BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should neither hate Hitler nor respect Martin Luther King

First of all I would like to point out that the title of this debate is misleading, as the Wikipedia link that my opponent provided leads to Martin Luther King Jr. , but the title is referring to Martin Luther King. (1) "Not sure if anyone will use this or not but lets start with the premise that there are no supernatural things such as souls or God(s) in this world. " ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will accept this premise (2) ". .. NOT the ideas they believed in. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think that it is right to NOT judge people by their beliefs and opinions. People are defined by their ideas, especially when those people carry through with their ideas. On one side, Martin Luther King Jr. was the leader of the Civil Rights Movement through most of the 1960s, without him we would not live in the mostly tolerant and accepting world we live in today. On the other side, Aolf Hitler (indirectly) killed six million Jews and millions of other groups such as Gypsies and Catholics. I, being Jewish, obviously have very strong feelings about Hitler, and find it slightly offensive for someone to not have any feelings of dislike towards him. Without Hitler, we wouldn't have most of the Jewish stereotypes we have today. The other day my friend heard a story about a Jewish child in an art class. Some of his peers were standing near the kiln and upon opening it up, they turned to him and said something along the lines of "You're a Jew, get in. " Which is obviously referring to the ovens that Jews were cooked alive in during the Holocaust. Now maybe these people shouldn't be defined by their beliefs, but if not, then definitely by their actions, which both Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. should be.
We should neither hate Hitler nor respect Martin Luther King

Note that I am talking about hatred and respect for the people themselves and NOT the ideas they believed in. Not sure if anyone will use this or not but lets start with the premise that there are no supernatural things such as souls or God(s) in this world. definition of hate: dislike intensely; feel antipathy or aversion towards definition of respect: to feel or show deferential regard for Hitler: http://en.wikipedia.org... MLK: http://en.wikipedia.org....
Elective abortion.

My main arguments are as follows: While I make exceptions for legitimate medical situations or if the mother was raped, and lives in one of those 31 states that allows rapists to sue for custody, abortion is cruel and unusual punishment for the baby. Babies are being torn to pieces, stabbed in the heart with a poison needle, or suffocated in the name of choice. Contraception or a consenting woman having her tubes removed is much better, I had my tubes removed for contraceptive reasons, so that is a better choice. Choice before conception, life after.
Elective abortion.

I think elective abortion is a right to women (I am a man), as women have the right to their own bodies. If they want to end a pregnancy for ANY reason, they should have the option to do so. Whether you believe it is moral or not, it should be legal and available for all pregnant women. It's just like gay marriage, a lot of people don't like it, but marriage equality should be legal as love is a fundamental right for all people. Getting back to abortion, women should have the option to abort their child. Period. If they have an unplanned pregnancy, it makes sense to be able to abort the baby so you don't have to go through the pregnancy at all. So now I'll address the ethics aspect of abortion. Yes, it can be considered murder, but at the same time, it is not a developed human being and therefore does not share the same rights as one. You can even say that the yet-to-be-born baby is not alive, as it would not be able to live without being in its mother's womb, and an abortion will not be performed if the baby is past a certain stage of development. With this fact, it is obvious that abortion doctors and clinics will not perform one on a formed baby, and the baby is not fully alive until birth, and does not have the full rights of a human being extended to it until birth as well. I am interested to see how you respond to my women's rights thoughts.
Football helmets should not be used.

Let me begin by defining spearing: the use of one player's helmet to punish another. [1] Helmets were added to football in 1943 to protect the head. [2] However, not only has it failed to prevent concussions and other head injures, it has provided confidence to players to lead with their head, naively thinking that the helmet protects their head. If you look at other examples of the use of the helmet, they usually are to prevent injury when one's head hits the ground. No helmet is designed to prevent injury when two large football players bash their heads into each other at high speeds. In total, about 96% of studied deceased NFL players had chronic traumatic encephalopathy. [3] From now on, I will call this CTE for short. Tyler Sash, a former New York Giants player who died at 27, was found to have CTE after his brain was studied. The death was due to an accidental drug overdose, however, the drugs were being used for football related injuries. Furthermore, his family noticed him acting strangely, going through bouts of confusion, anger, and depression. His mother said he couldn't work at a job as he couldn't focus long enough to complete most tasks. The disease had progressed to around the same level as former NFL player Junior Seau, who committed suicide in 2012 when he was just 43. CTE can damage parts of the brain that control impulses and decision-making, as it did to Sash. The reason for the large occurrence of CTE in NFL players is spearing. And this isn't a recent problem. Legendary Pittsburgh Steelers center Mike Webster suffered from the disease. He tragically died after over a decade of psychological problems. [5] Imagine if football didn't have helmets, like rugby. [6] Rugby is a sport with little head injuries, simply because bashing heads into each other risk cracking their head open. The fact that rugby players don't use helmets also prevents spearing, which prevents concussions. If the NFL banned the use of helmets, the players would be afraid of spearing, and not partake in it. The reason that football players are so comfortable with spearing is the thought that the helmets can protect them from head injuries, when in reality, they haven't helped, they have hurt. [1] . http://www.webmd.com... [2] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.miamiherald.com... [4] . http://www.nytimes.com... [5] . http://www.nytimes.com... [6] . https://en.wikipedia.org...
Football helmets should not be used.

