BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chris Kyle a was not a hero nor did he fight for our freedom.

A hero is "a person, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities." I don't know about you but putting your life on the line for values you believe in sounds like a person who would be "admired for courage." Now you talk about what freedoms are at stake right now. Well currently there armies of Muslim extremists trying to kill every American. North Korea is threatening to nuke the west coast. As well as they have hacked Sony and threatened the release of the movie The Interview. Next you asked what Chris did to help American freedoms. He fought to prevent all of the last paragraph. Finally you claim Hitler would be a hero. However, he is not the one going out and fighting he is away from danger not in the front lines. Plus he was not fighting for any "noble qualities". He was fighting for oppression and trying to conquer the world.
Chris Kyle a was not a hero nor did he fight for our freedom.

I don't know if this would be the proper way to debate....or if this belongs in the opinion section.....either way.....send me sources on proper debate format and focus on the argument.....If Chris Kyle was a hero who fought for our freedom, then Jesus Christ was our savior who died for our sins. - I use this comparison because the word hero is being used as in courage and self-sacrifice for the *Greater Good* So I want to point out that no American Freedom is currently at stake in Iraq. Let us not take the recognition away from the soldiers that fought for American Freedom during the revolutionary war - World War II .... So....we would be hypocrites to say that killing insurgents in iraq is for the greater good and i think many people confuse insurgency with terrorism... to keep it simple and straight to the point.....Insurgency is a rebellion against a government ....the Americans were once the insurgents when it was the 13 colonies rebelling against Great Britain. I wont accept that he was only carrying out his duties and that in his eyes he was fighting a just war because one could turn around and argue that in the eyes of Hitler, In the eye of The Suicide Bombers, in the Eyes of Jim Jones and the rest who drank the cool-aid. I am not calling him a bad guy.....In his book he clearly stated that he considered the people he killed savages....he told bill o'rielly that he doesn't know and doesn't care if iraqi considered him a savage.......he also stated that he enjoyed killing savages and that he enjoyed it as a job. That tells me that he did it because he enjoyed it........that doesn't sound like self-sacrifice it sounds like indulgence. .... Weather or not there is something wrong with enjoying it and not feeling guilty is an entire different argugment. Don't focus on my grammer either because American English is not proper English
The Problem With Faith: Religion especially christianity Is Destroying Humanity

Oral tradition exists. Has always existed. Continues to exist today. Many people (families) have certain stories that are passed down from generation to generation. Some get written, Some don"t. Our main source of receiving information to and from each other is communication, Verbally and written. My claim is my faith supports both. You are basically saying God wouldn"t use written form to communication. And then you also imply oral tradition (passing on information that is not written) is stupid. Geez, You take those two away, How would one communicate with man? Evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Well, The Bible itself is a record of Jesus, Much the way a history book today is a record of the Civil War (you choose not to believe the Bible). There are also non-biblical texts which can be considered evidence. The writings of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger (who referred to early Christians in his letter to the Emperor Trajan), Josephus, The Talmud, Et al. Paragraph 3- chapter and verse? Chapter and verse for what specifically? What are you asking me to provide evidence for specifically? In my paragraph 3 rebuttal, Simply said there are many denominations of Christianity"you should narrow down your arguments. Paragraph 4- Please clarify your point here. Are you agreeing with me that people may not be following Jesus" teaching? Seems like you are with your reference to selling possessions. Paragraph 5- Um. I"m not the one making the claim the NT is horrific, So why would I say in my own words what is horrific about it. That makes no sense. Actually, It"s our debate Not yours alone. You and I are debating. I"m sorry you get defensive when you are backed into a corner. Again, Insults are often the first line of defense for someone who can"t defend their positions.
The Problem With Faith: Religion especially christianity Is Destroying Humanity

