BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
mormonism is false

Isn't it interesting to note that many practices that we know were in the Judaism of the Old Testament were never recorded in the Bible? The exact practices of the Pharisees, for instance, are not recorded in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. However, we have learned some of their practices through archeology. These practices were important to the religious rulers, but God did not put them in the OT.This same thing applies to baptism. Just because the Old Testament doesn't talk about it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Also, look at the New Testament before Jesus was baptised in Matthew 3 : " 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”Obviously baptism was important to the religious rulers. The religious leaders were forbidden by God's law to change much in their religious practices. Therefore, this practice must have gone back millenia, even to Adam. So it is not a contradiction, only a misunderstanding to one who does not know the Holy Books.
mormonism is false

according to mormonism, baptism is a major part of the gospel and baptism was widely practiced throughout the old testament times and that Adam was the first to be baptized http://www.lds.org...however, in the Old Testament, there are absolutely no mentions or descriptions of baptisms. if baptism was so crucial to their gospel throughout the Old Testament times, they must have written a lot about it in their scriptures, but they didnt. it is clear that baptism was popularized around the time of jesus. this contradicts mormonism, so mormonism isnt true
Free welfare

First of all,there most be a reason why that person doesn't have a job in the first place, also it's not welfare it's self that bothers me it's the fact that it's not structured, it's so easy to scam it, 80% out of 100 people don't actually need it, they just like the fact of free money, so let's say some one has grown up there whole life with everything given to them for free guess what? They become lazy, cause they think I don't need to work or do anything cause I'm just gonna have everything handed to me. And that's just what welfare does it just gives you free things with out you having to work for it. I've seen it multiple times some one says they don't "sleep well at night" welfare sends them $600 dollars a month, I'm not saying that person is Lyon but most of the time they are. That's why it's not structured.
Free welfare

Free welfare is not pointless, it has a clear point. To help the people in need. Too your point that it makes people lazy, most people that are living under free welfare aren't able to get jobs, and even the minimum wage provides better then free welfare. You also stated that a country that has free welfare is stupid, but why is free welfare stupid? You haven't said anything to prove that statement other then that it is pointless, and that it makes people lazy, which both have been disproved above Now that I have clashed with your points, I shall state my first argument: Without free welfare, many people wouldn't have enough money to support themselves, so sadly, many people would die. Do we really think that it is acceptable as a society to let people just die just so we won't have to have a slight increase in taxes?
Baptism is a salvation issue.

Allow me again to bring you that all important winning link that Proves once and for all "baptism" as used in 1 Peter 3:21 is indeed a NOUN and not a VERB ! Here is the Verse (1 Peter 3:21) "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ". Note ! "BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US" And here is the link to prove it's not a Physical act but indeed a NOUN > http://www.blueletterbible.org... So please folks, if anyone tells you that a Physical baptism is required, you can tell them different, I can also tell you that if any religion includes the necessity of a physical baptism in their beliefs, then they are more often than not a "CULT", = Mormonism Catholicism and JW's. two if which were started by Freemasons, and all three have their own personal version of the bible. I hope my opponent will now leave his false religion and goes on to seek a personal relationship with Christ, that way he will not get this reply when he meets his maker > Matt 25:12 "But he (Jesus) answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not". .. My name is Peter and it is my hope Jesus that will welcome me at the gates and say > Matt 16:18 "..I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter", ;-)
Resolved: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers.

