BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will win the below debate with ViceRegent(if they accept the debate)

"Because it is one of my opponent's first debates I will be taking it easy on the kid." -farmerjump1If you go to my profile and my opponent's profile, anyone can see that I have done 34 debates as of this moment[2] and this is the first debate for Farmerjump1[3]. Not only is this a blatant lie by my opponent, but they're holding someone to a standard they don't even have, which makes them a hypocrite."My opponent said he has 'never been diagnosd with autism'."It's very obvious this was a typo and I meant diagnosed, so no, it doesn't mean I have never not been diagnosed with autism. You also are not the one who decides what I meant by my own words. Only I would know what I meant by what I typed, and I meant diagnosed."What he failed to add was the part where ViceRegent said 'just kidding'."This is all lies too. Anyone can go to the debate themselves and ViceRegent never once says "just kidding". Once again, all my opponent has offered is lies and ad hominem attacks. It should be clear, at this point, who is winning this debate. Sources:[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://www.debate.org...
I will win the below debate with ViceRegent(if they accept the debate)

Because it is one of my opponent's first debates I will be taking it easy on the kid. My opponent said he has "never been diagnosd with autism". "Diagnosd" is not a word in the English language so I had to create a definition for it myself. The official definition for diagnosd is now "not diagnosed". So, what he was saying was "I have never been not diagnosed with autism", further proving my point. As for the quote from ViceRegent that my opponent gave, he failed to give the rest of the context. The quote is "If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. -ViceRegent. What he failed to add was the part where ViceRegent said "just kidding". (Sorry if I seem too harsh, I am used to arguing with intelligent professors and not special needs children. Sorry, CapitalistSlave! No hard feelings, okay?)
I can debate nothing. :)

My opponent cannot possibly fulfill the resolution because it is a non sense statement http://en.wikipedia.org... To say he can argue nothing cannot be considered to grammatically mean anything. Its terms inherently contradict. To better explain this, I ask that you try to Imagine a Square Circle, or a Circle Triangle. What does it look like? Nothing right because its an impossible statement. A Triangle is defined as having 3 sides, while a circle is defined as having 0 sides. Either a shape has 3 sides or it has 0 sides, there is no such thing as a shape that has both 3 sides and 0 sides. If my opponent is arguing, then He is arguing something by definition. If he is stating nothing however, then he is not fulfilling the definition of arguing, because arguing by definition must have something to contend or it is no longer an argument. Thus to argue nothing is a nonsense meaningless statement. No one can fulfill it, not even my opponent. He clearly thinks that if he makes a blank post that would be ‘arguing nothing’ that fulfills the resolution but obviously it does not, it only fulfills the ‘nothing part’ not the argument part. I end my turn. http://www.youtube.com...
I can debate nothing. :)

If you watched the very entertaining video I posted in Round 1, you would have seen Monty Python Actor John Cleese demonstrate how simply taking up a contrary position to the other person can count as an argument, you do not actually need individual points of contintions to call it an argument. However its actually a false statement when my opponent argues that he has no contentions, no arguments, no debate. below I quote him directly when he not only gave seperate contentions, but gave them in bulleted point by point true debate style fashion. "Yes I am debating but I am debating nothing at lal.1) I have no arguments2) I have no contentions3) I have no debate"All of those in the above quote from my opponents final round is by definion a list of contentions and arguments. My opponent has been debating me in much the same manner John Cleese was holding a debate in that Monty Python Skit. He has repeatedly upheld taking a contrary stance to the stance I have held this debate, and he has made a list of his series of contentions and objections to argue why he is not actually in a debate.
I can debate nothing. :)

"I am debating but I am debating nothing to be honest."can you see at what point in the above quoted statement my opponent began to argue 'something' as opposed to 'nothing'?in this highlighted part"I am debating but I am debating nothing to be honest."My opponent has engaged in debate over debating that he is in fact debating. thus debating something, as opposed to nothing. The resolution is thus negated.
I can debate nothing. :)

Look I know who you think you are but really this debate was just made to give you an easy win. I felt sorry for all the debaters out there who had to win something. You are a very nice person and all but there really is nothing here. I am debating but I am debating nothing to be honest. I liked your style of debate, veyr enlightening. Better luck next time my good opponent. Have a nice round 3. :) http://www.youtube.com...
gay marrage

