BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
No current religion is the best guide for being a moral person in the 21st Century.

The Old Testament focuses more on Truth and the New Testament focuses more on Grace. The reason a lot of people look down on Christianity is because most Christians don't do a good job balancing Biblical grace and truth. Jesus Christ is the perfect example of how to balance grace and truth. The first miracle Jesus performed was turning water into wine at a wedding so the hosts would be saved embarrassment and the people could laugh, dance, and enjoy the wedding feast. In contrast, the very next scene shows Jesus making a whip, turning over tables, and driving merchant's out of the temple courts shouting, "how dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" Jesus was consumed with His Father's righteous standards. He wouldn't tolerate disregard for holiness and truth. What if we could reduce Christ's attributes to just two qualities that we could wrap our minds around? John 1:14 does exactly that. It describes him as "full of grace and truth." To be Christlike is to be full of grace and truth. Truth-oriented Christians love studying Scripture and theology. But sometimes they're quick to judge and slow to forgive. They may be strong on truth, weak on grace. Grace-oriented Christians love forgiveness and freedom. But sometimes they neglect biblical study and see moral standards as "legalism." They're strong on grace, weak on truth. The Bible balances out Truth (Old Testament) and Grace (New Testament) beautifully and Jesus Christ is the example of this. This is why the Bible and Christianity are the best standard for moral living in the 21st Century. My opponent has to prove this wrong by providing a better moral alternative to Christianity (lived out like Christ) which is impossible.
No current religion is the best guide for being a moral person in the 21st Century.

Since the burden of proof falls on my opponent I see the task before for him extremely difficult considering he will have to prove why each religion is not the best guide for being a moral person. This debate topic also assumes that their is an innate morality universally understood by all human beings. I propose that Christianity (non denominational Bible believing religion) based on faith in the the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ referred to in the Holy Bible is the "best guide" for being a moral person. Defining moral person as: Moral character ...good behaviors or [[Habit (psychology)|habits]]. When someone is a 'moral character', it is primarily referring to the assemblage of positive qualities that ... ... functioning across a range of situations"' [http://www.iep.utm.edu...] . So basically what we mean by a moral person is someone who has a good character, integrity, and follows the "golden rule" treat others as you would wish to be treated. If someone were to follow Bible based Christianity to the fullest they would exemplify Jesus Christ who is the Gospel in Human form. Now whether you believe the Bible or not Jesus was the only true moral (or good) person to ever walk the earth. I believe Jesus was the son of God, but if you believe Jesus was a good moral person to be an example for others (which most non believers do) than that in itself shows that Bible based Christianity is the best guide to being a moral person. The Bible says love your neighbors as yourself, give to the poor, take care of widows and orphans and teaches forgiveness and turn the other cheek when hit by an enemy, it tells us to pray for our enemies. I would go as far as to say that the following alone ... The book of Proverbs, Psalms, The New Testament and the Ten Commandments are a better moral guide than any other religion and for anyone who would follow what they say. Even single versus from scripture if followed would be a better moral guide than any other religions entire philosophy. Anyone who knows scripture knows that Bible based Christianity by far would be the best moral guide to anyone in the 21st century or any century for that matter. My opponent is going to have to prove how all other religions compare to Christianity and prove that one is better than Bible based Christianity to win this debate. I have a lot more I can say on this subject especially in relation to actual scripture references that show if believed and followed Bible based Christianity is hands down the absolute best moral guide to anyone in any time past, present, future. I am not going too in depth at this point b/c I'm anxious to see just what my opponent is going to do to considering the burden of proof falls on him.
Speech Codes in Place at Universities Should be Banned

Despite the fact that harassment is prohibited within the workplace, there is no restriction outside of that. To assume that one will be sheltered with the false blanket of government restrictions all of their life is simply ignorance. It is true that sometimes we exercise our First Amendment rights inappropriately, but college students are adults, not elementary school kids fighting over the colored pencils. They are entitled to their right. There should simply be no reason to include speech codes in the contract. College students, as I stated before, are adults. Protecting them will actually harm them in their future, such as in the workplace, where it will be much harder for those students to accept any criticism. They are so sensitive that they assume that everything that they do not want to hear is offensive, which is not the case. Speech codes are teaching this, and it is to the detriment of society. As for the micro-aggressions, it is true that he should have just moved on. It may fall completely within the definition, however, that does not make it reasonable for him to file a complaint about it. One's pronunciation of "cool whip" should not matter to them so much that they feel the need to report it as a violation. These students are more than being trained to be aware of their actions, they are being trained to think that any form of teasing, whether it be playful or not, is a harmful thing. More than that- they are being trained that it is not okay to say what they think because it may offend someone. The fact that there even is an area to report offenses of light teasing is sad, and is yet another reminder of the weak-mindedness of the Millenials.
Speech Codes in Place at Universities Should be Banned

