BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Joseph Smith was a prophet of God

I have the highest respects for my opponent for this debate on the legitimacy of Joseph Smith being a prophet. I would first like to state that these are not failed prophecies, but prophecies that may have not fulfilled their meanings. It would be the same as the book of Revelations, the prophecies depict the end of the world and hasn't been fulfilled either. Does this make the book of revolvelations untruth? The bible is full of metaphors. So why can't New Jerusalem and Old Jerusalem be metaphors also? And also, prophets are human,which makes them imperfect. *Noah got drunk and revealed himself naked to his son,Ham. (Genesis 9:21-27) *Moses killed a man(Exodus 2:11-12), and disobeyed god (Numbers 20:2ï¿½€"12) *Judas sold out Jesus for gold.(Luke 21:37 - 22:6) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ My objective is to show that Joseph Smith's has prophecies that have happened already. The last item written by Joseph Smith in his journal is an entry from Saturday, June 22, 1844 "I told Stephen Markham that if I and Hyrum were ever taken again we should be massacred, or I was not a prophet of God." Doctrine and Covenants 5:22, written fifth teen years earlier "and if you do this, behold I grant unto you eternal life, even if you should be slain." Shortly after Joseph and Hyrum were put into Carthage Jail, they were murdered by a mob. They had others with them, but the only two that died, were Joseph and Hyrum, as predicted -Escape of Stephen Markham History of the Church Volume 3, p. 316 "During this night the visions of the future were opened to my understanding; when I saw the ways and means and near approach of my escape from imprisonment, and the danger that my beloved Brother Markham was in. I awoke Brother Markham, and told him if he would rise very early and not wait for the judge and lawyers, as he had contemplated doing, but rise briskly, he would get safe home, almost before he was aware of it; and if he did not the mob would shoot him on the way; and I told him to tell the brethren to be of good cheer, but lose no time in removing from the country." The next morning Brother Markham escaped as prophesied. A Mob pursued him, but were not able to capture or harm him. And Joseph, was we have already discussed, was later freed, as prophesied. -Prediction of Stakes in Boston and New York "In the great cities, as Boston, New York, etc., there shall be stakes" (History of the Church, Vol.6, p. 319) On Dec. 9, 1934, the New York Stake was organized. On May 20, 1962, the Boston Stake was organized. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The conclusion is that he does have fulfilled prophecies, and no prophecies that can be proved ultimately false. So since he does have prophecies that have came true, and no concrete evidence that he has false prophecies, he must be a prophet.
Joseph Smith was a prophet of God

I commend my opponent for suggesting his attempt to show that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. However I am frustrating, my opponent has not offered any arguments for his side to show the legitimacy of Joseph Smith as a prophet. He has only spend all his rounds relying on the fact that the world is a world of possibilities. While it is true that almost anything is possible in the universe, my opponent needs to realize that these 'failed' prophecies of Joseph Smith should been seen to have come true. No one can testify to that. We have read of prophecies of Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel etc in Old Testament, we can see that their prophecies came true. For example, for Isaiah it was the birth of Jesus. My opponent has to show that Joseph's prophecies came true. Moving on: I don't need to say a lot from now on. My opponent has only told us of how Joseph Smith prophecies could be possible. That's it. We have not seen anything to show the Joseph was a prophet. I rest my case that he wasn't as evidenced by these failed prophecies. A few things-- -New Jerusalem is not LDS community, it is a place. It is Independence, Jackson County, MO. We have agreed that New Jerusalem suggests an Old Jerusalem. Well, Old Jerusalem is not 'old' Christianity. My opponent has claimed falsities. Old Jerusalem is Jerusalem, Israel (a place). Therefore, new Jerusalem must also be a place. Reading LDS literature would reveal that this place is Independence, Mo. LDS never got to do what the prophecy told. They were kicked out of Missouri in 1833. False prophecy. I need my opponent to give us some arguments that his claim can actually rest on. I await an even better response from my opponent.
Trump supporters are bigots.

You make some good points. And to be honest, I am not sure what the solution to the issue of Muslims coming into the country should be. The reason why I consider his refusal to believe Obama's citizenship to be racist, is because he was trying to perpetuate the popular notion that Obama is Muslim, and stir up the fear and hatred of Muslims, that still pervades our society. Muslims did not attack America. Extremists attacked America. It is indeed wrong to lump all members of a group in with a few extremists. I personally believe that Trump is a racist. but I also believe that his racism is only secondary to his desire to be president. Trump will say anything to win and become powerful, and if that means stirring up the powerful hatred and fear of mostly white, uneducated, embittered people, than so be it! Trump knows exactly what he is doing. He knows very well, that his base consists of racists, and xenophobes, and he is harnessing all of their toxic racism, to win an election. Anyone who continues to support him in light of these facts, is agreeing to at least tacit approval, of the dehumanization of certain peoples. Below are some examples of the toxic racism, that Trump has knowingly incited. https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be...
Trump supporters are bigots.

