BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian Bible does not promote evil

the new testament is not the whole bible its a small portion of the bible. most of the bible is old testament and including it would be pointless if it didn't still matter but even then there are other passages that back up that it still applies like this one "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" John7:19 and this one "For the law was given by Moses,..." John 1:17 and the finally this one "...the scripture cannot be broken." --Jesus Christ, John 10:35 so it does still apply. this point is well reasoned except the fact that stopping them wouldn't require killing all of them it would only require the defeat of the amalekit army which means that the genocide is still wrong. slavery is evil because the very idea that you can own someone as property is evil and degrades human life and you sad that mutual benefit can come from it but that is very rare at least 90% of the time it leads to abuse and exploitation and even death. the point with soddom and gammora is that if the bible is wrong about the city it is an evil act and its just basic logic that the story is wrong which in turn makes the act evil. you keep saying that the genocides were limited to time and place yet they are all over the bible and the bible doesn't condemn genocide while glorying the Israeli armies that commit the genocides. also weather demons exist or not is significant to weather or not its right to execute all of those people and most demonic possession accounts are just other people telling their story and first hand accounts are unreliable unless their is actual proof of the demon existing in the first place and people who claim they are possessed and call someone and then get their possession caught on camera never display supernatural abilities and show symptoms of schizophrenia so with so little proof of demons or magic for that matter your just killing a harmless idiot. http://www.csicop.org... http://skepticdetective.wordpress.com... http://www.evilbible.com...
Bread is related to everything.

I'm sorry. I think we can all expect better from such a debate. You're "relationship" is that there is some nickel in soil, and wheat is used to make bread? - Soil doesn't contain much metal at all. - Soil isn't molten. - Your argument might as well be "bread and the center of the Earth are made of atoms" because that's exactly as bad as the relationship you give. - Soil isn't composed of "rocks" and "rocks" are not composed of metal. - These "rocks" do not contain the same metal found in the center of the Earth. The metal in the center of the earth is completely different and distinct other metal. - Recent studies show that with the pressure of the Earth not only do the valence electrons interact but some of the inner electrons. Thus, considering the pressures you can't actually conclude they are even the same atoms as they react completely differently. Both composed of atoms would be bad enough. But the center of the earth has metal, soil has metal, and wheat grows in soil and wheat makes bread is an underwhelming relationship if I've ever seen one. What about even more extreme examples of such things? How is bread related to the Andromeda Galaxy? I think the entire premise of the debate is rather flawed. Give me something and I'll relate it to bread hardly suffices to prove the topic of debate. Anything I could come up with would admittedly have a connection to me (because I know about it) and I know about bread as well. To really prove the point you'd need to show the relationship between bread and something really really unknown by anybody. As such, it would be difficult to conclude a relationship at all.
Bread is related to everything.

The core (center) of the Earth is made of molten metal, such as nickel. The mantle is made from molten rock. In Earth's various environments, this very same type of metal naturally occurs in rocks. Furthermore, these rocks that contain the very same metal that is found in the center of the Earth can be found resting in soil, the material used to grow wheat, which is then harvested and processed into bread. So the center of the Earth has a tie to the common food, bread.
Lacrosse is the worst sport

Since you maintained your initial round briefly, I shall attempt to mirror similarly. However, I wish to clarify the resolution so that the audience may understand what proposition is under consideration. Pro proposes that lacrosse is the worst sport, and states that lacrosse has been a sport for a long period of time, and the minuscule audience that participates in viewing the sport is indicative that the sport "sucks", which I infer to represent distasteful or unexciting. This is merely Pro's opinion, which appears to be advanced from pure conjecture along with the lack evidence to support his claim. I will concede that in comparison with the other prominent sports such as; football, baseball, and basketball, lacrosse reflects an abysmal number of viewers, however this is not the notion that is currently being scrutinized. The notion is lacrosse is the worst sport. As of 2014, there are 67 division 1 university lacrosse teams, which during season play, encounter one another in games and tournaments. Considering that 67 major universities contain a lacrosse program, we can infer that there is an interest in lacrosse within these major universities. . This also indicates that there are lacrosse scholarships available for proficient athletes. Lacrosse programs are also extant amongst division 2 and even division 3 schools, not to mention the various mens league across the country I will cease my arguments as of this round, and allow pro to address them subsequently in the next round. Pro, you have the metaphorical floor. . http://www.laxpower.com... . http://www.athleticscholarships.net...
The US Constitution should be read and interpreted as a living document

