BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christ Committed Suicide

BackgroundThe impetus for this debate spawned from an ongoing discussion about assisted suicide (. http://www.debate.org...). It became evident that there were many interpretations as to exactly what constituted suicide. This debate is meant to highlight one particular interpretation. ResolutionChrist Committed SuicideDefinitionsChrist - Jesus Christ, as in the Biblecommit suicide - the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind . http://www.merriam-webster.com...I would note that hunger strikes constitute a form of suicide, so the one committing the act need not have intentionally committed anything violent to him/herself nor to anyone else, even if they have the intention to die. Rules- This debate is a "no scoring" debate with the exception of conduct - forfeits, flaming, seriously sidetracking the debate, plagiarism, and cheating the character limit are some examples .
Christ Committed Suicide

Thanks to Pro for this debate. It's a long time since I read the Bible, and it's the first debate I've ever done based on Gospel. It was a great topic.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro failed to meet the burden of proofPro had the burden to prove that Jesus committed suicide, and he tried to do so by arguing that Jesus was omniscient and omnipotent and therefore could easily have avoided death and crucifixion. If he could have easily avoided death, Pro argues, then he really chose death, which is suicide.However, Pro failed to prove that Jesus was omniscient and omnipotent, and had no response to my evidence to the contrary. He could not explain why Jesus stated that there was information that he did not have (the day and the hour), and why he would make explicit distinctions between his own authority and the authority of God. Pro's evidence of Jesus' omniscience was weak, and based on his own reasoning (if he is God, then he must be), rather than evidence in the Gospel, even though in round one he made it clear that we were discussing Jesus "as in the Bible". In the final round, Pro argued that Jesus' comment "I and the Father are one" is proof of omnipotence. It is not. When people say "we are one" it does not mean "we are exactly the same and have the same abilities". It only means, that we are united in a special way. Consider the lyrics from the following songs (see videos). Not one of them implies identical abilities:We are one, but we're not the same (1)We are one, but we are many (2)We are one, ole ola (3)SummaryJesus was not omnipotent during his life on Earth, and as I have shown, he spoke in language of necessity, which implies that he at least did not feel he was in a situation of choice. Pro accused me of shifting the goalposts, but he was the one who set up this debate to be about Jesus "as in the Bible", and I have based the discussion entirely on Jesus in the scriptures. Pro has said "this is silly". He is entitled to his own religious opinion, but this debate is about Jesus of the Bible, and THAT Jesus did not commit suicide.Suicide is a deliberate act that directly results in death. Pro has failed to point out which act Jesus committed that intentionally and directly resulted in his death. That is because there is no such act. Pro would have us believe that Jesus could have avoided death in some way, but he did not explain how. His argument fails. Jesus did not commit suicide. (1) (2) (3) ;
Free Will Affects Your Life More Than Fate

As to the idea that all decisions are decided before for us, a person can change their mind on a whim. Also, it seems to me that chance and probability more than predestined decisions would decide a series of events. If you use reason to look at it, a predestined decision seems too far-fetched to exist. Logically, a person makes decisions based on their thoughts, expectations, previous decisions, and others' decisions that affect them. That means that if a person decided 'incorrectly' and went against what fate had dictated, that the event would still happen. But that also seems to be illogical. Also, how do we decide what fate has dictated for us? How do we know what fate has slated for us? We don't necessarily know that it was fate that a couple met. Fate really, to me at least, seems to be more of a dismissive explanation as to what has happened than how one's life is led.
Free Will Affects Your Life More Than Fate

Your description of the entire series of events that must all happen only reinforces the idea of fate. If it weren't fate and it was based upon free will these circumstances would almost never fall into place. With all of those decisions to make one would never find someone who would be able to match up correctly with. However fate has all of these things come together in such a way that the couple would be able to marry and stay together (or divorce) as fate decides. Once again it may seem as if you are making your own decisions, however your decisions have already been decided for you by fate. Also, as to religious references. The Christianity and Jewish scripture lean towards free will while Islam, Hinduism, and the Ancient Greeks lean towards fate [1]. 2:3 pretty evenly divided there but leaning towards fate. [1] http://www.gotquestions.org...
Free Will Affects Your Life More Than Fate

Okay I like how you see this and I see what you mean. Sorry for forfeiting by the way I had to leave town on short notice and couldn't access the internet. Anyway I'll go with the idea that fate doesn't exist then. Here's my point of view: Let me try to disprove fate first. The most common idea of fate is two lovers meeting. Many people, including the two parties of the couple, say that 'it was fate' that we met. But the problem I have with that is that theoretically either of the two parties could on a whim suddenly decide to break up with or divorce the other party. Also, the two lovers meeting was a long series of decisions. For example, both of the parties chose to, let's say, go to the local coffee shop at the same time. After that, they both decided to talk to each other or as in the movies, one decided to take their coffee and walk towards their table while the other person decided to walk the other way and then they collide. It all seems to be a series of decisions. Even if you go from a religious point of view, in the Bible, somewhere around Genesis I believe, it is mentioned that God created humans with free will. Unfortunately, however, I don't know what the Qur'an or the Torah or any other major religious books say.
Free Will Affects Your Life More Than Fate

