BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are good reasons to believe that God did not order the genocide of the Canaanites.

I thank AeneasPhebe for agreeing to debate this contentious topic with me.DefinitionsGod: is the creator and sustainer of the universe and is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection. [1]Genocide: ..any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. [2]Canaanites: The part of the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible often called the Table of Nations describes the Canaanites as being descended from an ancestor called Canaan. The son of Ham, the Grandson of Noah, saying (Genesis 10:15-19): Canaan is the father of Sidon, his firstborn; and of the Hittites , Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivitites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zermarites and Hamathites. Later the Canaanite clans scattered, and the borders of Canaan reached [across the Mediterranean coast] from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then [inland around the Jordan Valley] toward Sodom, Gommorah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. [3] The sense in which I am using "good reasons" is that the reasons to believe that God did not order the genocide of the Canaanites are much stronger (i.e. they have more "weight") than the reasons Con might have to suppose that God did order the genocide. RulesArgue as best as you can. The burden of proof will be shared. It is up to Pro to argue that there are good reasons to believe that God did not order genocide and it is up to con to argue that there are good reasons to believe that God did order the genocide of the Canaanites. Round 1 is for acceptance and clarifications; Rounds 2 - 4 are for argumentation.Sources[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Toronto Police Incorrectly Handled the Sammy Yatim Situation

Quite a profound acceptance from Con. I seem to have my work set out for me. I believe the Toronto police incorrectly handled the Sammy Yatim situation. I refer to the term "incorrectly" in the ways which police on scene handled the situation ( by not following Toronto police regulation) and also the actions the police committed during the time this situation took place (one officer is seen standing on scene doing nothing, police did not section off the area nor attempt to redirect pedestrians away from the scene, and "the teen, who was wielding a small blade on an empty streetcar, was fired at nine times and then tasered on July 26 (http://www.thestar.com...)." Take a look at the footage http://www.youtube.com.... The way the police handled this situation on scene, and the actions they took, resulted in Sammy Yatims death. When a solo teenager whom is holding a knife in an isolated streetcar, one of the first precautions the officers should have taken is to secure the area and clear out pedestrians. Not to simply go ahead and draw their weapon and then proceed to shoot the teenager nine times from a distance, and then move in a taser the teen. It can be seen in the video that out of the ten police officers, not a single one attempted to clear out pedestrians, in act, at 1:43 in the video, you can see an officer simply standing there beside his bike doing nothing. To keep it succinct, Toronto police incorrectly handled the situation by taking the life of this teenager when there was no need to do so. There was nine officers on scene, and a police officer fired nine bullets at this teen when there was no reason; a police officer proceeded to taser the severely wounded teenager who was not fighting back; police should have offered help or negotiated with him before taking any sort of action; police should have blocked off the area and cleared pedestrians; and the main point: police fired nine lethal shots at a stagnant teen when even in the most violent instance, they could have shot his leg. I have therefore stated my definition of what I mean by "incorrect", and I have provided facts that illustrate how police incorrectly handled the situation, as well as, I have provided ways in which better methods could have been taken in this situation that would have been a more correct approach on the behalf of Toronto police.
Toronto Police Incorrectly Handled the Sammy Yatim Situation

I fill no need to repeat myself or specify again that we are discussing how the POLICE incorrectly handled the situation. My opponent evasively refers back to before the police were on scene and then proceeds to follow his statement up by stating his points justify why police shot and 18 year old nine times then continued to tase him. One can clearly see vehicles driving by, and other bystanders filmed the event which shows more than just the individual filming was on scene. Read my points again. Thank you to the ones that read this. P.S I will be blocking Irresistible for the offensive and derogatory sexual messages he sent me.
Toronto Police Incorrectly Handled the Sammy Yatim Situation

I do not intentionally mean to sound arrogant, but after the sexual messages I have received from my opponent, it really makes me question him as a person. Read my opponents attempt at a rebuttal. My response to that is that I recommend one watches the video of the incident I have posted in round two, then proceed to read my round two and three statements that in fact, directly respond to my opponents round three statement.
Confederate History Month