I would like to apologize to my opponent and concede this debate. I had a family mater that I had to tend to and was no able to post for rounds 2 or 3. If my opponent would like to have a second debate, I am open to that idea, but as far as this debate -- I would like to concede. Though if he wouldn't mind, I would enjoy hearing his thoughts about the way the Constitution is interpreted in the modern day -- I realize amendments are used to add/change things in the writing. But its not realistic to expect an amendment to be made with each item of the fast changing technology. Each time there is a new form of technology, the government cannot be expected to vote on a new amendment. There has to be some form of interpretation. I would enjoy hearing how my opponent suggests the Constitution is used if there is no room for interpretation in our ever-changing life. Thank you again to my opponent for posts and I apologize to him and others for this poor debate. It is the first and will likely be the last time I ever miss a round.
The US Constitution should be read and interpreted as a living document

It must be interpreted according to original intent. If it is a living document then it allows for corruption. " To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events. " Randolph was of the minority opinion that we needed a strong central government, he only signed on to what was agreed upon reluctantly as it granted less power than he would have liked. "To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states. " The Constitution is limited in its power and anything not stated is up to the states per the 10th Amendment or the people per the 9th Amendment. [1] The idea was to grant negative rights as opposed to positive rights. It was meant to say what we have freedom to do but not force rights onto people. This distinction between positivity and negative rights is important in understanding the nature of the Constitution. [2] I await the next round and my opponent's response. 1 . http://www.ushistory.org... 2 . http://everyday-ethics.org...
The US Constitution should be read and interpreted as a living document

The United States Constitution was written in such a way as to be a flexible an ever-changing document so that future generations can interpret the intent of the writer's broad and yet dynamic framework for the country. The founders of the country, specifically those who wrote the Constitution, were nothing more than human. They were great men of their time, but they could not see in to the future. They knew that social and technological changes in the future were inevitable and made sure to explain their original intent while still allowing for interpretation by future generation who's environment would be drastically different than theirs. Edmund Randolph was part of the "Committee Detail" in Philadelphia who gathered on June 23, 1787. He wrote the preamble of the committee's report stating: In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention: 1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events: and 2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states. Language such as this shows the desire of those who framed the Constitution to be a living document. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (I welcome all and anyone to this debate, but would hope that it is someone who lives inside the boarders of the United States and they have an understanding of the Constitution, thank you.)
Every Intellectual Truth must be believed

The main objective of Pro in this debate was to prove that in order for a decision to be based on an intelectual argument, the truthfullness of the arguments must be FELT by the individual ( in a non trivial matter). In all of Cons examples he has failed to bring a single case where the individual went against his moral compass so to speak and based a desicion soley upon his Intelectual conviction that this was the truth. Both of Cons examples were based on abusive relationships: 1) with a partner 2) with family additionaly Con reversed the tables on both of my examples: 1) discrimination against women 2) smoking Cons throughout the debate tried to show that even with an emotional incentive to the contrary most people followed the logical choice. Con therefore concludes that an intelectual truth can overrule prejudice. HOWEVER: Con has failed to acknowledge the emotional bias that supported the Intelectual choice. In addition even if intellectual choice wasn't supported emotionaly it was still part of the worldview makeup of the persons involved and not solely an intellectual truth. in particular: In the case of the abusive relationships, an integral part of being a normal human being is the desire to avoid pain. and so the intelectual choice is strongly supported by the childs/womans in a non intellectual manner. In the case of discrimination. Law making in essence is merely a group of people deciding over the best or the most just decision and as such it is still on the plane of intellectual reasoning and isn't relevent to the question being discussed, will men who are basicly sexists act indiscriminatly. and even if con were to show that they did, I would claim that the self survervial instinct of the men was the force behind that decision. in the case of smoking Con has refuted himself. He claims that america is an example as to where intellect ruled over emotion/desire/prejudice yet he also states that "America widely dis-proves smoking and the fact that commercial advertising goes so strongly against smoking...". This is an example as to where an intelectual choice was overruled by the populations desire since if Con was right there would have been no need for the commercial advertising to push against smoking. it took many years for the concept of smoking being BAD to sink in to the populations core beliefs. I again restate the point that is integral to Pro in this debate. An intelectual truth must in sync with the persons (moral compass)/emotional state/core beliefs and so on. a final example to let the point sink in. If someone could prove logicaly beyond all reasonable doubt, that the killing of "defective" babies is the right thing to do, no matter how convincing he may be, Not a single person from the western countries would follow through.
Every Intellectual Truth must be believed