Well, my reasoning for using biblical definitions were to be used as counterarguments for when you said "Some sects of Christianity allow same sex marriage." I just wanted to use biblical evidence to prove that wrong. I am not using biblical evidence to support my side, just to counter yours. I do have the eyes to look up from the bible... To the American Constitution which has Federal Marriage Amendment. So I have given historical evidence with the FMA, and a biblical counter argument to when you said "Some sects of Christianity allow same sex marriage." To prove your statements wrong.
gay marrage

well giving biblical definitions is a week definition at best since this is a political debate and not a religus one but u are entitled to your 2 right of religion how niece 4 u! so i see it easy 4 u to pull religus beliefs into this debate another thing your supposed to pull deffinitions in the first round by pulling them later u simple lession the grounds of debate. now seeing that u like to exercise your right to religion how do you feel knowing that a minority in our country cant the united states is a country of many religions so a cristian oppinion has no grounds hear this is balder dash. i belive in a form of cristianity but i belive in being an amarican and after examining her constitution layed by the for fathers of our country our government is miss treating a minority if my apponet had the eyes to look up from his bible he would see what i have said but he is intitled to his oppinion no matter how outdated it is
gay marrage

Well using a saying your grandfather told you is not much of a counterargument but I suppose I can work with it. You are using the example of the African American slaves who could not marry due to them being in the slave trade. This statement is not a good defense since comparing homosexuals of the 21st century to Slaves of the 18th and 19th century is a little obscure. Slaves were looked upon more as a "Product" then an actual human. Homosexuals of our time have just as many advantages as a heterosexual (Minus marriage). Slaves did not have any rights what so ever so the two do not compare very well. Next, saying there are sects of Christianity that allow same sex marriage? I am not saying you are wrong but I cannot say I have heard of any sects of Christianity allow same sex marriage. Maybe post some examples next time? This is found in many of the bibles I have read. "1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1) God defines homosexual offenders as among "the WICKED." "Ephesians 5:11, KJV And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (2) God lists "homosexual offenders" among those who HE determines will "not inherit the kingdom of God." Biblical Source: http://www.jimfeeney.org... Now when you say that 65% of Americans supporting gay marriage, a source for that would have been nice. Here are some of the websites I have found on the approval rates of gay marriage throughout our nation. http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.newsweek.com... http://www.highbeam.com... In all of these websites, people who oppose gay marriage overruns people who approve of it.
gay marrage

my Grandfather once said just because something is dosnt mean its right. this is true in many casses once appon a time in amarica blacks were slaves they didnt have the right to marry ether but one true amarican relized this was segragation, Is this any different than what we face to day. in the constatution in the very first page it says all men are created equal. are u implying this dosnt include homo sexuals? next there are severale sects of cristianity that allow same sex marrage and many other religions because of this we are taking away right of religion. why? i belive these 2 articals of the constitution are more important than the one my apponet stated these were also added by the founding fathers of our country. when was this added to our constatution and with the times changing with 65% off amaricans supporting gay marrage dont u think its time 4 a change.?
gay marrage

I am in strong affirmation that, Gay marrage should be aloud in the united staes because i agree with the united states constutution i think that not allowing gays the right to marry is unconstution. it says in the constatution that all men are created equal, that all men have the right to religiun and that every one hase the right to pursu happyness. this will be the foundation of my speach because i am strongly amarican and belive in the constatution and am strongly against segragation.
Christian Opposition of Gay Marriage is Silly

1. What if they have kids? I am not saying that they can't have kids, but I am saying that it will be a lot harder to have kids and it's a lot more likely a possibility if they get married. Who will breast feed the child. Girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy(For lesbian households). Guys will be feminine, while not all bad, it could lead to a decrease in population. 2. The institution of marriage is sexist and oppressive; it should not be expanded but weakened Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships. The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.
Christian Opposition of Gay Marriage is Silly

Resolution: Christian Opposition of Gay Marriage is Silly. I will attempt to prove this resolution through the use of logic and Bible passages. My opponent should attempt to prove that Christians are reasonable and Biblically sound in their opposition of gay marriage.Burden of Proof is mine (Pro). Round 1: Rules (Pro)/Acceptance (Con)Round 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Final Rebuttals and Closing StatementsA violation of this structure will be considered a forfeiture.DefinitionsChristian: Follower of the teachings of the Christian Bible Opposition: A resistance above and beyond a simple dislike for something. Entails activism, rallies, votes, speeches, blog posts, sermons, fund raisers, donations, etc. Gay Marriage: The granting of marriage licenses to homosexuals by the government, and the following legal union. Silly: Unfounded, Illogical, UnreasonableRulesDon't be silly.
The US should return to the gold standard

