BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christopher Columbus is less remembered becouse of the mission failure.

Yes, to some extant either Christopher Columbus or Amerigo Vespucci served for the development of Europe in time. They were faithful "ferocious" "soldiers" for Europe welfare life. Their work was in some case a single-sided beneficial effort. After their discovering many many African indigenous people forced to be sold out to the America, enormous wealth of Asia and Africa was dragged, as if carrying the wealth was child's play for conquerors. But on the other hand, their mission opened the way to the world for transferring from feudalism to capitalism regime. We should not turn a blind eye from it.
Christopher Columbus is less remembered becouse of the mission failure.

Chrisopher Columbus is well known for having "discovered" North America for the European peoples but the truth is that other explorers, with different motivations than Columbus would eventually have reached North America. The immediate effect, in fact, of Columbus' landing upon North America's shores was not necessarily drastic, it would be decades, centuries in fact before colonization and such began and thus, the in the grander scheme of things, Columbus has not been important. On the other hand, if Columbus had succeeded in uniting east and west in terms of trade he would not only have been more congratulated at the time (for bringing the trade goods he might have brought back) he would also be remembered as a great explorer for uniting the two through sea. Ironically (and this is somewhat irrelevant, but whatever) the northwest passage will be opened in several decades time, due to rising sea levels...
Christopher Columbus is less remembered becouse of the mission failure.

We know that Christopher Columbus discovered the America first. But he thought that was the Northern India. After him Amerigo Vespucci sailed through the Atlantic ocean and discovered a new continent. But this land the same land where was opened by Columbus. But of the opposite to the first trip, Vespucci brought enormous wealth back from America. What about Columbus, he came back with an empty sack what had to brought fully. So, the empires counted his mission failure.
There should be stricter control over the volumes of TV commercials

I concede that my opponent makes some good points but he doesn't come close to fulfilling his burden of proof, namely, the types of arguments he makes aren't per se good enough. You would have won this debate if the title said "It would be better if there was a stricter control over the volumes of TV commercials" instead of using the word "Should". o "Just because TV is popular does not mean that the volume of ads is tolerable. Certain ads are at a great volume but some ads are very loud or very sudden which can startle the viewer." Good perspective but the fact remains that they're tolerable enough for the TV to be popular. I suppose it all depends on how you define tolerable. Is the volumes of ads perfect ? No. Is it a pretty good balance ? No. Is it tolerable enough for you to watch the TV - regularly ? Yes. "This issue is so severe in fact that some companies are implementing technology to keep volume levels balanced" However, that does not change my previous point. Or, am I wrong ? o Standard Again, I don't have to agree to your standard and seeing how TV is popular I'd say that I have no good reason to accept your standard. ". As for the viewer finding the levels of volume tolerable, please read my analogy in paragraph/rebuttal 1 of this round." I have but this was your standard. However, lets take a look: "Another analogy is that just because using your car to get to work is extremely important to you, does not mean that you will tolerate drunk drivers that could disrupt your driving experience." To whom TV is "extremely important" ? Some people watch it for fun while for some it is an important part of their life. Both groups would have a completely different say on the advertisements. For example for one to enjoy TV, one should be cool with the advertisements since its a big part of the process. Like I said we all have different standards. o Keeps TV alive " I have stated several times that just because a business wants to advertise their product/service, it does not mean the business should have a right to use really loud volume levels in their commercials" Incorrect, they don't have the right to do things like show nudity but loud volume levels are allowed. Also, like I said its nothing personal just business. If the television has to stay alive by showing these ads then what is there to stop them ? "Reasons for implementing these regulations": 1. This I have addressed besides thats not good enough for a "should" 2. Its up to the TV networks... In other words they know what is the best for them. 3. This is what the whole debate is a about and I have already addressed this. Thank you and I hope to debate you again !
There should be stricter control over the volumes of TV commercials