In fact, Rugby is not safer than the NFL. Fewer concussions are historically reported in Rugby because Rugby protocols for identifying and treating concussions were sub-standard prior to 2012. Rebuttal: Yes, but protocol wasn't sub-standard in 2015. Yet, the amount of concussions reported in the 2015 Premiership season, 86, is less than half of the amount reported in the NFL, 199. Meanwhile, there are six more games in a Premiership season than an NFL season. Any sport runs the risk of concussions, however, the NFL amount is abnormally high. Once again, the cause for this is the helmet providing false confidence to a player that when they initiate a head-to-head collision the helmet protects them. I"m honestly surprised at this logic. A seatbelt doesn"t protect a driver from a side collision, therefore it should be removed. A motorcycle helmet doesn"t protect a rider from a concussion when he hits the ground, therefore it should be removed. A facemask doesn"t protect a player from an eye gouge, therefore it should be removed. Well if it"s not perfect, get rid of it, other risks be damned. Rebuttal: Two of the things you are talking about are part of devices that can go 60mph+. No football player can run that fast. Also, a helmet can protect from blunt force trauma, but that is a decently minor risk. The main issues are concussions and neck problems, where a helmet once again doesn't help, it hurts. If the helmet wasn't in the game, players wouldn't lead with their head at all (risk homeostasis theorem). While a helmet was designed to protect against blunt force trauma, that would hardly be a risk at all if helmets were removed. Let"s look at exactly how much force we are dealing with. Sports Science used Ray Lewis to compare a football hit to an FBI battering ram. Ray Lewis generates over 1000 pounds of force against a door, leading with his shoulder. A very large FBI agent uses their standard battering ram and generates 800 pounds of force. Notice also, Lewis shattered the door from its frame. Rebuttal: The thing is: I doubt players would tackle in that kind of style if their were no helmets. Some NFL players might be the brightest, however, they would be smart enough to: A. Not lead with their heads B. Not use that much force in a tackle "The debate is also accepted under the condition that no other significant modification to equipment is considered since no other modifications are proposed." You only specified this for equipment, so I would suggest an alternate tackling style that could cope with helmets. If players learn how to tackle properly with a no helmet system, this would no longer be a risk and the game of football could still be an enjoyable one to watch. In conclusion, the sport of football is becoming too dangerous to ignore. If things continue on this path, the game is going to become a disaster. The helmet poses one of the biggest risks, as it gives the player a false sense of confidence that it protects their head from concussions and neck injuries, when it reality, it does not. A change is needed, and it's needed now.
There is a Correct Interpretation of the Bible

Just like with all religions, there is no correct interpretation for Christianity. Look at Qur'an for example. The moderate Muslims who give to the poor, free slaves, help orphans, be kind to women, tolerate other people, care for other people, help them etc., aren't wrong as those things are in the Qur'an. But ISIS isn't wrong either. There are verses in which the Qur'an calls for conquests and battle and there are plenty of them. The moderates believe that the violent verses are only justified in self-defence, whilst ISIS doesn't think that. Moderates believe that the kind verses are a way to salvation whilst ISIS disagrees. Even Al Qaeda, Hamas, Boko Haram, Al-Nusra and Hezbollah have different interpretations of the Qur'an and I can't really say that any of them are wrong. The Bible, just like the Qur'an, is also filled with both kind and violent verses. In many of his verses Jesus called for turning the other cheek, but there are also verses where he justifies and condones violence (Luke 19:27, Matthew 15:4-7 just to name a few). Many Christians call on the Ten Commandments which are in the Old Testament which is filled with hate, violence and revenge (the OT is hardcore), but will pick only certain parts of it because they believe Jesus came to redo those laws. Fair enough. Although, some believe he died so they don't have to experience Earthly punishment for their sins, although the sins are still there. Fair enough. And SOME believe he didn't come to abolish anything, but to enforce the Old Testament and if you read the Bible, none of them are truly wrong. Jesus does say about enforcing the OT and does say that non-believers and rebelious children should be killed so that goes in favour of the hard-line OT followers. But he did also stop people from stoning an adulteress and said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." so the argument for abolishing the OT stands as well. But he does threaten people that he will torture them forever if they sin so there is ground for "Sin still exists" argument. Also, the most important, can non-believers enter heaven? Well Gallatians 2:16, Romans 3:28 say no, but Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:26-28 and James 2:24 say yes, if he keeps the commandments. So it's all a No true Scotsman fallacy.
There is a Correct Interpretation of the Bible

