You say Leonidus would win because of his battle and war experience and that his military strategy would outsmart Spartacus, but these are things he would use if it was a battle between the two armies. But once again, this is a one on one fight. Yes Leonidus was trained as a young boy, but so was Spartacus, even though his training might not have been as harsh as Leonidus's. But Spartacus was trained as a gladiator and that training was no walk in the park. They trained all day and night and while he was a new recruit he was never fed and always getting beat up even outside of training. Spartacus was chosen by all the gladiators and slaves that stood with him in rebellion against the entire Roman empire. Spartacus is just as good as a leader as Leonidus.
Who would win, Spartacus (pro) or King Leonidus (con)

Ah I see sorry. Yes I agree the size of the armies would have nothing to do with a one on one fight, however the spartan army are the fiercest army in the world and were feared by everyone. With King Leonidus being the best fighter out off a whole country not just a bunch of gladiators . Spartucus killed 4 men in an arena? Kind Leonidus Killed 20,000 persians with 300 men who were suppose to be demons with magic etc. King Leonidas was the third son of Anaxandidas 2nd of sparta and belonged to the agaid dynasty who claimed descent from the DEMIGOD HERACLES. King Leonidus would win this battle with his superior battle and war experience, his amazing military strategy would outsmart sparatus. He is smarter in the art of war. He was trained as a young boy and sent out in the wilderness as a kid, he superior determination and diligence would see him outlast in the battle even with on deaths door. King Leonidus was chosen by the whole of the Greece forces to lead the resistance against the persians, multiple countries chose this man amongst thousands.
Who would win, Spartacus (pro) or King Leonidus (con)

Okay...I said first round was just acceptance. I see you're new to this website but even so it should be pretty self explanatory. Anyways...I am going to include some more details, this is a one on one fight between the two characters, the size of their armies has nothing to do with this but you may give examples of how Leonidus shows good leadership towards his men. Spartacus is a gladiator, which means he specializes in fighting one on one with talented opponents also trained the same way he is. Leonidus is a gifted fighter but he also relies on the help of his men a lot. Spartacus also rose up and became the best gladiator of them all during his time in the ludus. He was trained by Animaus, who was the only one to face the Shadow of Death and live, he then trained Spartacus and his rival, Cryxus, to defeat the Shadow of Death. Although Cryxus helped Spartucus, Spartucus killed the Shadow of Death single handed. The first time Spartucus was thrown in the arena he killed four trained gladiators by himself and this was before he was trained to be one himself. Leonidus is a good fighter but Spartucus is just far more skilled in one on one fights and he is able to take on multiple men on his own and has recovered from fatal injuries many times. In conclusion, Spartacus would win.
Who would win, Spartacus (pro) or King Leonidus (con)

King Leonidus was a spartan king. Spartacus is just a gladiator. Spartans are the greatest trained soldiers ever. Leonidus is there King. He led 300 men to 70,000,-300,000 persians and killed 20,000 of them. Has an awesome beard :) Kicks people in the gut and yells this is sparta = default win Sorry my friend.
Gay is not "o.k"

I find homosexuality gross. I accept homosexuals. There is a difference in Homosexuality and homosexuals. I don't dislike or like homosexuality. I can tolerate it if it doesn't negatively impact me or anyone else. They aren't doing anything wrong. They're not hurting anyone else by having sex with the person they love. I don't accept anything. I accept things that don't harm anyone. What do you plan to do to did the world of this "disease"?. Why do you care who someone else sleeps with? I can understand why you would care what someone else sleeps with ( beastiality). Child molestation harms children. Being gay doesn't harm anyone.
Gay is not "o.k"

Whole we accept that people do crack cocaine and do heroin. The gay rights movement is getting traction and gay marriage is becoming legal in some states. You say it grosses you out but you are "tolerant" of the gays. In my option, since you gave some of yours, I find homosexuality incredibly horrific fate and extremely disgusting. People that are like this are lower than rat feces. It is wrong, and I should never be. I will not tolerant acts like this. I will not accept this as a way of life for people. I do not care that is it their choice, it is a disease. Bastiality is legel for the same reasons. Breastiality is on the same level of putride as homosexual people. It is not natural in humans, so it should not be allowed. Most natural things in this world are good and are play the role they should, but homosexuality, beatiality, child molestation etc. I am actually tolerant of an 19 year old in love with a 91 year old, but ultimately, there is not enough wrong there from me to judge. Homosexuality is a stain on the mark of the human race on this earth. I say all of this with patient and opinion. Don't just accept everything.
Gay is not "o.k"