Speech codes at universities are allowing college students to think that the world outside of their campus will not have anything to say that disagrees with their views or is offensive to them or someone else. They provide that illusion to the sensitized students, who are in for a big surprise when they meet the real world, which is much more cruel than they think. They also violate our First Amendment rights as American citizens. It does not matter if someone disagrees with homosexual marriage, and it certainly does not help these students to become productive citizens of the country. A student from Princeton University recently posted on the Princeton Microagression Complaint Facebook page (which is ridiculous to even have in the first place) that he felt that it was against the speech code for people to tease him for the way that he says "cool whip." That is what the speech codes are teaching students. They should definitely be banned, they take away our First Amendment rights and they are turning students into marshmallows.
Animal Testing

You've told us a lot of what you believe, but not much of why you believe it. On the contrary, I will. Animal testing is necessary. It's either them suffering the negative effects of failed experiments, or humans. Would you really feel better if humans had to go through these experiments rather than animals? Would you like it more if humans had to die or suffer rather than rats? It just doesn't make sense, and you haven't given me any reasons why it does. Also, 500 character limit? Why?
That media organizations should not report on ongoing court cases

My position on this issue is that there is no harm caused by media organizations reporting on ongoing court cases; therefore, there is no reason to believe that they should not do so. If I can negate your arguments, I have proven my case. Rebuttal #1: Complicating mattersThere could be public outrage due to media reporting, but it would have no effect on the outcome of the case, and it could also happen after the case is over. When the media reports on the case has no impact. As for influencing jury members, people who learn about the court case would not know all the evidence that had been presented, so they could not tell a jury member anything that they had not already heard and couldn't be easily dismissed as baseless. Rebuttal #2: Capitalizing on a serious matterMedia organizations can't make money off influencing court cases without doing anything illegal. In fact, reporting inaccurate information about a court case would most likely decrease their popularity, causing them to make less money. Rebuttal #3: EntertainmentI agree that media should not lie about a court case, but that's not in the resolution. If you can prove that media should not report inaccurately on ongoing court cases, you haven't proven that they shouldn't report on them at all. You have to prove that media should not report on ongoing court cases, whether they do so accurately or inaccurately. ConclusionThere is no harm in media reporting on ongoing court cases.
That media organizations should not report on ongoing court cases

Debate challenges on DDO confuse me immensely. In the WODC, there are no round structure specifications Since this is technically considered the first round of debating for the WODC, I will follow my usual format of framing arguments in the first round. 1. Media can complicate matters for both the prosecution and the defendant.2. Court cases are serious. The media has no business capitalizing on them.3. The media is concerned with entertainment. Not providing honest coverage. During a high profile court case, the kind that the media usually covers, the prosecution and defendant invest a lot of time into their particular positions. When media casts perceptions on to the American populace, the expensive and burdensome court cases become more complicated. Public outrage, risk of influencing jury members, ect. It is most important to recognize that media organizations either exist to make money, or are at very least sustained by money. Court cases always involve someones life, liberty, and property. Fundamental natural rights as declared by the founding fathers. Someones life, liberty, and property, should not be made subject to the greed of media organizations. The media organizations that actively make money, do so by providing entertaining news. Entertainment is not always in line with the truth. More often than not, entertainment is in direct conflict with the truth. Media has historical renown for embellishment and outright lying. When someones life, liberty, and property is at stake, the media has no business getting involved.
America is the best current country