Secondly, " I apologize for not carrying through with duty of my burden of proof" is of no problem. Now lets begin before I add ado. o "Television is still popular hence there aren't too many advertisements" "OK I agree with the fact that TV is still popular. " Wherefore, the volume of ads is tolerable. "As far as I know, this has been the standard for quite a while, which disproves my opponent's claim that 'there aren't too many advertisements'. " By what standard are you measuring ? By yours, obviously but what if we measured by my standard ? Clearly we would have the opposite conclusion. So what standard shall we apply ? The standard of the average viewer himself "OK I agree with the fact that TV is still popular. ". The viewer may complain but he still likes the TV enough to find the volumes of advertisements tolerable. o "Business" and "It makes people aware of many different products" "OK so businesses want to get their message out to the TV-viewing public using ads. " to "This should be regulated so that the level of sound is kept relatively steady throughout the entire program. " A: Previous Argument B: How would you enforce this ? Please provide links for the sake of being realistic. o "Keeps TV alive" A: Same as previously The burden of proof has not been met however we still have another round. Good luck!
There should be stricter control over the volumes of TV commercials

Thank you con for your points. I apologize for not carrying through with duty of my burden of proof. I will now try to disprove Con's short points (again, I apologize for not giving stating my points earlier). "Television is still popular hence there aren't too many advertisements" o OK I agree with the fact that TV is still popular. However, this does not make a difference on the lessening of the amount of advertisements (herein referred to as "ads") we see on television (herein referred to as "TV"). If anything, the high popularity of TV would encourage businesses to advertise more on TV since there is a greater profit to be made there than with other sources. Assuming a regular TV program (eg. Two and a Half Men, the news, etc. ) is scheduled for 30 minutes, the program itself will only air for 22 minutes (not necessarily consecutively) while the other 8 minutes will be taken up by ads. If the show is 60 minutes long, then it will only air for 44 minutes while the ads will total 16 minutes long, etc. About 27% of a show's total air time is taken up by ads. As far as I know, this has been the standard for quite a while, which disproves my opponent's claim that "there aren't too many advertisements". "Business" and "It makes people aware of many different products" o I am assuming that by "business", my opponent means that ads keep businesses afloat by letting people know about their products and attracting customers to those products. Whatever the case, I will elaborate using this aforementioned meaning. OK so businesses want to get their message out to the TV-viewing public using ads. That is completely fine with me, but the problem arises when certain ads have blaring music as part of their routine. When most people watch TV, they are doing it to relax, have some peace and quiet, bond with the family, etc. and not to listen to sudden, loud blasts of music or what have you from their TVs which disrupt the peace and annoy the viewers. This is especially apparent when you are watching a show with pleasant sounds such as a music video on Much Music, a Discovery Channel documentary, etc. This should be regulated so that the level of sound is kept relatively steady throughout the entire program. This method, which is intended to draw the viewer's attention to the business usually ends up souring the person's attitude and impression of the business and/or their product. This is exactly what the business doesn't want. Therefore, we are benefiting both the viewer/consumer as well as the business if we control volume levels of ads. "Keeps TV alive" o I stated earlier that I have no problem with TV advertisements. It is the high VOLUME of certain ads that greatly annoys me. Of course ads keep TV alive--it is how everyone gets money to keep continuing. I am not saying we should ban ads outright--just a higher regulation of the volume. I have disproved my opponent's claims to the best of my ability.
There should be stricter control over the volumes of TV commercials

"I invite my opponent to provide his/her reasons as to why we should not have greater control against this." The burden is not mine. Anyhow here are my arguments: o Television is still popular hence there aren't too many advertisements: http://www.editorsweblog.org... o Business It makes people aware of many different products. o Keeps television alive It helps advertising agencies and communication mediums such as television, radio, newspaper to make good amount of revenues from advertisements. Hence advertising is benefiting great number of people in many ways. Ill end it here
The scriptures teach that a child of God can't fall (eternal security or "once saved always saved")