Thank you for opening this debate, I do believe we will have a lot of fun with this one. If I take my viewpoint as pro-fate then I would believe there is no freewill. You, as designate by fate were destined to believe in free will, however it does not, in fact, exist. Therefore being that free will does not exist, fate affects the world more than the nonexistent free will does.
Free Will Affects Your Life More Than Fate

From a faith perspective, most of the faithful believe their god is omniscient, or all-knowing. If this god knows all their is no room for free will, since this would interfere with this god's knowledge. Not knowing what is to happen destroys their omniscience. Therefore since the faithful believe in a omniscient god, fate checks out there. From a life perspective, as mentioned in my very first post, you are fated to believe and think the thoughts and beliefs you hold, so yes your thoughts are decided for you. So your free-will once again becomes invalid since our thoughts are decided for us.
Free Will Affects Your Life More Than Fate

Okay, so what you're saying is that everything we do in our life is decided for us? That is impossible. Generally, from a faith perspective, the god or gods leading us want to see if we will obey their commandments. They wouldn't decide everything that would happen to us. That would defeat the purpose of seeing if we will obey what they say. If you go from a life perspective, that isn't logical. After all, we can think. Are our thoughts decided for us? So, still free will triumphs because thoughts lead to decisions, which again validates free will. Therefore, the only way fate can be validated is if it can be justified that our thoughts are decided for us.
Free Will Affects Your Life More Than Fate

As mentioned earlier these small changes, decisions, and whims of the mind are merely fated events. Fate has determined what shall happen and things happen as they are fated to do so. Due to the concept of fate one cannot choose incorrectly, all decisions are correct since that is what has been fated to happen. We cannot find out what our fate is, and no we don't know it was fate that the couple met, but it is a much more logical explanation for all of the events to come togetherby fate than for these things to actually have been choices of your "free will". Fate is not away of life, it is what happens to us, and no matter what happens it is because we were fated to do so.
Sexual Objectification is Degrading Society

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate! To clarify, I didn't accept this challenge to go on a feminist rant. I think I know Volkov well enough to assume that he's not going to present some light-hearted chauvinistic argument. Rather I looked over his presented definitions and presumably agree with the resolution according to those standards. So, because Volkov doesn't officially debate a whole lot (so this'll be exciting!) and because I am genuinely interested in his argument and respect him very much as a debater, I figured I'd hear him out and see if we can both offer some interesting perspectives on this hot topic. I'm actually looking forward to a good challenge. Good luck!
Gun Control

Hello again jnedwards11, Hope your Friday is going well, I have some free time at the end of my day here at work to post my opening argument. :) My argument is simply going to follow from the following premise, which is that the Ownership of Guns do not make a Nation Safer, and I will use international data and peer reviewed articles to supplement my argument. 1. The greater the percentage of guns and gun owners is the best predictor of fire-arms related deaths being high in a country. Here is some relevant data to illustrate my point: Country Guns Per 100 people Total Fire-arms Related Deaths per 100,000 Australia 15.0 1.04 Austria 30.4 2.94 Belgium 17.2 2.43 Canada 30.8 2.44 Denmark 12.0 1.45 Finland 45.3 3.64 France 31.2 3.00 Germany 30.3 1.10 Greece 22.5 1.50 Iceland 30.3 1.25 Ireland 8.6 1.03 Israel 7.3 1.86 Italy 11.9 1.28 Japan 0.6 0.06 Luxembourg 15.3 1.81 Malta 11.9 2.16 Netherlands 3.9 0.46 New Zealand22.6 2.66 Norway 31.3 1.78 Portugal 8.5 1.77 South Africa 12.7 9.41 Spain 10.4 0.63 Sweden 31.6 1.47 Switzerland 45.7 3.84 Turkey 12.5 0.72 United States88.8 10.2 United Kingdom6.2 0.25 Source: http://www.amjmed.com...(13)00444-0/fulltext#sec2.1 No other rates such as Mental Illness nor Crime Rates are as good of a predictor for fire-arms related deaths than the number of guns per 100 people. The only country not predictable by this standard is South Africa. It is also not possible to tie the number of fire-arms owned in a country to predict a lower crime rate. Nor is Mental Illness as the article I linked suggests, this to me demonstrates that the existence of fire-arms used by the general public is not a very useful way to deter crime, but only an indicator of a much higher rate of fire-arms related deaths. 2. There is an Epidemic of gun related violence in the USA. Since 1998 there has been about 183,233 fire-arms related homicides. That is 183,233 citizens of the USA murdered from someone pulling a trigger with the intention of ending their lives. This is more than the Vietnam War, Korean War, WWI, Revolutionary War, and War on Terror Combined (Combat Deaths) which is 147,793. This is an appalling number by any degree, and consistently is in the form of a massacre in public places often involving children. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org... I believe based upon these two points primarily that the existence of fire-arms lawfully owned in America is a much more harmful policy to the general public than it is helpful. And it is on such a scale that difficulties to remove fire-arms from our nation would be justifiable. Thank you for your time and I am looking forward to reading your response. Regards, TrueScotsman
Gun Control