Confederate History Month should be celebrated in the states to honor the brave and dead of the Confederacy. Society today has taught us to just forget about the brave men, women and children that all gave their lives from the South. It is a good Month to celebrate anyone who has heritage in the South and they can express them selves. The month can't be pro white and will never will be because of the freed African Americans and Native Americans that gave all. The only reason this may not be appropriate for people due to the misconception that the Confederate flag symbolizes racism, The Confederate flag is what is putting you behind on CSA history month so lets debate this too. The "Confederate flag" or the Flag of the Army of Tennessee was flown by that army during the battles. The flag never became the national flag but became popular enough that it was put on the 3rd and 4th national flag. The flag's 13 stars resembles the Confederate States and Missouri and Kentucky witch had CSA governents. Maryland also esablished a Confederate government but its star is sometimes included. The cross sometimes know as the Southern Cross is the cross of Saint Andrew's who was a follower of Jesus Christ. Yes the Confederate Flag is used in hate groups like the KKK and Skinheads but if you look at images of when the KKK was at its hight around the 1920's you will never see a Confederate flag but the American Flag. The KKK didin't change the meaning of flag but made people think that it was racist.
Confederate History Month

Coming from an African-American I can tell you that having and or celebrating a Confederate History Month, is not offensive just as long as it isn't pro-white nationality. The only reason this may not be appropriate for people due to the misconception that the Confederate flag symbolizes racism, in reality racism hardly existed back then, and slaves aka Africans were not really seen as humans, but rather property. And, I'm 99.99% sure most people realize slavery is a big no-no.
Clarinet is a *better* instument than a flute...

"Clarinet is the best insterment because it is the easiest to learn", it is "Clarinet is better than flute". Yes, I'm aware of the topic that "clarinet is better than flute." However, my opponent supported his side by saying since clarinet is easier to learn, it is superior to flute. I refuted this point by giving out an example of trinangle, and saying that it is more logical to say that the instruments that are hard to learn could be superior. "So my opponent is saying 'the hardest instrements to play are the best ones'. So basoon tops both?" I did not say "hardest instruments are the best ones", but I said "it is not true the easiest instruments are the best ones." I can just question back to my opponent, "why not triangle?" Also, there is not standard of easy and hard because the speed of learning can be different depending on each person's background knowledge and natural talents. Since my opponent used the idea that since clarinet is easier, it is superior to flute, my opponent should clrearly represent the standard of easy and hard first;it is impossible to set the standard, therefore, my opponent's argument is not throughly supported at all. Is the range of pitch shows the superiority of an instrument? No. Each instrument has its own special characteristics, and it is impossible to say that "wider range = better instrument." Why would orchestra and bands use different kinds of instruments instead of one single instrument that has the widest range? Why would they choose to let those "inferior" instruments join together with "the best one with widest range?" You answer me.
Clarinet is a *better* instument than a flute...

Flutes can only play REALLY high, clarinets can play really high, and really low. Clarinets can play in the same places flute can, but they can also play in MORE places than just that. Yes, triangle would be VERY easy to learn, but it does not serve in very many kinds of music. When is the last time you heard a triangle in a jazz band? During a football game? However the debate was not, "Clarinet is the best insterment because it is the easiest to learn", it is "Clarinet is better than flute". So my opponent is saying 'the hardest instrements to play are the best ones'. So basoon tops both? I assume my opponent thinks ALL percussion is easy to learn, so it is inferrior. But it is MOST diverse and should top both, since I ha ve not heard a type of music that did not have a percussion line with it. I await my opponent's responce.
Clarinet is a *better* instument than a flute...

My opponent already well-defined the differences between clarinet and flute, so I see no need of defining the differences again. However, since the topic is "clarinet is a better instrument than a flute." my opponent should have more defined why a clarinet is more superior to a flute. My opponent simply supported his idea of superiority of clarinet my expressing "1. flutes have less styles they can play due to lack of flexibility in sound. 2.Clarinets can be used in a wider variety of music and is easier to learn." The both statements are flawed. My opponent did not successfully explain why flutes have fewer styles they can play, because he did not mention anything about the flexibility in sound. If clarinet can not produce as high pitch as flute, and flute can not produce as low pitch as clarinet, how can we put them aside to compare their flexibility in sound? So the only point now left is "clarinet is easier to learn, so it's a better instrument." One of the most uncomplicated instrument, triangle, should be the best instrument in this world according to my opponent's argument. Just because it is hard to learn, it does not mean that it is inferior to those that are easy to learn. On contrary, if it is harder to learn, than it means it consists of more complex parts and more styles because hard to learn means hard to utilize the instrument's whole potential. However, this point is just an assumption because the speed of learning various instruments is often different depends on personal conditions and preferences. In either way, my opponent's flawed points can not supported.
Clarinet is a *better* instument than a flute...