I think it is very bad theology to say that our personal sanctification was not completely accomplished at Calvary. Why else did Jesus go to the cross but to save us? In fact, on the cross Jesus cried out "it is finished. " What is finished? The work of salvation, of course. By not believing we are saved for all time, the Instigator believes that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was not enough to save us, and that Jesus is not powerful enough to keep us from falling. These are very dangerous beliefs, indeed. Again, the Instigator keeps returning to his claim that a believer can walk away from his own salvation. Even if this is true, by walking away, you are not losing your salvation. You are giving it up. This does not affirm the resolution, which is that "a child of God can't fall. " There is nothing a genuine believer can do to lose their salvation (again, Jesus said there is only one sin that will not be forgiven, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit -- a sin no genuine believer would ever commit), also God will never take His salvation away. A believer can not lose his or her salvation. Of course God will not force us to never stumble. Stumbling is a part of life and it helps us grow as believers and as human beings. However, God has the power not to let His children fall so far as to "lose" their salvation. God will always provide the way out of temptation. The people the Instigator quotes may have fallen, but they were still God's children and God forgave them their sin. David did not lose his salvation by committing adultery and having her husband killed -- nothing in the text indicates that. In fact, David was once called a man after God's own heart (1 Sam. 13:14). God's character is one of unconditional love. God will not force us to do anything we don't want to do. I'm not convinced we can simply leave the fold and be lost forever, because as Jesus has said God will go looking for us (Luke 15:4). But even if we could, that would not be losing our salvation. That would, essentially, be giving it back. David committed murder and adultery (and rape), and yet he was still one of God's children. He cried out to God for forgiveness and God forgave him. If murder, adultery, and rape aren't enough for David to lose his salvation, then what is enough? Only one sin will not be forgiven, which is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That's a sin no genuine believer would ever commit. So we can see that besides God actually telling us that no sin can be unforgiven, and that no one can snatch us out of His hand, then it seems clear that no one can lose their salvation. Whether they leave it of their own free will is another matter, but even if they could, it would not be "losing" their salvation. I thank the Instigator for issuing this challenge.
Homosexuality Isn't Against Christianity

The Bible condones rape, so that is unlikely. The real threat to survival comes from all the major religions. It's seems far too convenient to attribute no moral responsibility on your God. I suppose Christians have no other choice really. That is a problem theists have to deal with. That isn't a very Christian statement, I hope you are aware of that. The Bible is notorious at condoning inequality, particularly when it comes to women's rights: Timothy 2:12. I applaud your secular way of thinking regarding sexual orientation. Kudos. Genesis 2:18-25 stipulates man and wife, the implication being that there is no alternative. It's important your have the freedom to believe. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Thank you for the debate.
Homosexuality Isn't Against Christianity

Given the context of the verse, it could be interpreted as pertaining to rape. I am simply pointing out that the real threats to survival come from the radical members of Islam, not Christianity. To a human, yes, that would seem idiotic. But God is not human. So in the eyes of God, as I have said multiple times now, all sin is equal. Sin is sin, and it is all bad. No, I am not homophobic. I treat everyone equally because we are equal. No one's sexual activity is my business, therefore no one is an abomination to me. The Bible teaches us to love others, and leave the judgement to God. It is simply not my place to judge those who are different than me. Being asexual, I have questioned my very being many times. I've been questioning for well over two years, so I am well aware that sexual orientation is not a choice. Please show me in the Bible where it says that marriage is to be between a man and a woman, and all others are wrong. I converted because I believe the Book.
Homosexuality Isn't Against Christianity

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death." I'd be fascinated to know how you could possibly interpret this in any other way. Please don't shift the blame to the another religion, we're talking about the one you follow. To say that murder is equivalent to being angry, is idiotic. And homosexuality is certainly not morally indistinguishable from murder either. Any gay person would find that insulting and I do too. But you say you aren't homophobic? You treat them as you would wish to be treated but secretly you think their sexual activity is an abomination. You question their very being. Next you'll claim that being gay is a choice! Without changing the topic, I should add that same-sex marriage is fundamentally wrong in Christianty too. It seems like you're still hanging onto some good secular values. What happened back in 2010 that made you want to be a Christian?
Homosexuality Isn't Against Christianity

This verse (Lev. 20:13) can be interpreted in many ways, so it's not as clear as some people think. In fact, its meaning is highly debated, in case you didn't know. Many things are punishable by death in many places. In fact, people are being beheaded because of what religion they believe in! Imagine that! As for the 'amount of suffering around the globe as a result of my Book,' why aren't you attacking Islam? As far as I know, there are no Christian terror groups who are destroying ancient artifacts and murdering innocent people. On your point about murder, yes, as I said, all sin is equal in the eyes of the Lord. Contrary to what you think I think, I am not at all homophobic. I'm one of those Christians that actually treat others like I would like to be treated. It's sad, but as with any group, only the idiots are heard (like Westboro baptist). I'm not against same-sex marriage either; I see nothing wrong with two people who love each other want to die together.
Homosexuality Isn't Against Christianity