"Firstly, the gold standard is no longer used because a small chunk of gold could be worth tens of thousands of dollars, making it very inconvenient to buy anything costing less than a car."This is like saying that cash is inconvenient because a single bill could be worth 100$, making itinconvenient when buying anything smaller than a TV. Whilst everyone knows that you could just use smaller denominations of bills used to represent tiny fractions of gold. "Secondly, if we were to change our currency to gold, our exchange rate would have to change drastically."So?"Thirdly, gold is a limited resource, and if everyone in the US was to receive their income in pieces of gold, the gold would run out quite soon, unlike paper money, which can be printed millions at a time."This is like saying that if everyone was [payed in money of our current system money would run out soon, people would get payed the same poportional ammount of gold relative to the total gold supply as they do now with the total money supply. For example, if 25% of the money in circulation accounts for regular peoples income, then gold would simply represent that entire moey supply, and the total ammount of gold being payed to people would be 25% of all gold in circulation.
The US should return to the gold standard

My opponent says that the US should return to the gold standard. Effectively, our currency will be changed from paper money and coins to solid gold. Firstly, the gold standard is no longer used because a small chunk of gold could be worth tens of thousands of dollars, making it very inconvenient to buy anything costing less than a car. Secondly, if we were to change our currency to gold, our exchange rate would have to change drastically. Thirdly, gold is a limited resource, and if everyone in the US was to receive their income in pieces of gold, the gold would run out quite soon, unlike paper money, which can be printed millions at a time.
Resolved: That Bill Clinton would beat Barack Obama in a Sword Fight.

I point to my example here: http://monsterfresh.com... Barack Obama is a skilled samurai, and has studied the martial art of Kendo. He is even able to hold his own against the Dark lord of the Sith. http://files.g4tv.com... Bill Clinton couldn't even prop up his own dick without it breaking apart in his hands. My proof is thus: http://familyguycutaways.com...
Abortion

This is my first real debate so tell me if I do something wrong. Now to the point. You argue that a woman can kill the fetus, if the fetus isn't alive. "When on the topic of abortion, one may ask if a fetus is really alive, and with an appropriate answer, can shape their opinion. Unfortunately, someone who asks a question as such is looking for a concrete answer with no concrete answer, and can only be answered by an individuals take on the matter. " But I say it is a little more simple than you are trying to make it. If you have to kill something, it is alive. The dictionary definition says: "cause something living to die." http://www.bing.com... Therefore, when you commit abortion you are killing a living human being. But that brings us to the other point of your argument. That the fetus is not yet human. You say "I will be arguing that it is immoral only past and/or at the conclusion of the 1st trimester the pregnancy.", but at the end of the 1st trimester the the person has completed embryo genesis. At the first trimester you can hear the baby's' heart rate. The baby's skin has developed. The baby's face is developed with a recognizable chin and ears Your whole argument falls on its face IF I can prove that the fetus is human. So let us look at the differences between the fetus and a human. There are only four differences: 1. Location 2. Level of Dependency 3. Size 4. Level of Development Location The location of a person never determines his or her right to life. Level of Dependency Just because, the fetus depends on his or her mother for his or her life, does not make the fetus more or less human. Siamese twins depend on each other for life, but we do not deny them the right to life. A man who has diabetes and is dependant upon insulin to live does not have less right to life than someone without diabetes. Size A newborn who is 20 inches is no less of a person than a full grown adult. Which brings me to my final topic. Level of Development A fetus is not as developed as a newborn, just as a 6 year old boy is not as developed as a 30 year old man. Just because a 6 year old boy doesn't have a developed reproductive system doesn't mean it is any less human than the 30 year old man. Based on these arguments a fetus is no less human than any 2 year old. Sources:http://www.pregnancy-weekbyweek.info... http://www.bing.com... http://www.cyh.com... https://www.seattlechildrens.org...
Abortion