Paragraph 1 Rebuttal - According to my faith. My faith teaches this. Paragraph 2 Rebuttal - The "evidence" supporting the claim that Jesus Christ existed are the texts we have, Which include not only the bible as well as non-biblical texts. Also, Oral tradition. In 2000 years, The only "evidence" we will have that you existed might be things written about you. It would be absurd for someone to say in 2000 years, We have no proof you existed. We have evidence and reason to believe. Paragraph 3 Rebuttal - You make an error. You are lumping together all Christians. There are multiple denominations. Perhaps you should narrow down your claim then to certain denominations. My faith believes that Jesus Christ is God. Paragraph 4 Rebuttal - You agree with me. People have done terrible things in the name of Christianity. But I would counter when they do so, They are not following Jesus' teaching. Paragraph 5 Rebuttal - rather than point to 10+ videos. How about you say in your own words what is horrific about the NT. It's a typical tactic-- point to a lot of sources etc. You claim my sources aren't true, But then you point to 10+ other sources and expect others to take them as fact. I've at least attempted to provide reasoning behind my sources. You, On the other hand, Simply point to Hitchens et al and expect us to take them as gospel (pun intended) lol. Pargraph 6 Rebuttal - I'll say it again. Christianity is about a Person, Not a Book. It's about following Jesus. Paragraph 7 Rebuttal - I agree. The book of Revelation is about war. But that's where your understanding of it ends. It's a about a spiritual battle, The battle between Good and Evil. Christ did nothing to stop slavery, You say. Well, God will not interfere with man's free will. I'm sure you've done wrong things in your life, Because you choose to do them. You expect God to come in and "stay your hand or mouth"? No. That would make you even more upset. Lol Paragraph 8 Rebuttal - See my previous arguments Pargraph 9 Rebuttal - I read the Bible daily. I've read it multiple times. Paragraph 10 Rebuttal - I've studied Hitchens, Et al. Their arguments are empty. All you do is point to other references and say "See! Told ya! ". And yet, You haven't ability to verbalize in your own words sound arguments. lol. This is typical. In case you haven't noticed, Ridicule and insults do not concern or bother me. In fact, I welcome them. Ridicule, Insults etc are typically the white flag that is waved by someone who either doesn't have an argument or is incapable of communicating that argument. I'm amazed though-- you've already waved the white flag so early in this debate. Lol.
The Problem With Faith: Religion especially christianity Is Destroying Humanity

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, The Old Covenant, And He establishes a New Covenant. Christianity believes that Jesus is God. Christianity's highest moral authority is Jesus Christ Himself. I'll repeat that, In case it didn't register the first time: Christianity's Highest Moral Authority is Jesus Christ Himself. People do all sorts of terrible things in the name of religion. Christians are no different. But when a Christian commits violence or any other sort of atrocity, They are not following Jesus (they may say they are, But they are not, As we shall see). Atheists and anti-theists like to point to the OT as reason not to believe in God, Etc. But Christianity isn"t all about following the OT"it"s about following Jesus and doing what He says. Jesus did not condone violence. Au contraire, He preached against it. For starters, I'll use Matthew"s Gospel: Matthew: The Sermon on the Mount (Chapter 5) -He states what it means to be a follower of Him (what He considers blessed) -He teaches about Anger and Retaliation -He teaches about Love of Enemies (That"s a strong endorsement for peace if I ever I saw one). He teaches about Judging others (Ch. 7) He teaches about the coming persecution and admonishes His Disciples to follow His Example (CH. 10) He teaches about what it means to be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven He tells His disciples that the greatest among them are those who serve others. He distills the commandments into just two, That summarizes EVERYTHING (another ringing endorsement for Peace): 1. Love God 2. Love your neighbor He chastises the followers of God who seem to show little care for others He details out what the Final Judgement will be like, And those helped and serve others will be the ones that enter the Kingdom of Heaven He chastises Peter in the Garden at his arrest, And tells him to put away his sword. what does Jesus do to those who betray Him? He forgives them and welcomes them back. So while there are those who like to point to the atrocities that have been committed (violence, Abuse, Etc) by "Christians", And also point to the OT, I would argue that those who commit such deeds are not following Jesus Christ, Who is Christianity"s highest moral authority, Who fulfills what was written in the OT and establishes a new covenant.
The Problem With Faith: Religion especially christianity Is Destroying Humanity

Christianity and judaism do this oh so extremely well because that is ---exactly--- to the letter what their god tells them to do that they are right and everybody else is wrong no matter what. Even worse is their god from their religion demands and orders its followers to kill those that do not believe in its god and believe in other gods/ idols/ fake gods. * Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 "9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, And afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, That he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, Which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, From the house of bondage. " * Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 basically states the same thing "2 If there be found among you, Within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, Man or woman, That hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, In transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, And worshipped them, Either the sun, Or moon, Or any of the host of heaven, Which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, And thou hast heard of it, And enquired diligently, And, Behold, It be true, And the thing certain, That such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, Which have committed that wicked thing, Unto thy gates, Even that man or that woman, And shalt stone them with stones, Till they die. " Its a sick and diseased world that religion is with its constant clashing and waring for absolutely no reason over a jealous god who also has wrath, Vengeance, Rage, Fury, Evil and anger management issues as this "god" has freely admitted to in which no god/ supreme deity ever would. Why can't there be peace especially among religion? It certainly isn't among the cards within christianity as peace has never been achieved anywhere for any length of time since its inception. Strange? Nobody for or from any religion has yet to prove that there has ever been one god existing. RULES: Prove that religion is more about peace and does not give its followers a superiority complex especially in which for christianity the bible is all about a superior ego god complex and nothing else. dsjpk5 will not be able to vote in the voting process
Intermediate Debate Competition R2: State Legislatures should decriminalize Polygamy