I'd like to start off by apologizing for not being specific enough. I will start hopefully you will see my points. Who treats the LGBT community with more tolerance than the United States? Certainly not Jamaica, Where anal intercourse is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment with hard labor. Not in Middle Eastern countries, Where homosexuals are punished even more harshly. In Yemen, Saudi Arabia, And Iran, To be gay is a death sentence. Here in the U. S. , If a private business owner doesn"t want to make a cake for a gay wedding, They"re publicly shamed and make national news. The World Bank lists the global poverty line at $1. 90 per day. Assuming one works every day of the year at that rate, Their annual income would be only $693. 50. Compare that with the United States, Which marks it"s poverty line at $22, 162 a year. Our poverty line starts 31 times higher than the global rate. Our economy represents 25% of the world"s GDP. The United States and its wealth have been vastly more instrumental in lifting human beings out of poverty than any nation in history. We invented the modern suspension bridge, The electric light bulb, Photographic film, The skyscraper, Electric traffic lights, Frozen food, Automatic car transmissions, The assembly line, Airplanes, Credit cards, Disposable diapers, The integrated circuit, Lasers, Personal computers, Mobile phones, Space shuttles, The internet, GPS, And perhaps most importantly, Chocolate chip cookies. What predominantly white country has provided more opportunity and equality to its minority black population than the United States? Yes, The legacy of slavery hangs over our founding like a shroud, But to pretend we are alone in this is pure fiction. Slavery was a worldwide evil. In 1778, The state of Virginia abolished the importation of slaves. This effort was led by Thomas Jefferson, Who, As president, Also signed legislation that criminalized the international slave trade in 1807. England passed similar legislation that same year. Sweden abolished the slave trade in 1813, The Netherlands in 1814, France in 1826, Brazil in 1851. Almost the entire developed world decided that slavery was evil in a period of about 50 years. No one would pretend that it"s been roses since then. But in fighting the civil war, Abolishing Jim Crow, And amending our constitution to provide equal protections and rights under the law, The United States has made more progress toward living our ideals than most modern nations. There are still approximately 30 million people enslaved in the world today. Slave trading still exists in countries like Haiti, Pakistan, And India, And is still practiced widely across the African continent. Black Americans are afforded more opportunity here than they would be anywhere else on Earth.
Trumps Brain will explode once the Democratic congress is seated

So what if Trump was privileged? And he has had to work hard, He's the President of the most powerful nation. Although there are allegations of Trump raping people (like there are with MANY famous people), Nothing has been proven so what's your point? Democrats are only defending Mueller because it hurts trump. There is nothing Trump can be impeached on. Tax records don't matter at all. Saying "You watch" means he hasn't snapped yet proving my point. Trump always criticizes people who criticize him so why is the President of France special? Trump is a patriot, And he does care about other countries, So how is he a nationalist? Trump wants whats best for the country, So if he suspects voter fraud somewhere he will look into like every other President would. Whats is wrong with that?
Trumps Brain will explode once the Democratic congress is seated

Trump grew up rich his daddy give him half a billion dollars, He never had to work for anything he has, He is a bully, And like all bullies he is a coward who will run when presented with superior force. He is DRAFT DODGER, HE never served, He is a pervert who raped a 13 year old girl a real slime, His supporters don't have a clue or are even slimier than he is The house is Democratic, And ready for a real fight, Defnding mueller, Impeachment, Supeonaing his tax recordoh he'll snap all right. . You watch, Its already startedits reported hes wndering around the white house screaming like a madman because the president of France humiliated his nationalist bottom. . He babbles about baseless voter fraud claims hes already losing it! He's toast!
Trumps Brain will explode once the Democratic congress is seated

1. Trump is not a "Big spoiled baby", Although he can act like a baby sometimes, He's certainly not spoiled. Please provide an example of President Trump being a "spoiled baby". 2. Congress is not hostile in the perspective of President Trump. Why? Because the Senate is in his favor being the majority is Republican, So even though the HOR is a Democratic majority it doesn't matter that much at all. Trump never had a congress that "bowed" for him, Just because Republicans held the majority in the Senate and HOR once doesn't mean all Republicans were necessarily Trump supporters. The checks and balances system in congress allows President Trump to stay in line and keep America strong and maintained. 3. Trump will not snap, He is a true American who at times can seem a bit excessive, Yet he always does what's best for the country unlike Obama. Obama made a deal with Iran where he gave guns to Iran in exchange for the denuking of Iran. This caused Iran to be more violent and dangerous than it already was. Also, CNN is so obviously Democratic sided in their reports that it's ignorant to ignore that fact. They always stretch his words and only report what will help their agenda against Trump.
America's cheap food is good for Americans