A clarinet (I am defining the instruments for those who may not know, my opponent plays flute, she knows about the musical instruements, for those of you that knows about these instruements, you can skip the first section of material), is a somewhat long wooden instrument, consisting of five parts, a head, a neck, a top body, a lower body, and a bell, it is played with a small wooden reed, pressed against the wooden (sometimes plastic, wood makes a better sound) using lips. it is held in place with a ligature which is partly or wholey made of metal, that has screws that tighten or loosen so that the player can adjust remove/place the reed on the instrument. it's ranges are fairly far. http://www.donmack.com...... http://alliedmusic-bedford.com...... http://upload.wikimedia.org...... A flute on the other hand is made of silver and/or plastic (high quality, plastic if that is the case), that generally produces higher notes. It has three parts, the head joint, the body, and the foot. Instead of blowing IN the flute you blow across. You blow quicker to make the pitch go higher, and slower to make lower sound. The lower the sound the less the flute can be heard, in most cases. http://www.google.com......:*:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GFRC&defl=en&q=define:flute&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title http://musicalmart.net...... http://www.jccc.on.ca...... =============================================================================== =============================================================================== clarinets may seem more intimidating at first, but if you had ever played both you will see that clarinet is easy. no buttons = g, it gradually goes up with each button, thumb, F, just first finger, F#, thumb and first, E, Thumb first second, is D, and it goes up alphabetically until you reach A, then you start over with G. Flute on the other hand has no handy way of remembering, or knowing which buttons to push. They also have to change the frequency of air movement, to make it high of low sounding. Clarinet has more of a wood sound, while flute has a shrill sound. True, if you have the clarinet to far in your mouth, or not put together (just the head, and neck, with reed, and ligature) it sounds like a dying goose, but, a flute always sounds like a dying bat. (okay just REALLY high pitched and pretty squeaky most of the time, so no offense), also, flutes have less styles they can play due to lack of flexibility in sound. Trumpet and trombone can be used in almost anything and for this purpose ARE better than clarinet, however we are not disccussing them, only flute and clarinet. Clarinets can be used in a wider variety of music and is easier to learn. I await my opponent's response.
Gym class should NOT be a requirement for high school

Pro's first point seeks to achieve that the mental health of some teenagers is at risk through experiences in the changing room. It is an issue but this does not only happen in a gym changing room and if we were to implement your logic for even situation that teenagers feel insecure in we would be allowing those of the most important age to become hermits. School is here to teach us many skills we need in life and not all of these are taught by a teacher at a black board. The social situations you find in a typical high school are a part of growing up and I will pick this up in my substantive. She also seeks to prove that gym is a distraction and restricts studies however having competitively played basketball and done athletics for my school and outside of school through out my high school career and am now doing a masters degree in physics at university. Sport acts as a release for your brain and releases hormones that promote a feeling of well being and happiness combating stress that indeed comes with a teenagers life. To oppose this I want to bring in the health benefits that gym brings. As I have said it naturally brings psychological benefits which outweigh these feelings of insecurity which we all go through as teenagers in high school as part of life. It also accounts for the only exercise many high school children have. It is important to at least try and install a healthy lifestyle in children that are subjected to a culture of fast food and laziness. As the government is responsible for children's well being while in school it is their duty to install a well rounded education and this includes sport. Being able to co-operate in a team even amongst people you would not usually be inclined to like is a very important life skill to learn because out in the real world, in work and daily life you will still have to co-operate maturely with people who you may not like. "High School Never Ends". Team skills are also good to have when your working with people you do like too. Even if you don't like participating in a sport due to the school atmosphere it could become a hobby later in life when you can get changed or showered in privacy. Everyone will have a social situation they don't like and a high school is one of the best places do be exposed to these situations because there is a security network from teachers and staff. Learning to deal with uncomfortable social situations is one of the most highly valued life skills in our modern world and the diversity of a high school curriculum, including gym, and social hierarchy is what prepares us best for the real world because it is all very well having high grades if you can't use your knowledge to the best of your own ability or an employers needs because you don't know how to cope socially. Social learning is just as important if not more so as educational studies and gym is a very good way introducing more real world social situations allowing you to learn how to deal with them. Thank you.
Gym class should NOT be a requirement for high school