RESOLVED: US states should legalize polygamy so long as rational limitations are provided to ensure fair tax, custodial, and property rights.POLYGAMY is defined as the practice or condition of having more than one spouse at the same time, conventionally referring to a situation where all spouses know about each other, in contrast to bigamy, where two or more spouses are usually unaware of each other.NOTES:Polygamy is currently illegal in all 50 states. In most states, simple polygamy without fraudulent intent is considered a misdemeanor. Most polygamists in the US are represented by a small minority of fundamentalist Mormon groups and a small minority of Muslim-Americans.Rational limitations include but are not restricted to:*provisions that prevent an increased tax benefit for polygamous spouses, *benefits allotted according to number of children would not be limited,*natural parents would enjoy preferential legal consideration in questions of child custody or legal guardianship,*each spouse is considered an equal partner in respect to questions of inheritance, division of property during divorce, etc.****************Per rules of the competition, first round is for acceptance.Second round is for presentation of arguments.Third round is for rebuttals, redirection.Fourth round may offer rebuttals or conclusion as the author sees fit. I have offered 4 rounds, 8,000 characters, voting period 3 days. These variables are negotiable and subject to approval by Con. My thanks to Con in advance for the opportunity to discuss this issue and for a good debate.
The United States should substantially reduce or remove manditory minimum sentencing guidlines

I apologize for the forfited round. I have been sick with both viral and bacterial bronchitis and havent had the energy to even use my computer.I am going to reserve my space to place one new theory argument.Theory:A. Interpretation: Prior to the start of the second round, the debate has not become fully competative i. Opening constructives are essentially rehearsed. The opening arguments one makes are usually the least specific, and are broad overviews to use to go into more depth during the second round onii. Both statements made during the first round were not conclusiveB. Violation: The affirmative team forfited the second round due to medical reasonsi. While I accepted the risk of forfit in creating the debate, the means by which it occured were neither foreseeable nor in my controlC. Advocacy: Because responding to my opponents first round arguments in round 3 would require the rules of debate to be stretched, please vote this debate as a tie, and I will challange my oponnent to a new debate of the same topic with my case verbatim as my introD. Standards:i. Fairness: a) I neither knew I would be feverishly ill, or had the abiity when I was to stop itb) IF I MADE MY RESPONSE TO ROUND ONE HERE, ONE OF TWO THINGS WOULD OCCUR. Either my opponent wouldnt make new arguments in his final round, which would be unfair to him as it would remove a large amount of his ground, or I would be unable to respond to his rebuttalc) The above point is because the final round in most debates is reserved for summaries, not new argumentsii. Education: a) The first round proved to be exceptionally competative. Both my opponent and I make strong arguments that would be beneficial to learnb) Voting a tie on this round enables the real debate to continue in a new one, expanding the amount of rhetorical challange we engage inE. As a theory argument, this comes before anything else in the round, and as a priori, judges must vote on this issue first. My advocacy is that you vote neutral on all portions of the ballot for the reasons given above
Atlantis existed.

First off I would like to say is that before Plato this Atlantis you speak of is never mentioned anywhere else. also you haven't shown me any evidence showing that the tales of Atlantis were handed down through his generation before his age. "There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Atlantis represented any real place at any time. Where the story contains descriptions or events that resemble historic happenings, it only does so to the degree that any piece of fiction relies on experiences of reality. All of the evidence points to the story being one of Plato's noble lies: useful fictions used to make a point, not to refer to the past." my source sates. "According to Popper, he was the first to glorify propaganda lies, whose invention he described in forceful verses eulogizing the wise and cunning man who fabricated religion . . .(1962, p. 142)." I believe the Atlantis you speak is more about Athens than a sunken civilization as evident in my source at which it states "The tale places Athens history deep into the past, making the Athenians a people sprung from the soil, and portrays its citizens in a heroic battle against the menacing power of Atlantean foes. In the Timaeus, Critias answers Socrates request to accurately describe my city [Athens] fighting a war worthy of her":" "Plato's dialogues expound his philosophy and have some peculiar features. One of these features is the use of extraordinary tales asserted as truth in order to vividly express his ideas. " as stated in my source Plato would also use totally fabricated stories to present to the youth as true history as mentioned "[Republic 376] In this education, you would include stories, would you not? These are of two kinds, true stories and fiction. Our education must use both and start with fiction. . . . And the first step, as you know, is always what matters most, particularly when we are dealing with those who are young and tender. That is the time when they are easily moulded and when any impression we choose to make leaves a permanent mark (Desmond Lee translation)." lastly the definition of Atlantis at which mentions it was linked to the island of Thera instead complimentary to dictionary.com I have found is Atï¿½lanï¿½tis;[at-lan-tis] noun a legendary island, first mentioned by Plato, said to have existed in the Atlantic Ocean west of Gibraltar and to have sunk beneath the sea, but linked by some modern archaeologists with the island of Thera, the surviving remnant of a much larger island destroyed by a volcanic eruption c1500 b.c. Also your theory of the Minoan story is being retold is highly unlikely according to my reasonings i mentioned earlier. Until a large submerged island is found in the Atlantic ocean with ruins of an ancient seafaring civilization that existed 11,000 years ago I can comfortably assume that Atlantis had never existed. My sources http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.csicop.org...
Atlantis existed.