This is the final round so my response is short and mostly a conclusion with a few short responses. Civilian oversight is majority rule because a group of civilians is likely to represent the ideology held by the majority. Because people will make decisions based on what they believe, and their belief is the majority held belief, the majority views are imposed. Civilian oversight would be the same as a jury as a random group of civilians is collected to review the facts of the case and impose their ruling. The existence of the judge is essential to balancing this power and Con argues for replacing the judge with another jury. This disrupts the balance of power in favor of majority rule. Minority rights is satisfactory under utilitarianism because conscientiously violating rights of the minority in favor of the majority leads to a slippery slope of tyranny. Just as the minority rights of the Jewish were violated in favor of the majority rule of the Germans in Nazi Germany, allowing it leads to a slippery slope of gratuitous suffering. This is why under utilitarianism minority rights are important. Zaradi"s second point on this doesn"t make much sense as he lists the current offenses against minorities in the court system. This isn"t a reason to not fix these issues, it's irrelevant. The argument that civilian oversight is the best way to eliminate the problem does not work because the problem with the court system as far as discrimination is in the jury, not the judge. Studies have found that the majority of discriminatory rulings came from racist sympathy from the jury rather than the judge. Overruling the judge with another gathering of citizens to review the facts with repeat the same results. Giving balancing power to the judge is the best way to fix the problem. I have limited understanding of the Schwartz discussion because it is so damn confusing. I see the argument as thus: qualified immunity allows officers to not go to trial and the suit discarded when they have been proven to do something wrong. Zaradi"s proposed solution to this while not limiting QI doesn"t work because it leads to majority rule. Thus I affirm the notion that QI should be limited in order to not allow policemen to escape a trial for a crime they have been proven to commit. The problem is not necessarily the police officers having to pay for the trial, although that is a part of it, it is that the case gets dismissed by the judge. My argument does not have to do with incentivising policemen to act one way or another, my argument is in the media seeing people getting away with brutality which lowers respect for policemen which increases crime. This argument is a misunderstanded rebuttal against an argument I didn"t make. [1] http://law2.umkc.edu...
Communism

NORTH KOREA . I " A dynasty is a sequence of rulers considered members of the same family. " Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... North Korea's new leader Kim Jong-un Source: . http://topics.nytimes.com... Is the son of Kim Jong-il Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Which would obviously be considered a dynasty by definition. Sources: . http://dictionary.reference.com... . II Kim Il-sung in his later life created the General Secretary position. Replacing the chairman position. basically boiling down to, Emperor and King. Other Communist leaders in history have had a inner circle of party officials and have had other inputs. Making it an oligarchy, by definition. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... STALIN Refutes: Stalin did manage the grain distribution but did make a miscalculation. * Germany was obviously a threat, Hitler took over in 1933. Stalin took over only 5 years before in 1928. He started economic plans since Europe was preparing for war and the Soviet army was crippled. CHINA . I China is a free market economy, a country with billionaires is not communist. This is an example of money and corruption taking over. . II Again corporations rule China now, the future leader of china is a massive reformer. CONCLUSION I have defended my argument and debunked my opponents. That is proof enough that at least his arguments on communism are misguided. Sources: . http://www.bbc.co.uk... . http://www.teachabroadchina.com...
Communism

FINAL ARGUMENT . I The USSR under Stalin had leaders of the secret police and his inner circle. They had plenty of power as well, so the system of the bolshevik party in charge still remained. . II North Korea is a dynastic dictatorship, not a communist oligarchy. . III China has a free market. Communism is a system of economics, lol i think us arguing this is useless we are on equal ground here. CONCLUSION My opponent has made a good argument but still does not present enough evidence why Communism is so horrible. Any evidence he has presented has become refuted or put at a standstill.
The continuation of current U.S. anti-drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good.

The War on Drugs is destroying our urban cities. Putting millions of citizens in prisons turns otherwise (usually) reasonable citizens into worse criminals. It costs the Federal government about $16 billion a year, or otherwise about $500 per second.Drug legalization, taxation, and regulation would be a stronger, more reasonable path for America. Sure, drugs have negative consequences, this is not denied. But the drug war is worse. As well as disrupting families, urban communities, crime, and the budget, it violates civil liberties.Productivity in the economy probably wouldn't change that adversely. Most users would be recreational, and I don't think that most citizens would use drugs, at least not the hard types. Individual earnings are directly linked to that worker's marginal productivity. If drug usage caused productivity to decrease, businesses would prohibit drug usage themselves, and/or workers would directly bear the cost of their actions.Borrowing money from China to kill people and property abroad is a poor policy. It creates hostilities between America and other foreign nations, reducing our national security and economic interests. At the least, we should replace criminal treatment of drug users with rehabilitation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Vote Contra
The continuation of current U.S. anti-drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good.