My reasons for asserting that Trump is indeed a racist, as well as the people who support him, are as follows, In 1973 The Justice department sued Trumps Real estate company, alleging that the company quoted different rental rules for African Americans, than it did for whites. Another charge was that his company lied to African Americans by telling them that apartments weren't available, when they truly were. Trump tried to sue the department for 10 million, claiming defamation of character. The company settled out of court, and agreed to give A vacancy list to a certain number of black applicants. However, 3 years later, his organization was sued yet again, for lying to blacks and Puerto Ricans, about the availability of apartments. I believe this fits in with your second definition of racism: A policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering the doctrine that one race is superior, and has the right to dominate others; discrimination. Trump also stated that a judge named Gonzalo Curiel, who was presiding over a case against Trumps own university, could not be impartial because he is Mexican. Trumps own words are: "He"s a Mexican, We"re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings " rulings that people can"t even believe. Trumps own party was angered by that comment, and attempted to distance themselves from the remark. Two brothers brutally beat a homeless Latino man, and stated that trumps anti-immigrant sentiments, were the catalyst for their actions. When confronted with this information, Trump stated that the boys were simply "passionate." Trump made the statement: "I'm calling for a nationwide shutdown on Muslims into this country, until we figure out what the hell is going on." So ALL Muslims are terrorists? None of them are just ordinary good people looking for a better life? It is well known to Trump, that a large portion of his supporters are white supremacists. Trump has refused to distance himself from those individuals, implying tacit approval. Trump supported the birthers, and refused to believe that our black president was born in the us. despite his actual birth certificate being shown. Many of these statements can be found on video, or in very interviews Trump has given. To answer two of your questions: Yes, I have heard Trump supporters become defensive and militantly assert that they are not racist for supporting him. And no, I am not a Hillary supporter.
Trump supporters are bigots.

Trump fans vehemently assert that you cannot call them racist or sexist, simply because they support Trump. I beg to differ. In light of the deplorable things Trump has said about Latinos, Muslims, African Americans, and women, continuing to support him, shows at least tacit approval of racism and sexism. Of course not every trump supporter is a cross burning, p*ssy grabbing maniac. But to support a man who has said the things Trump has, shows open disregard for the well-being, feelings, and economic/social concerns of the groups he demeans. Trump supporters clearly do not think these groups are important enough to be considered or acknowledged, which is a sign that they do not view these groups as equals, who are deserving of dignity and respect. They have dehumanized these people to such an extent, that it is easy for them to ignore the interests of these groups with a disturbingly cavalier attitude. Like who cares if some Latinos or Muslims get screwed right?
Young Earth Creationism is Improbable

Full ResolutionYoung earth creationism is improbable.BoP is shared.DefinitionsYoung Earth Creationism: "...the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God period of 6 days, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago." [1] Improbable: "Unlikely to take place or be true." [2]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. No forfeiture.3. No trolling, lawyering, and kritiks/critiques of the topic.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by Con)Round 3: Refutation and defense (no new arguments)Round 4: Refutation, defense and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
Thbt Percy Jackson is better than Harry Potter.

As mentioned, I will begin by stating how Percy have a better personality. I have two points, each referring to the partners Percy and Annabeth. Let's begin with the first point. Point one (Percy): It has been discovered in the final book of the first series, The Last Olympian, that Percy's fatal flaw is none other than loyalty, which actually means he puts his friends before himself. While that may get him killed, you may see the Percy has never died once in all the three series, (Percy Jackson the series, Blood of Olympus, Trials of Apollo) while Harry himself, has technically died. This shows that while Percy has a huge amount of loyalty in him, he is also capable enough to keep him alive. This makes him an incredible hero and his loyalty and ablity to get a girlfriend in only 5 years (for SUMMER only) actually shows Percy has a true legend's personality. Point two (Annabeth): Much like Hermione, Annabeth knows a lot about a lot in her world. However the one thing that seperates them is that Annabeth ALWAYS has a plan. Annabeth had been treated like a demon as a kid and eventually ran away from home at the age of seven. She then fought monsters under the guidance of her mom, Athena, for a few months with ONLY a mortal hammer. The excellent part about this part are the words "Mortal hammer" and "A few months". EVEN with the guidance of Athena, to fight a monster with a HAMMER would be VERY difficult. Even with the help of Hermes and Athena, you may remember Perseus almost avoided a narrow death with the other two Gorgons (sisters of Medusa) and had a nervous breakdown. Hercules took more than three days with the guidance of Athena and a gift to get rid of the Stymalitian birds. This shows Annabeth is really courageous in addition to being really knowledgable showing that she is a true example of a very sucessful entrupreneur. Overall, I have proved to you how Percy is good enough to save his friends AND the world no matter what and Annabeth as a worth demigod capable of handling anything and deserves to redesign Olympus.
Google needs to get off Youtube