Gym class should not be a requirement. For one thing puberty is a time when teens can be VERY self conscious and a locker room where everyone showers and gets changed together DOES NOT help them. Also gym class can tire kids out and make them less likely to concentrate. Plus it does not help a student who wants to be a teacher or a librarian. If a student wants to be an athlete or in the military then they should have multiple gym classes. but when a child chooses books over gym class it shows they wish to work on broadening their intelligence instead of their muscles. Plus gym can eliminated in kids schedules and allow them more study time for tests ad quizzes. Therefore gym class should be optional.
All people walk by faith

Thank you for the debate. My opponent has demonstrated their faith in God, which is lovely, but has nothing to do with this debate. The topic in question is whether all people walk with faith. I do not need to defend my contrary position because Pro has made no arguments in favour of the resolution. My opponent also uses poor reasoning, first claiming that it's my fault for using a religious definition, then proposing the solution as the biblical definition. The biblical definition is religious, so I'm confused as to my opponent's thought process here. Further, why is your holy book the only authority? Why shouldn't I believe the Quran or Torah or any other holy book? All people claim that they have the real truth and every other god is fake and they know this to be true because they have a personal relationship with their god. How do I pick the correct one? My opponent has not affirmed their position, and the resolution is negated. It is not the case that all people walk by faith.
All people walk by faith

First I never said God has never answered my prayers.He has many times given exactly what I asked for. I do have a personal relationship with the Father. We talk all the time. But I do not have to see him to know and understand him. I have received many of Gods promises. Healing, the baptism of the holy spirit, deliverance from calamity.Prosperty . I have much confidence when God promises something that he will fulfill it.So, my life is such as that when I die I am extremely confident that all I will do is simply change locations. Move from this temporary body to an eternal environment. Your problem is that you ascribe a religious definition of faith. What is wrong with the definition that the bible gives?And you said that if you had 3 years of paychecks and he missed one, you would not lose faith. Because you have 3 years of evidence that it would be corrected.Now if all you had was 3 weeks, that would be a different story.I have had 40 years of experience with people looking through the lens of the word of God and am light years in confidence that what God says is exactly the truth about man. The word of God is a discerner of the thought and intent of the heart. He has made people easy to read.
All people walk by faith

While I reject your definition, I believe that we have reached an operational understanding of how to address the topic of faith. I will first deconstruct your argumentation. Atheists do not have to have faith because atheism is not the assertion that there is no god. It is the dismissal of god-claims, not the argumentation against a god's existence. There are many varieties of atheist, and the only thing they have in common is that they do not believe in a god. Note, that the absence of belief is not the presence of belief against. Saying atheists have faith (or that atheism is a type of religion, etc) is akin to saying that bald is a hair colour or unemployment is a profession. You then cite bible passages ineffectively in a laboured attempt to illustrate your point. Unfortunately, the bible cannot be taken as an authority on this topic because the bible cannot assert that we are all beings of faith while simultaneously explaining the punishment for atheists and apostates; this is an inherent contradiction. Further, it is circular to use the bible to prove the existence of something claimed by the bible. This type of reasoning is as unsound as saying "everything in my book is true. We know this because the book says it's true. And if you removed from the first premise, everything the book says is true". It is not the word of God that I don't have confidence in; it's the word of man pretending to be God that I don't have confidence in. You then make an argument after constructing a different definition of faith. You have changed the definition mid-Argument. I thought your definition was the biblical one? Regardless, I am happy to use your analogy as an example. Firstly, god has never appeared or answered your prayers. This is the same as you not receiving a paycheck. Why would you continue to have faith? Further, I assert that this is not faith as we have defined it. Instead, you are describing the separate concept of 'trust', which is a useful term. Trust is confidence in a person, process or object which is earned through experience. If my employer didn't pay me for my first week, I would not have confidence in him. However, if he paid me fairly for three years, then forgot one week, I would maintain my trust that he made an error and will do the right thing and rectify it. Trust and confidence are useful because they are earned through experience. Faith is different because it persists without being earned. That is, God cannot earn your trust, so you ascribe Him faith. Faith is not meaningful or useful. Faith is the reason people give when they don't have a good reason. If there's so much proof for your God, why do you require faith? Fundamentally, Pro has yet to uphold their burden that all people are beings of faith. Formally: P1) if all people are beings of faith, then there is no person who does not have faith. P2) I do not have faith. C) We are not all beings of faith.