Great! I'm glad to hear you value practicality over defending dogmas and I appreciate you're taking the time to engage in this discussion with me. I hope this will be a thought provoking experience for both of us and may pragmatism win the day! It may not be necessary to call out, but I did mean to clarify that I am arguing against gun control in the US. Using other countries examples is fine, however, since my opposition to gun control isn't necessarily inclusive of the entire world, I would like to limit our debate accordingly. My apologies if this proves to be disagreeable, I assume full responsibility and would forfeit to you for a more appropriately titled challenge if needed. I'll dive in by listing my main opposition to American gun control as pithily as possible. 1) Civilian gun ownership is too prevalent to attempt to effect any realistic control of firearms: Given the American gun culture, The 2A with its recent affirmations by SCOTUS, the multi-billion dollar gun industry AND the fervent support from a host of formidable political rights groups, I believe a substantial percentage of civilian gun ownership in the US is, and ever will be, completely inevitable. Just facts.com estimates roughly 33% of adults owned firearms as of 2010, by the same sights estimations that's about 100 million people. Given the natural capacity for human error and want of self gain, particularly over such a large group, it is my contention that gun control could never effectively prevent access to guns by criminals in conjunction with incontrovertible American laws and values. 2) Gun Control Laws do little to deter criminals and much to encumber lawful citizenry I am genuinely hard pressed to think of a single example of gun control that isn't laughably ineffective to one who is willing to run afoul of the law. No concealed weapons? Gun free zones? UBGC? (Which couldn't even pass a democratic held senate). I'm no criminal, but logically one could get his brother to buy him a gun, hand it over, shave the serial numbers, and conceal that gun illegally wherever they go without regard for the law. Inversely, a lawful citizen pays for a background check and proper training for concealed certifications and is disarmed in a number of environments where a criminal would otherwise be free to carry. I do not wish to suggest that a law should not be made because it will not be obeyed, but rather that it should have a reasonable expectation of compliance via a defined and effective system of enforcement. Legislation aimed at readily available tools, rather than those that would use them inappropriately, is doomed to be hopelessly ineffective and only serves to stiffen the resistance of gun rights supporters that bear the sour fruits of these failures. Thanks again for your time, eagerly awaiting your reply! http://www.justfacts.com...
Gun Control

Hi jnedwards11, As you may have read elsewhere this is the second debate I am taking part in regarding this topic. Personally I find it an issue of the utmost importance and think it's imperative that we as a society begin to honestly and rationally discuss the matter. I therefore hope that you will find in my responses a reasonably informed and respectful opponent. I am also open to being wrong on the issue as I do not hold to some guiding ideology that governs my reasoning on this issue, I simply support gun control for it's pragmatic purposes. Hope it's a great debate! Kindest Regards, TrueScotsman
Gun Control

Thanks for the great debate TrueScotsman, I'm almost sad to see this one close! To start, I would simply like to reiterate that the purpose of this debate was to prove a case for or against gun control in America. In my opening statements I argued that gun control is a failed concept in America because: A) Civilian gun ownership is too widely available; & B) Existing laws are easily broken with little or no fear of reprisal, which in turn, only increase resistance from gun rights supporters. I offered a number of points to substantiate these claims; however, as it turns out, those points were unnecessary. My opponent did not directly address these arguments at any point throughout our debate. I suspect this is because Con"s entire argument is predicated on the need for general bans on gun ownership, which I have demonstrated without contention, to be a legal, political and cultural impossibility in America. Even if you affirm Con's assessment of gun control in general, one still struggles to see how they are applicable in America without refuting my initial claims. Conversely, I was able to; -Directly address each of Cons arguments -Clarify misrepresentations of information -Provide all relevant sources -Prove using cons sources & my own from Harvard (which went unaddressed by Con) That gun ownership does not increase crime or murder. **Correction** Aside from waiting until your last rebuttal to address a point I made (and sourced) in my first rebuttal, there was also a very serious inconsistency in your attempt to prove gun ownership causes more homicides. You have (quite deliberately) left out the "black sheep" countries from your source that do not fit with your assumed narrative. Brazil, Mexico & Russia (all modern societies with strict gun bans) to name a few, have homicides totaling more than FIVE times that of the US with an aggregate population that isn't even twice our own. This illustrates a picture in stark contrast to the one you attempted to paint in with your example. This is why, in real scientific studies, we are guided by a defined set of controls, rather than a desire to substantiate our own beliefs. Again, this was a real pleasure TrueScotsman! Back to you you to take it home...
Gun Control