I'm an atheist and my dislike for theology is why I have accepted this debate. It's an opportunity for me to expose the true horror of religion. I wouldn't say that the verses you refer to in the bible can be interpreted as anti-homosexual. Leviticus (20:13) for example is blatantly clear. It is a disgusting moral stance and it is precisely why in many Christian countries, Nigeria for example, homosexuality is punishable by death. The amount of suffering around the globe as a result of your book is frightening. And yet the new testament has made little attempt to make right these objectionable ideas. Just as it continues to condone slavery. On your point about anger. Murder is a so called sin, so is that also equal to being angry? Contrary to what you think, homosexuality is not a bad thing. This view is shared in civilised societies such as where I come from in the UK. In my country, your book is obsolete. Imagine that!
Homosexuality Isn't Against Christianity

I'd like to start this debate by providing a little information about myself. I have been a Christian since 21 November 2010, and I am asexual. Now for the debate. Yes, there are certain verses in the Bible that can be interpreted as anti-homosexual (Ex. Leviticus 20:13), but this is located in the Old Testament and is outdated. As Christians, we are to live by the New Testament. Next, on the sin itself, James 1: 19-20 says this, "(19)My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, (20) because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Meaning, becoming angry is a sin unto God. According to Romans 6:23, "(23)For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Meaning, all sins are equal in the eyes of God, making homosexuality equal with simply becoming angry. We're all human and we all get angry, so where's the problem? It's all equal.
Feminism is based upon female entitlement to male achievements.

I accept. Note that if even one strand of feminism or one feminist does not support female entitlement to male achievements, you negate because his argument, by the wording of the resolution, must be all of feminism is based on female entitlement to male achievements. Also, since this resolution is about whether or not feminism is based on female entitlement to male achievements, the burden is on him to prove that this is the central tenet of feminism. If I prove that this is not a central tenet of feminism, the resolution is false and you negate.
Feminism is based upon female entitlement to male achievements.

I welcome the challenge of engaging a proponent of Feminism who is based in the United States of America, familiar with its laws and culture, and willing to pursue this topic dispassionately. Rules of Engagement: 1. Argumentation ethics apply. 2. Semantics shall not apply. 3. Anecdotal evidence shall be considered irrelevant. 4. Sources must be cited following assertions with notation and the URL provided to bottom of round. 5. Quotations shall be considered irrelevant. 6. Round 1 is acceptance. 7. No new arguments shall be presented in Round 5. Definitions: * These definitions are chosen from different sources in an attempt to avoid redundancy within definition (e.g. "entitlement - a state of entitling" etc.). Feminism - a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. [1] based - a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis. [2] female - a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and a beardless face; a girl or woman. [3] entitlement - a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement. [4] male - a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man. [5] achievements - something that has been accomplished esp by hard work, ability, or heroism. [6] Improper Form: Any of the following mischaracterizations will be seen as concession of the debate (i.e. one warning may be given, whereas the second results in consession to the opposition) - 1) Superiority/inferiority of genders based upon opinion rather than objective, biological attributes. 2) Broad cultural depictions of male as "rapist," female as "victim." Notes: Thank you ahead of time to Con for agreeing to engage this topic. Please be sure to delay your voting till the conclusion of this debate. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
A man can not become a real woman

I did create an argument for my side. I said gender is a state of who you think you are, not how you were born. I actually just proved that you wasted your arguments because I said I was arguing under gender identification, not the your sex. Gender: "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)" I told you everything you are saying DOES NOT matter because I am topical under the definition of gender. That is why I ignored everything you said about the biological status. Plus, you just said a very stereotypical thing about black people and that's not okay. The mind over matter part, switching genders is doable. There is no differences between races except skin tone but there's differences between sexes. There's things that certain boys talk about and certain girls talk about and that's how it is. I'm not using stereotypes but that's basically it. My definition talks about how you're in the state of a male or a female. Meaning, you can change your gender by mind and you can get surgeries to have more feminine features and the body of a female which is good enough. My main argument is that gender is what you feel your identity is. If you can stick to your identity, then you have one and that's male or female so there you go, I was not wasting my time, you just ignored my topicality debate. So I read your points but they don't matter because you completely ignored the goal that needs to be met and you are not topical. Meaning, I technically already won.