ResolutionThe ancient civilization of Atlantis existed at some point in time.ClarificationsI will be arguing Pro, for the existence of the Lost Kingdom, and Con will be arguing that the city never existed. Round 1 is for Con's acceptance, and I would additionally ask for no semantic play. There will be four rounds, with three days to post an argument, and 8000 characters maximum. An external link for sources is acceptable, but not required.I will offer a definition:DefinitionAtlantis: the civilization Plato was referring to in the Timaeus and CritiasGood luck to Con.
Advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated

My opponent argues that his ban is necessary due to parental ignorance, small number of total ad block users, the unwillingness of some people to receive porn, and the non-avoidance of some sites in advertising porn. Oh, and Pro waves a hand and makes the traditional problem of government misallocation of wealth disappear; well, no, actually, he does not. [1] Pro, being policy-stater, has the burden of proof, and yet all that he has proven I will not attempt to disprove; the harmful effects of pornography are not important to whether the government needs to be in charge of regulating advertising on the internet. Pro talks about parental ignorance and in a few breaths later says some people don"t want to receive porn ads. Essentially, because some people in the developed world are a combination of ignorant and in want of an ad block service, they are entitled to a free one by the government. This would not be "free", and the precedent of allowing the government to control what people see on the internet is a very dangerous one to introduce into a country that does not do so yet, especially when considering countries that do. [2] [3] Lastly, Pro talks about the small amount of ad block users compared to total internet users. Now, what is the market, without government prodding, doing about it? It is advertising the services of ad blockers and firewalls so people can get what they want! The alternative is to tax everybody for a one-size fits all program designed to restrict people"s freedom of speech. Bringing up freedom of speech again, if a site that is not porn decides to advertise porn, then the administrator of the site is expressing his free speech. If a viewer of the site does not like this, the viewer may complain, tell other people, or no longer visit the site. Considering the negativity bias in humans [4] one can expect people to abandon the site for this behavior. All Pro has proven is that Porn is harmful, claiming it to be more harmful than tobacco, alcohol, and repressive governments. That is, porn is more harmful than cancer of gums or lungs, the domestic abuse that often results from alcoholism, and such events as the 100 Flowers - Cultural Revolution in China or the strict control exerted on the German population following the rise of Chancellor Adolf Hitler. Pro has certainly proved it is harmful, but the worst case of these other problems is quite a bit worse under most scales of rationality. For these reasons, Pro"s case fails. I rest my case, and urge the voters to vote for the better competitor. Pro, members of the audience, thank you for your time. Sources [1]. http://www.cato.org... [2]. http://topics.nytimes.com... [3]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]. http://books.google.com...
Advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated

Speaking about your point one, if you talk about it pragmatically it is true that the parents can use software to protect their children but there are many parents who are very ignorant about such things and do not use any kind of software. Right now the more commonly used software is ad block, which only makes up to 300 million people using it out of billions of internet users, which is around 20% only. If these kinds of advertisement are directly regulated by the government everyone can be protected. speaking of the misallocation higher levels of governments are responsible for, well that is not the case with every government. http://qz.com... Your point 2, speaking of free speech Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. pornographic advertisement is something many people are unwilling to receive, and therefore cannot be justified on the basis of free speech. Speaking of point 3, yes most sites do avoid advertising such things, but there are some who do. Yes, in the long run porn can be more damaging then alcohol , tobacco and third-world style repressive governments. http://yourbrainonporn.com... http://www.ucg.org... http://www.debate.org...