Thank you for the debate. First I would like to say that homosexuality is not a choice. If it was a choice why are there so many gay people that commit suicide because if their sexual orientation? Why are their so many gays that are ashamed of who they are and pray and beg God to make them "normal" or straight?. Even if it was a choice they aren't hurting anyone. Unless their sexual orientation has a negitivley impact on them selves or others-if it causes physical or emotional harm than it's not a problem. I don't know why people care so much about someone else's sex life. Ones sex life is the most private thing about their life. Why do other people care if it doesn't have any impact on their own life? Why do people care who someone else has sex with? I'm straight. To be honest when I picture a women having sex with a women or a man having sex with a man I feel kind of grossed out. I know that humans are meant to be heterosexual. I'm not premotimg homosexuality-infact I'm not even praising it-I'm just being accepting and tolerant. I have gone to public schools my whole life and I have found that in public schools (my k-8 school especially) gay is promoted as "good" and there is a stigma attatched to people who don't like homosexuality because of religion or for other reasons. They forced us to watch videos like "it's elementary" and others which were about what it's like to be gay and how hard of is to be gay ect. I found this very annoying. Gay is not good-and it's not bad-it is what it is. I have a problem with people forcing middle schoolers to watch those kinds of documentary a (we were in 7th grade when we watched it's elementary) and I don't think that any religion or sexual orientation or culture should be promoted-I think they should be accepted and tolerated. There is nothing wrong with teaching people to a accepting and tolerant of different life styles (as long as those life styles are not harmful). Thanks
Age of The Earth (Team Debate)

Team Debate on The Age of The Earth Affirmative Position (Pro): The Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Negative Position (Con): The Earth is greater than 4,000,000,000 years old. Team Pro: creationtruth, NothingSpecial99, Theist_1998 Team Con: lannan13, ThinkBig, Ramshutu Debate Rules: Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 3 - Rebuttals (No Defense of Arguments) Round 4 - Defense of Arguments (No New Arguments) Round 5 - Final Rebuttals (No New Arguments, No Defense of Arguments) *No Red Herrings (http://www.logicalfallacies.info......) *No Anecdotal Evidence (http://rationalwiki.org......) *Only Science Arguments (http://undsci.berkeley.edu......) Both teams agree to these rules upon acceptance of the debate. Failure to adhere to these rules should at least result in the loss of conduct point per the judgment of any prospective voters. We look forward to an insightful and informative exchange!
Rape Culture exists in America

Thank you for starting this debate! Yes, it is quite controversial and it should be discussed rather than hidden. I don't believe American culture promotes rape. America has a diversity of cultures that mix to create our country. However, I do believe one of those is a rape culture supported by a small part of our population but unchecked by American society at large. There are people who blame victims or say they are faking and there are people who let those remarks go unchecked which creates no reason to stop. It's the bystander effect on a national level. Many people don't know how to respond or are too scared to confront people using such language, so they keep quiet and laugh along. A very small group of people are causing the problem (rape) and a wider group of people, as well as the justice system, are letting it continue by doing things half-assed.
Rape Culture exists in America

Rape is a very controversial topic in America. Some claim that the United States has a rape culture in which, through various methods, rapists are validated, such as by rape jokes and societal norms that do not take rape seriously. I disagree. In round 1, just state your opinion for or against my argument, and then in round 2, we will present our information. Round 3 is for rebuttals/responses and round 4 will be summary of your point. Thank you for taking the time to participate in my debate!
all junk should be banned from school

The basic premise of this is flawed. "If children get too much sugar it can lead to diabetes and they won't be able to concentrate in class." Loss of attention is not a symptom of diabetes. And why specifically in school? There is nothing about a school environment specifically which you've put forward which would justify banning it there. Kids should have the right to eat whatever the want, as long as their parents approve. Who are you to get in there lives and tell what they can and can't eat where? Whether or not it should be banned in schools is up to the discretion of the owners of the schools, not the government. Your turn.
Olive Garden Is Overrated

Hi there, pro side. I would like to state that the cost of going to Olive Garden is relatively cheap. They have many deals that are affordable. Perhaps one of the best deals is that you can get unlimited breadsticks, salad, and soups. I completely agree with what you say when the quality of the food doesn't match up with the cost. Olive Garden should be more expensive, considering the portions of soups and salads they give out for free. Now, Olive Garden is no Carrabbas, or any other Italian grill, but it is a cheap yet delicious option for many middle class families. Source: https://www.buzzfeed.com...