HelloTrueScotsman, Glad to read your reply and ready to get started! Your first argument supporting gun control was that gun ownership does not make a nation safer because more guns equal more firearm related deaths. The obvious assumption when you present data to augment this position is that the gun related deaths are inherently bad, or otherwise avoidable. As such, I felt it was necessary to call out that the chart included situations where lives were actually saved by guns AND to point out that the vast majority of undesirable deaths were unavoidable, regardless of a guns availability. I'm glad to see, however, that we are now both in agreement that; - Firearms related deaths are not an indication of less safety - No correlation exists between gun ownership and general safety (good or bad) - The study only shows that when guns are more available they are more likely to be used for killings That all being said, I must admit, I struggle to find out how this example is meant to augment a position in favor of gun control. You indicated guns account for 68% of all homicides but do not refute that these deaths are likely to occur regardless of a guns availability. I ask that you put yourself in the shoes of someone who is passionate about civil freedoms. Why would that person consider a total surrender of their own rights, when the only promise you can make is that people will die just as frequently, but by something other than a bullet? Moving on, if you prefer an obviously one-sided website over the FBI then so be it, but I will make this one point. Regardless of the fact that the AJMD has NEVER run a pro-gun article in its existence, I happily accepted your findings at face value. Findings which lack proof of causation and fail to provide speculation into correlative outliers (South Africa). Yet you refuse to accept my data when its from the largest national anti-crime department in the world. That hardly seems fair, but I suppose if that is your stance, I will go no further than to point out that per the FBI, the 1990s were considerably more violent than the last decade. To your closing, I first have to ask, if you don't refute that deaths would otherwise occur without guns, how can you blame those 150k deaths on the proud tradition of gun ownership? Since you haven't demonstrated any relationship between guns and crime, what grounds are you basing your accusation on? Also, what other "traditions of men from a different time and atmosphere" are we "enslaved" to? Free Speech? Trial by Jury? Representative Government? You may feel enslaved by these notions and consider them archaic, I however, consider them very dear, guard them jealously, and am well aware of their humble beginnings! Lastly, what you believe about the future is not an argument in favor of gun control so that is why I am ignoring the rest. Thanks again
WWII wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the treaty of versailes

But the treaty could also simply have taught Germany a lesson about having a standing military. When Germany kept a standing military, they were able to come to the aid of their ally - which lead to escalation. Germany had the opportunity to realize the dangers of a standing army, and even had good reason to believe that their neighbors had no wish for aggression.The horrors of war were quite a bit worse for the allies than the Central Powers - and Germany should have learned its lesson. France would never have thought of aggression against Germany, and its holding Rhineland was just insurance - not a threat. Russia was too concerned with its own problems at the moment - Switzerland never attacks anyone in history. Germany's neighbors were not threatening to Germany. The treaty was an excellent opportunity for Germany to learn its lesson, but instead the leadership ability and the bloodlust of Adolf Hitler was unstoppable - even despite the best efforts of the Allies to come up with the Treaty of Versailles.
WWII wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the treaty of versailes

To answer my opponent's question about where I'm going with this, I'm saying that the demands of the treaty of Versailles were unfair to Germany. If you look back to what started the war you'll see that Germany did nothing except aid an ally. What really started the war was the assassination of an Austrian arch duke by a Serbian. The Treaty of Versailles pushed all the reparations onto Germany, banned Germany from having a military, and as seen by the Germans, separated them from Austria. These demands put Germany in a position in which hyperinflation took place, not to mention made it so that if someone were to attack them, they wouldn't have the military means to protect themselves. Every nation has a right to defensive militarism, Hitler and other Germans saw this and so dealt with it how they saw fit. Does this mean that they have an excuse for things like the holocaust? No, not at all. However they did have a good excuse to stop paying reparations, they were experiencing hyperinflation. They had a right to rebuild their military, to defend against other countries that would take advantage of the fact that they had no military. There also should've been no reason for them to be separated from Austria. Given all of this, I hope it is clear that if it weren't for the demands of the Treaty of Versailles, WWII wouldn't have happened.