The War on Drugs itself is illegitimate. Both I and my opponent agree on this central point. We shouldn't be spending billions of dollars on overseas escapades which are unconstitutional, violate the freedom of our citizens, and kills others overseas. It is not acceptable to spend billions of dollars that have to borrow from China on illegitimate ventures in the first place. That would summarize my arguments.
if america switched to a 1$ coin we would save money

I accept.As this resolution is a "would" case, and Pro did not provide any specifications, I will.As the US and Canada are very similar in culture, the new 1$ American coin would be made the exact same way as the loonie in Canada. The same metal percentages, size, weight, just different inscriptions.The "we" in this case is the government of America.By "save money" it is meant that within the first month of introducing the new $1 coin, less money would be used up than staying with the $1 bill. For example, say it costed $100 to make all the loonies and switch to the $1 coin in the first month. Say we stayed with the $1 bill, and we spent $120 manufacturing new bills in the first month. Then we would have saved $20 switching to the $1 coin. The Burden of Proof for Pro is to prove without any doubt that within the first month of switching to the $1 coin in America, America would lower costs than staying with the $1 bill.As Con, my burden of proof is to prove without a doubt that switching to the $1 coin would cost much more within the first month than staying with the $1 bill.
Homework should be banned.

Homework should not be banned from the education system because it allows for better academic success. Homework is meant to augment learning and facilitate proficiency of specific skills. A study conducted on September 23, 2006 by Harris Cooper, distinguished professor in the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience at Duke University, aimed to look at the correlation between homework and academic improvement. The results suggested that homework improves students" scores on test at the end of that topic. "Students assigned homework in 2nd grade did better on math, 3rd and 4th graders did better on English skills and vocabulary, 5th graders on social studies, 9th through 12th graders on American history, and 12th graders on Shakespeare" (Cooper 2006). Other studies conducted to oversee the correlation (with no attempt to control student differences) found that 77 percent find the link between homework and achievement is positive (Cooper 2006). Homework does help. Although the learning is supposed to happen at school, many students are engulfed in a sea of distractions that makes it difficult to stay focused in the classroom environment. According to Katrina Schwartz, journalist for KQED News, digital classroom tools like computers, tablets, and smartphones can be distracting to students. Not all children are capable of coping with the distractions, not limited to digital tools, that a classroom may bring. With that being said, the home environment is where one can truly learn because the limited distractions allow for productivity. Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement?. (2006). Today.duke.edu. Retrieved 29 March 2018, from https://today.duke.edu... Age of Distraction: Why It's Crucial for Students to Learn to Focus. (2013). KQED. Retrieved 29 March 2018, from https://www.kqed.org...
Homework should be banned.

Homework should be banned from the education system because it has detrimental health effects. School work does not certainly make a student perform better in their studies, but it does affect a student's physical and mental health. According to the Advocate Health Care News, an article was published in 2014 on a study performed by Denise Pope from the University of Stanford, on the effects of homework. The study found "Too much homework was found to be counterproductive. In a poll, 56 percent of students attributed any stress in their lives to too much homework. Less than 1 percent of students said that homework was not a stressor.When asked how homework affects them, students reported lack of sleep, headaches, exhaustion and stomach problems" (Pope 2014). This demonstrates how homework is a stress factor that impacts one's sleep and eating habits, which can lead to serious health effects. In other words, the amount of time spent on homework can cause sleep deprivation which can affect their school performance and mental health, as well as cause eating disorders leading to an overall effect in their physical state. Overall, homework should be banned as it can affect one's health, leading to impacts on their academic performance and causing life-threatening health problems. How homework can affect your child's health. (2014, March 24). Retrieved March 25, 2018, from http://www.ahchealthenews.com...
Is a console better than a pc for gaming