points made by Con: 1) Not all emotional decisions are bad. Refutation: Irrelevant, the topic is whether emotion is bound by intelligence in decision making. (I might add that the point stated in (1) and the point that is shown by the example are two different ones, and not the same) 1.a)A fictional case where an intelligent reasoning leads to a decision in direct conflict with emotion. Refutation: There needs to be an entire debate dedicated to the definition of love, and then another for whether or not people are capable of judging if they are feeling it or not. On the surface a distinction can be made for the love you feel for your family and the love that is really expressed by the words "I love You" that are spoken in the context of a romance. When dealing with the love to family I continue to uphold the claim that the emotional bias will overcome any intellectual argumentation in the exception of the case when said argument is backed up by an emotional bias of its own, in which case the argument is rendered irrelevant. However in the case of the second kind of love I will concede the point and agree that in the case of an emotional whim it isn't as clear that the emotional bias will prove dominant. 2) Since emotional opinions do not make sense people don't follow them. Refutation: This is an assertion by Con on the very question being debated. 2.a) People choose logic over emotional whims. Refutation: Conceded, however as I wrote for point 1.a, the claim is still valid for a none whim based emotional bias, as opposed to a whimsy on the persons part in that specific moment in time. To clarify as to what type of emotional bias I am referring to I will bring an example later on, but for now I will say that any bias that is a component of the person's world view, and is a relatively constant is included in the claim. 2.b) 'People' know that they are making the wrong choice. Refutation: This is irrelevant since the point of conflict in the debate is whether people ACT upon their intellectual reasoning's). Perhaps an example might better illustrate the claim. Up until a few decades ago the status of woman was clearly less than that of men. However the thinkers that maybe pronounced that it was illogical that a woman could not vote, or earn the same pay as a man. However, even after that logical conclusion was reached the men of that generation still discriminated against women. According to Con since it was decided logical that women are equal to men then no discrimination should have occurred hence forth. On the other hand if it is understood that the real determining force behind a persons decisions is his emotional bias it is clear that the reason men discriminate is due to an ingrained cultural bias against women. Another example would from smoking where people aware of the detrimental effects smoking has on their health still smoke. Though I do acknowledge that in the case of smoking it isn't an emotional bias per se. still it is an example of a case where intellect does not win the day. By the same token any addiction can be included in this point.
Every Intellectual Truth must be believed

The claim is that even is assuming it's possible to reach an answer through an intellectual process as to the right thing that should be done, it will only be followed through if it's accepted emotionally. The reasoning for this claim is that (Under the assertion that Humans have evolved and weren't created, thought even without this assertion the following should be scientifically verifiable) Humans, in the most basic level of their (our) decision making processes are influenced by raw emotion and not by intellect (or considerably less so). Con must prove that intellectual reasoning is capable of influencing a person to follow the choice indicated by the reasoning when clashes with that person's emotional bias. It's assumed that the choice is a non trivial one since otherwise the emotional bias would be a trivial one as well.
If forced into a fight, a lion would defeat any other big cat.

The video is incorrect. It is a video is made by humans, where they act out what they believe would happen. In your video neither received a deadly blow, and the mane deflectd the tiger's attack. However, I have a video that shows how both animals will fight when face to face. http://www.youtube.com... Now, the fight wasn't to death. But as you can see the tiger could have easily gotten a throat bite when the tiger pinned the lion down.
If forced into a fight, a lion would defeat any other big cat.

I anticipated this argument. While size does matter to an extent (cheetah or leopard would be no match for a lion or tiger), in this case size does not matter. On average, a lion is longer and taller which enables it to be quicker [1]. Male lions spend the first four years learning to fight so that they may one day take over a pride [1]. This makes them superior fighters. Tigers do not have this social aspect. [1]http://www.youtube.com... Very interesting video by the way.
If forced into a fight, a lion would defeat any other big cat.

I'm making the reference point to the hyena because even though the lion is the "king of the jungle", it doesn't mean that another animal cannot defeat this animal. Weight You stated that lions weight and length make it the ultimate predator. However, the tiger,which weighs up to 671 pounds(1) and at lengths of up to 12.2 feet(2), surpasses the lions. Sources 1 http://www.bigcats.com... 2http://www.defenders.org...
If forced into a fight, a lion would defeat any other big cat.