I assume that Con's argument is based off the fact that he believes abortion is immoral at all stages of the pregnancy. I will be arguing that it is immoral only past and/or at the conclusion of the 1st trimester the pregnancy. Good Luck.When is the fetus considered alive?When on the topic of abortion, one may ask if a fetus is really alive, and with an appropriate answer, can shape their opinion. Unfortunately, someone who asks a question as such is looking for a concrete answer with no concrete answer, and can only be answered by an individuals take on the matter. However, answers to that question can vary from the first cell of the fetus to late in the pregnancy. Stages of a pregnancyA pregnancy consists of four stages (in order): Fertilization, Implantation, Gastrulation, and Embryogenesis.Fertilization: During this stage the egg undergoes the second division of meiosis to re-form the father's set of diploid chromosomes. Once complete (takes place in the Fallopian Tubes) the egg then travels to the Uterus where it attaches to the wall.Implantation: At this point the fetus begins to produce the tissue of the cell walls. This process concludes at the end of the second week.Gastrulation: Here the three germ layers begin to form - Endoderm, Ectoderm, Mesoderm - all of which contribute to the vitality and well being of organs.Embryogenesis: This is where my main argument comes in. At this stage the main bodily systems begin to form (Circulatory, Respiratory, etc). This stage concludes at the end of the 1st Trimester. The definition of Embryogenesis contributes largely to this debate. This is because the conclusion of Embryogenesis means the fetus has completed the "genesis" part of the stage. Webster Dictionary defines "genesis" as "the origin or coming into being of something", or in other words, being brought into life (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Knowing this, you can only apply this definition when referring to the end of Embryogenesis. This is because the baby is considered alive at the conclusion of the stage for that is when the primary bodily systems are completed (with the exception of the Nervous System) and begin to function.MurderWebster Dictionary defines murder as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Using common sense, for one to kill another person, the victim must be alive. The main argument to people who are against abortion is that aborting a pregnancy is murder, and therefore should be illegal. However, if aborted before the conclusion of the Embryogenesis stage (or the end of the 1st Trimester), the baby would not be alive, therefore it would not be murder, and therefore it would not be illegal.Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.biologyreference.com...
Abortion

Pro claims that it is ok the abort the fetus if it is in the first trimester. What about if it is one day after the first trimester? What special thing happens that makes it not alive, between the 90th day and the 91st day? My opponent also stated that"The definition of "kill" has no relevance is this debate because it does not imply that the cause of the death was without justification, or illegal". When is killing the fetus ever justified? The fetus has not committed any illegal acts, or down anything wrong. Pro says "If you were referring to the beginning: Your source (. http://www.pregnancy-weekbyweek.info......) explains what's happening during the 12th week of a pregnancy (which is very near the end of the 1st Trimester). " So it is in the first trimester, which was my point. You also brought up rape, which wasn't part of the original debate, but I will answer. You also asked my to answer yes to one of your three questions. If she does prove positive in a pregnancy test, do you honestly believe that she shouldn't have the right to abort it? Just because something terrible happens in your life doesn't give you the right to kill your baby. If a woman has a 3 year old that was caused by rape, does she have the right to kill him or her? Also, only 1% of abortions are from rape or incest. . http://www.nytimes.com...Does that justify the other 99%? 2. Should she go through all the necessities of caring for a fetus? Yes. The decision to take care of a child doesn't happen when you realize you are pregnant. 3. Should she be held responsible for raising the child? She doesn't have to. The are millions of parents who want to adopt.
Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews

Shalom and thank you for a great debate so far :). another important prophecy that Yeshua ben Yosef, Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph fuffiled as the Masiach is in Numbers 21:9 of the sacred Torah. "So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live." This prophecy pertains directly to Jesus Christ, Yeshua Hamasiach ben Yosef of Nazareth, Melek (King) of Ysrael.Christ said in John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.He also said that "I when I am lifted up from the earth shall draw all men to myself."He has fufilled this prophecy by being lifted up on the cross of calvary. Through it, he made men live. The bronze snake is a prophecy pertaining directly to Christ.Thank you for the debate thus far
Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews

Thank you for this debate my friend. The prophecy I will deal with here is that he (The Messiah) would be pierced without breaking a bone. Psalm 34:20 says this in the NIV: He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.This prophecy was literally fuffilled in Yeshua ben Yosef.On the cross of calvary hill, he was nailed by his wrists and feet, and his bones were not broken.Then, after he died something else happened. A Roman soldier stabbed his side with a spear, and blood and water poured out forthwith. John 19.Zechariah says they will look on him who they pierced.Undoubtedly, this prophecy refers to Yeshua, who was pierced by nails, and stabbed with a spear, and his bones were not broken.Thanks for the debate thus far