It is my belief that Google, after their company's recent modifications on Youtube, need to just cancel all the changes they have made, and leave it alone from then on. It is causing a lot of problems for most to all of the users of the website. I will list all of the problems I see at the moment. 1.) Google is making changes that most of the users of Youtube have been and are expressing their distaste in. Google has mostly been ignoring every bit of criticizm and stubbornly refuses to change what they have done even when pressed about it. 2.) Google is effectively treating every single user on Youtube like criminals with their recent new copyright changes. Also, their content ID flags are infact crippling larger channels like the AngryJoeShow, TotalBiscuit. Large channels like MinnesotaBurns and Pewdiepie have started turning comments off in their videos along with Nerd Cubed, because of the problems they cause. 3.) And worse, when a video is flagged with one of these content ID flags, the video makes zero profit and it instead goes to the company's who by the way can just go on Youtube and flag any video they see. So it is just the greedy benefit of Google and the company's who do this act that are being the problem to actual, innocent users. Google+ needs to get off of youtube after changing everything back to how it normally was. It is a win-win for Google and buisnesses, putting more money in their already stuffed pockets. It is a lose-lose situation for us, the innocent users and content creators.
We would like to life forever

"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women are mere players." Indeed, it is true. Everything that is born has to die someday. Every living being has a part to play, a role to showcase. They all have there exits and entries. After ones task is finished one must leave. It is against the laws of nature when one tries to extend their life by artificial means, it will undoubtedly affect the cycle of life and gradually life's worth would be lost. Creating such an imbalance in nature will only cause more problems and difficulties for everyone.
The Israeli Military intentionally attacked the USS Liberty

Unfortunately due to an overly busy week, I don't have much time for a response (or sleep). I ask that the voters disregard any new evidence or arguments that may be provided in the final round. I'll focus on a few points which I think judges need to consider before deciding a winner. 1. Consider the definition for intentional in round 1 and reminded of in round 2. If you answer yes to the following question after reading this, you must award me the win. Question: Did any portion of or personnel in the Israeli military know that the ship they were attacking is American? This is how the resolution was worded and expanded upon in round 1 and brought back up in the previous round. I've provided NSA declassified documents showing that portions of and certain personnel in the Israeli military, were aware that an American ship was being attacked and even warned their commanding officers in an attempt to get them to stop. This is something the Israeli government doesn't deny and readily admits. 2. My opponent has quoted several facts and used citations in a sloppy way. Most of the citations are from second hand sources (journalist articles), while mine are directly from eye witnesses and NSA declassified documents. I really take issue with the way she uses citations because it's hard to track down which facts belong to which citations just because of the lack of annotation and having them just randomly placed at the bottoms of each argument. I think judges need to weigh the use of citations, extremely heavily. 3. My opponent has pretty much not forwarded a case at all. She asserts miscommunication but doesn't really provide any premises beyond the claims of people who would be tried as war criminals if found guilty of this intentional attack. Occam's razor when applied to this situation tells you that it's more likely these multiple warnings from subordinates were ignored. Unless the Israeli officers are holding their hands over their ears and singing "la la la la", I don't get how they can't hear somebody literally screaming on the command bridge or a subordinate directly telling his commanding officer that they were attacking an American ship. We have to think what's more likely that the Israelis all of a sudden just turned into a bad military that has communication issues. Are we to believe they were attacking a ship that they thought was literally fleeing and of no danger or did they intentionally attack an American ship because somebody in the chain of command thought they'd benefit from it. One of these scenarios make sense for a professional highly trained military to do. One of these scenarios makes no sense at all. Conclusion- I apologize for being brief this round but we can't add any new arguments this round anyway so none of this should effect the judges decision to an incredibly huge degree. I'd like to thank EmilRose for being willing to debate this with me. She's a worthy opponent and it was fun. Thanks everybody, for reading along this far as well. I hope you found this debate interesting.
The Israeli Military intentionally attacked the USS Liberty

Accepted. Thanks Wylted! It is a pleasure to contend this topic with you, particularly considering your experience in the area of debating. To clarify my position: I will be arguing that the 1967 Six Day War attack on the USS Liberty was the not intentional; and that neither the Israeli government or Israeli forces pre-planned or intended to attack a U.S ship, this applies to before and during the event. Good luck Wylted and I look forward to seeing your arguments.
The Israeli Military intentionally attacked the USS Liberty