On the contrary, Lions have been known to live in parts of India, hence the name the Asiatic Lion [1]. Although nearly extinct now, you see where the jungle reference is derived. You argument in reference to Hyenas is irrelevant. I said that Lions could defeat any member of the big cat family. Hyenas are instead in their own family Hyaenidae [2]. Wiki-answers is not a reliable source. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.sandiegozoo.org...
If forced into a fight, a lion would defeat any other big cat.

Why is the lion called the king of the jungle? The phrase is technically wrong because lions don't live in the jungle, they live out on the Savannah. The lion is called king because it is at the top of the food chain. Many animals don't dare challenge the lion. However, hyena's often get into conflicts with lions since their food sources are essentially the same and have been known to attack and kill lions.{1} 1 http://wiki.answers.com...
If forced into a fight, a lion would defeat any other big cat.

"Big Cats" are seen as Lions, Leopards, Jaguars, and Tigers. As Pro I will argue that a lion would defeat any of these animals if forced into a fair fight. (1v1) Terms: -3 rounds -500 character max My Argument: A lion is the largest cat. At over 500 hundred pounds and almost 11 feet long this beast is the ultimate predator. They have 3 inch canines and 3 inch claws which they use in devouring their prey and challenging other males. They are called "King of the Jungle" for a reason.
Chewing gum should be allowed in school

Thank you. Unfortunately, my opponent did not refute my arguments, neither did he present arguments that are defending his position properly. The resolution is: Chewing gum should be allowed in school. My opponent is Con on the issue, but his arguments do not defend his stance at all. 1. Rebuttals 1.1 Muscle pain and fatigue in the jaw Con argues that chewing gum can result in muse pain and fatigue to the jaw. This is, of course, true if one spends excessive amounts of time chewing gum, and chews too hard. However, everything should be taken in moderation. Excessive fruit intake is bad, excessive vegetable intake is bad, excessive vitamin intake is bad, ad infinitum. Chewing gums should - without doubt - be done in moderation. Moreover, just because there are certain health conditions which make gum chewing something bad does in no way justify a ban on gum chewing in schools. If we use this logic to ban things in public institutions, then we should ban fruits because some people are allergic to many kinds of fruits. It is poor reasoning. 1.2 Swallowing gum Unfortunately, this is also a very poor argument against gums. Who says that people should swallow gums? If they do not want to then let it be. I am fairly sure that most children at any random school are aware of the fact that it is not good to swallow a gum. Even if they do it, they can be warned against it, and it is not the worst thing in the world. It can get digested within a week in extreme circumstances. 2. Conclusion As I have made apparent, chewing gum at schools should definitely be allowed, perhaps even recommended. I have given examples of rulings on gum chewing, whereof some can and definitely should be applied at schools. On the contrary, my opponent has not explicated his arguments. He has not refute mine, and I cannot see a tiny bit of a good reason for why we should ban gum chewing at school.
Chewing gum should be allowed in school

Chewing gum often can result in muscle pain and fatigue to the jaw. If you suffer from IBS (irritable bowel syndrome), then gum may not be the best thing for you. Chewing causes excess air to be swallowed, which might cause more discomfort or bloating to an already tender large intestine. I know what the next question will be. Is swallowing gum bad for you? The short answer is again yes. While it might not be detrimental to your health, introducing something into your stomach that your body can't digest is never a good thing. Gum is made from chewable synthetic polymers like rubber and polyethylene, mixed with a little bit of natural latex injected with flavors and sweeteners. Doesn't sounds like something I would want in my belly! And no, gum doesn't stay in your intestines for seven years though all my girlfriends from high school told me it was so.
the death penalty

It seems that my opponent has forfeited this round, or somehow forgot about the debate, so instead of bringing up any new points, I will instead summarize why i have clearly won this debate. 1:My opponent has argued the moral side of why the death penalty should be enforced, but has not offered a global perspective of morality or contested the contradiction i made against his perspective of moral correctness. This for the most part negates his entire argument 2:My opponent has not clearly addressed any of my arguments or counterarguments, leaving his responsibility in this debate flawed and choppy 3:I have more than sufficiently explained why it is not always a morally correct choice to kill every murderer. In fact, part of my argument suggests that humans have no right to decide who lives and who dies, regardless of the crimes that he/she has committed. 4:My opponent has contradicted himself with his own words, showing that his argument is flawed and poorly organized. I don't think that this will be a very hard decision for all of you. Vote CON Also, i would like to thank nater for participating in this debate, although i would have liked for it to have been formally completed. I'm sure it was out of your control though.