Yes, a pc does indeed have more room to be easily upgraded but here are many different parts that are available for an Xbox, you just have to do some looking around. They do have aftermarket graphics cards, power supplies, fans, disk drives, and other internal components that can be replaced to increase the performance of ones Xbox. Second, you say that "on the Xbox 360's launch I did not have a very good hard disk (if it had one at all) it did not have wireless capabilities and did not have kinect." Very true, if you have an older model. I own an Xbox 360 slim and then purchased a new internal hard drive. Also, it depended on when you purchased your system. When I had my system picked out, they had kinect bundles that came with between two and three games. By you saying that a pc is more versatile is going against the original argument itself. We were discussing the gaming capabilities alone. Continuing off the previous paragraph of yours, if you would like to multitask, and then use an iPod or something. I do not particularly understand who listens to their iPod when playing COD. It is much more fun to hear the game sounds. Performance. If I run a cod game or something like that on a pc the frame rate will be extremely low, near the 60-80 fps range as a stock tower. On a console like the Xbox, it is made stock to have powerful graphics capabilities without being to overpowering or spending too much money. With a modified system version, you can easily erase the caps that the game manufacturer has set for that game. Take a j-tag for example, it is incredibly simple to install, and can change any factors about the software or improve the functions of stock hardware that has been limited. For the experience online, almost every lobby I have been in has been friends, it just depends on whom all you decide to play with like friends, family, or neighbors. Yeah with first person shooters there will be a few squabbles over something silly but they usually just laugh it off or leave the lobby. You have brought up some good points but I believe the console is still far better than a pc STRICTLY for gaming.
Is a console better than a pc for gaming

I thank Killer_Monkeez1 for allowing me to take part in this debate There are many reasons why a pd is better than a console.The first being that a pc has a lot more room to be upgraded, if you want your games to be better looking then you can buy a new graphics card, if you want it to multi task better you can buy a ram card neither of these can you purchase for a console and if you want better graphics on a console you have to wait till the next generation of consoles are released and as this 7th generation has proved that can be a long time. Also I would like to add that on the Xbox 360's launch I did not have a very good hard disk (if it had one at all) it did not have wireless capabilities and did not have kinect furthermore I would like you to elaborate on what you mean when you say upgaded because from my stand point the main hardware cannot be upgraded at all. Another point is that a pc can be used as more than just a gaming device making a pc much more versatile than a console. For example a pc can have a word processor or a format for presenting PowerPoints making them socially a better purchase than a console adding on to this is multitasking there has never been a console that can run 2 programmes at the same time with a pc you do get this benifit?For example if you wanted to listen to music whilst playing a game on a pc you can just load up ITunes if you wanted to do this on a console you would have to use a different device such as an iPod or radio. My next point is performance if you have a pc that can run a games recomended settings then you can run that game at a uncapped framerate which gives the keyboard and mouse more opportunities to register your inputs in the game. Why do you think pro counterstrike players play at over 1000 frames per second? because they will have the best chance of getting there reaction registerd quicker on a console this is capped usually to 30 frames per second not only making it take longer for the console to register your overall commands but I can give the game a more sluggish feel. My final point of this round is one of community from past experience I find the pc community on the whole a lot more friendlier than the console community this can be seen by just going on call of duty on Xbox live and seeing the amount of hate being banded about this is a rare occurrence on pc perhaps with the exception of hon vs lol but that's a completely different debate entirely.
Is a console better than a pc for gaming

Personally, i believe that a console is better as there are far simpler commands than on a computer. With a console, there are many options to expanding the users interface from keyboards to steering wheels and jet controls to foot pedals. On a pc, you are only able to use that ghardware that is approrpiate for a single game. Take an xbox 360s for example, There are many different things that come standard on the console such as a very good disk drive, wireless capabilities, wireless controller access, and a multiplayer interface. There are many different controllers that can be used on that system such as the standard factory controller, aftermarket contrllers, wireless or wired guitars, or even the kinect. They also feature different options that could be upgraded via the user if they are opting towards modifications. On playstation side, there isnt much that could be customized on the actual system. You can purchase different coolers, skins, and controllers, but other than that there arent too many options in regaurds to the actual system. Sony recently released the Playstat