All in all, I have one problem with your arguement: Eating cheap fast-food will make us fat. This is untrue one because there are plenty of cheap, healthy choices out there and two you don't know that they will choose the double cheeseburger or Big Mac, as you mentioned before. Your arguement is not viable because eating cheap food will not fatten people up; it will save them money and keep them at least as healthy as they were before they ate. As I said before, in this economy, people are bacoming more aware of foods and their costs, etc. Thus they will most likely choose a Subway foot long and end up healthier 1)the sandwiches are healthy and 2)their happiness from eating the sandwich (subtle but there) also increases their health. "I recommend that the government stops subsidizing corn, so that food companies must raise the prices to what they really are to make a profit. " If the government does stop subsidizing corn, chances are people will eat the cheap, unhealthy items because the other ones have become more expensive. Also, perhaps the cause of rising taxes is because of Ethanol 85. Corn farmers know they can get more money off of that and maybe that is why the government is subsidizing corn. Also, the price for a Subway footlong has gone down drastically mainly because more poeple have been buying it. Becuase more people are buying these healthy, cheap sandwiches, it is, actually, "good" for Americans. Before, the cost was from 6.49 to 7.99. Now, it is an affordable five dollars. Thanks for this debate!
America's cheap food is good for Americans

"1) Can I see proof? (: and also, because these people are spending less on food, they have a better chance of buying a house, getting a job, etc. etc., and rebuilding the economy." "The Omnivores Dilemma", by Michael Pollan. It is a book about human eating, and includes facts about how corn is taking over the world. That's right. We are being controlled by corn. It is in most of the food we eat every day. http://michaelpollan.com... "2)If it is too unhealthy, where do you suggest Americans buy cheap, fast, food? Also, Americans don't nesscicarily have to buy either double cheese burgers or Big Macs. Many fast food chains have cut down on trans fats, etc. and are advertising healthier products. Because of this, today's Big Macs are somewhat healthier than Big Macs ten years ago." I recommend that the government stops subsidizing corn, so that food companies must raise the prices to what they really are to make a profit. This does not make them more expensive, but means that the government doesn't control it anymore. And clearly, government control does not help. When you say that today's Big Macs are "healthier", that still doesn't mean "healthy". For example, Jupiter is smaller than the sun. Does that mean that Jupiter is small? No, it's humongous. And even though they don't have to buy them, they will buy them anyway, because it "looks" cheap. In conclusion, cheap food is bad for Americans because it will not make them spend less, it will make them eat more. This is the way that food companies sell more food than people need: by packaging it into amounts you wouldn't otherwise eat if it was so cheap. People will eat up to 30% more than they would otherwise if they see the food in front of them. They are NOT getting healthier by eating this. Lastly, being fat usually makes someone sad, pay more medical bills, and continue the stereotyping of America as the Fat Republic.
America's cheap food is good for Americans

1) Can I see proof? (: and also, because these people are spending less on food, they have a better chance of buying a house, getting a job, etc. etc., and rebuilding the economy. 2)If it is too unhealthy, where do you suggest Americans buy cheap, fast, food? Also, Americans don't nesscicarily have to buy either double cheese burgers or Big Macs. Many fast food chains have cut down on trans fats, etc. and are advertising healthier products. Because of this, today's Big Macs are somewhat healthier than Big Macs ten years ago. In concluion, America's cheap food is good for Americans one) so they have a little more money to use to help pay the bills, and rent (eating out every day has got to save some money), 2) because they ARE getting healthier, and 3) becasue the buyers know they are buying cheap, healthy food and get a little happier because of it, thus making it "good" for Americans.
America's cheap food is good for Americans

Yes, I am talking about fast food restaurants in that statement, though I am also referring to other cheap foods. The reason this food is so cheap is because these food companies purchase them for low prices from corn farmers. The only reason the corn farmers sell them for so little is because the government subsidizes the costs, thus increasing taxes. Because of this, the "cheap" food is not as cheap as it seems. It comes out of everyone's pockets, including those not eating the meal. Higher taxes are a large part of today's problems and depression. Secondly, this cheaper food, such as double cheese burgers, and Big Macs, are not healthy. This is what a large amount of people do order, so it is bad for a large number of people. If a large part of our population is overweight or obese, this leads to more problems, which I will explain further if asked to. Getting a combo meal, it can easily add up to over 1,000 calories (soda being almost 10 calories per fluid ounce, and fries being almost 100 per ounce). So, a large fries and a large drink are already over 800 calories! And that doesn't even include the main meal! Because this food is so ridiculously cheap, people can buy more of it, often buying the larger ones to get a "better deal". . http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com.... I await my opponent's response.