I appreciate EmilRose being willing to debate this topic with me. I honestly didn't think many people would be too interested in this topic so I reached out to her knowing her interest in Israeli politics as well as history. I also wanted the challenge of facing an undefeated opponent. Little did I know that quit a few people were actually interested in debating this but I think I picked the best person for this particular debate anyway. The Elo limit unfortunately has to be at above 2,000 Elo to prevent a certain troll who is extremely biased in my favor from voting on this debate. I hope this limit doesn't exclude too many people. I dedicate this debate to the men who lost their lives that day as well as the survivors of the USS Liberty. Note- I may be consulting with Joe Meadors, USS Liberty Survivor, Director of Operations, USS Liberty Veterans Association. If I do consult with him it's primarily for help tracking down documents I need to make good rebuttals or counter rebuttals. Joe was on the ship and hoisted a 2nd American flag after the first was destroyed under fire. http://www.ussliberty.org... RULES 1. Round 1 is for acceptance and to dispute any facts I may have got wrong in getting readers up to speed with the events of that day. 2. No new arguments in the final round. 3. Burden of proof is split on this debate. DEFINITIONS Intentionally- done in a way that is planned or intended. http://www.merriam-webster.com... More specifically, I'm stating that the Israeli military, portions of or personnel knew the ship they were attacking was American either before the attack or sometime during the attack and continued attacking anyway. EVENTS IN QUESTION This event isn't widely known or heard about. Unlike most debates the majority of readers of this aren't likely to have ever heard of the USS Liberty attack. The events I describe are merely to get readers up to speed on what happened. I'll just relay some facts that aren't going to be likely disagreed upon by me or my opponent. I expect in the rounds to follow me and my opponent will basically disagree on any other topic except what's mentioned here. She should also feel free to add any neutral details, she feels I've left out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The USS Liberty was a United States Navy technical research ship. On June 8, 1967 it was positioned in international waters about 25 miles off the coast of Egypt, during the 6 day war. That day it was attacked by Israeli Jet fighters and torpedo boats. This attack ended in the death of 32 crew members and 171 more were injured. I would catch you guys up more but those are likely going to be the only details in the debate which won't be contested by either side. Good luck EmilRose, I very much look forward to this debate, in fact I.m thrilled to be taking on such a great opponent.
Alternative Vote should be adopted in the UK (over First Past the Post).

I will be arguing that the Alternative Vote is a fairer and more democratic voting system than First Past the Post - which I view as archaic and unfair. STRUCTURE Round 1: Opening Argument/Statement Round 2: Response to opening statement & questions Round 3: Response and development Round 4 : Concluding Remarks My opening argument will be rather brief: Problems with First Past the Post _________________________________________________________________ 1. First Past the Post allows minority rule. 66% of the UK population did not vote for its elected MP. Only one government in the past 100 years has had more than 50% support. Is that really democracy in 2011? 2. MPs need not appeal to a broad spectrum of people. As they can get in with as little as say 25% or 30% of the popular vote, they need only try to convince a minority of voters to come out in their support. 3. First Past the Post is characterised by elections being decided in only a handful of marginal constituencies. That means hundreds of thousands of peoples votes are practically worthless. Is that really 'one person, one vote?' 4. FPTP causes apathy. Why would you vote if there was no hope of your party winning? Why Alternative Vote (AV) is preferable. ____________________________________________________________________ 1. An example: 3 candidates are running for election and you are a voter. Mr Blue - you love him, but there's not much chance him winning Mr Green - you hate him, and really hope he doesn't win! Mr Red - You'd prefer him over Mr Green, but he's not your 1st choice. With First Past the Post, you'd have to choose between potentially wasting your vote on Mr Blue (As he stands so little a chance), or not voting for Mr Blue despite him being your favourite, and instead tactically voting for Mr Red. With Alternative Vote, you can vote in preference orer: 1. Mr Blue 2. Mr Red. when the results are counted in the first round, Mr Blue is disqualified as he has received the fewest votes. people who voted for him then have their 2nd choices redistributed. And then, in the final round of counting, this produces a candidate who receives the broadest support from the electorate. Candidates have to get a majority to be elected, they have to aim for 50% of the vote. If in the first count, a candidate acheives 50%,then they are automatically elected. If no-one acheives 50%, then process above begins. It is FAIR, DEMOCRATIC & produces candidates who better REPRESENT their constituents. After all, the whole point of a regional MP is to be representative. And so I close the first stage of my argument, and look forward to hearing your counter-arguments.