The Bible could be interpreted as anything. From a literary piece filled with exaggerations and old Arab folklore to an actual history book. So, the authors may have had a certain point they wanted to make, but that's irrelevant. It's like with other works of arts and literature. The author may have had a certain meaning he wanted to convey, but everybody can interpret his or her work differnetly. There are, ofcourse, some who publically announce the meaning of their work, but that's not the case with religious texts. Also, the Bible did not have one single author, but multiple authors, most notably Mark, Matthew and Luke. http://listverse.com... "Many people contributed to the writing of the Bible. In fact, the Bible is a diverse collection of writings from about 40 main contributors"30 in the Old Testament and 10 in the New Testament." - Biblica. http://www.haaretz.com... That means that it was written by at least 40 different people ALL with different beliefs, testimony and interpretation of morality. Now imagine that. A book written over spans of dozens of years and sometimes HUNDREDS cannot have one single right interpretation. There may be right interpretations, but there is certainly not only a single one.
There is a Correct Interpretation of the Bible

You made some excellent points about the Qur'an, however we are talking about the Bible so let's get back on topic. The interpretation of a religion is not the same as the interpretation of a text. If you want an interpretation of a religion, you very well could get any answer, as religion is what you believe or feel is right- an opinion. However, what I am saying is that the text of the Bible itself has a correct interpretation, which is the meanings of the 66 different texts or "books"/scrolls and codices of the Bible inscribed by about 40 different men over the course of about 1600 years. For example, reading your last argument I could interpret it different ways as many do with the Bible, but in the end you meant what you meant. Similarly, the Bible writers meant what they meant, and any thinking that is different of what they meant is a misunderstanding whether intentional or not.
Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical Theory

Unfortunately, I couldn't post my constructive in another debate over this topic.[ http://www.debate.org...;]I've restarted the topic, if The_Debate_Czar is willing to accept it.---Rounds:1st: Acceptance only.2nd: Opening arguments only.3rd: Both rebuttals and new arguments.4th: Rebuttals only.5th: Summaries only.---Furthermore, I ask that the Con not just attack Utilitarianism but provide another ethical theory that would be superior to Utilitarianism.
Trump is a dumb*ss

So because this is an opinionated debate, I will be a little hyperbolic. I just really want to get my frustration out about the guy. He cannot answer any objective questions about the nature of what he suppose to be doing. In one of his recent news conference, he foolishly deflected from a question from both the Hebrew community and a reporter whose question was regarding the black caucus. First, the Semitic reporter told him that he did not whatsoever agree with Donald Trump being anti-semitic. Then the reporter asked what he was going to do about the rise of hate crime towards the Semitic community. Donald Trump told the reporter to sit down and he responded by saying, "I am the least anti-semitic person you know." He used more subjective language obviously not understanding(honestly I think it's just straight denial) the question posed by the reporter. He just assumed even after the reporter told him that the reporter did not personally think that he was anti-semitic, the reporter simply asked the question subjectively to try to trap him, thus creating in his mind denial. Even afterward as Donald Trump was saying how much "he loved the Jews" the reporter even tried to express that he didn't think Trump was anti-semitic. I'm ok with just that argument, I say Trump is a dumb*ss for not being able to answer questions "wisely"(thus implying that he says things foolishly). Keep in mind that I personally don't even think that Trump is racist(including being anti-semitic), I think he's just a selfish dumb*ss. I use the word "selfish" because he does not discriminate against race, he discriminates against poor people. He isn't even racist against Mexicans, he just wants to do what "racist" white people(a good chunk of the population) wants to do. He doesn't care about anything but getting himself more power and money. He simply caters to the inside prejudices of the people he tries to serve. But I digress to that he's still a dumb*ss for how poorly he is dealing with the press questions. Good luck to my opponent, I don't really care if I win or not, Just expressing my subjective opinion. :)
Trump is a dumb*ss

I wish to say objectively that President Donald J. Trump is a dumb*ss. In order to do this, I wish to make a subjective argument with objective terminology. Dumb*ss - A fool Fool - A person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person. Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... Rules of Debate: First round - Acceptance Second Round - Argue to why/why not Third Round - Counter opponents logic or argument/ type conclusions This will be an opinionated debate. I do not believe in the accepted social decorum, so I ask people to vote their conscious, not what who they believed has better decorum. I invite my opponent to express him/herself freely without restraint. I also wish to extend using whatever language my opponent deems appropriate to freely express oneself. Voters are required to write why they agree/disagree with pro/con, but no voter will be dismissed with any subjective opinion. I feel like setting this up like so might make me lose the debate, but I'm not really debating to win anyway, so whatev....
The earth is a ball or sphere or anything but flat or possibly concave.

Wth are you blazing? Pass it over. I don't know what you are trying to say with your fly analogy. Because if a fly landed on the light it would appear to be at the top of the light anywhere you stand in the room. The reason you would need to skype someone would be because you want them to be in the Southern Hemisphere where there is a difference in curvature. We are so minuscule compared to the planet That the curvature seems like it's not even there. It's not a ridiculous idea because it's true. Yes telescopes have concave or convex lenses but so do glasses, people that wear glasses don't see everything as a curvature, I wear glasses. As far as the nasa thing, the if you don't read the introduction it'll be easy to assume a flat earth theory. However it just makes the math easier or something like that, it's hard to understand their language. Let me ask you this. If the earth was flat, how do we retain water? If the earth was how do we have an an atmosphere? How is there day and night on different parts of the planet? How are people able to predict solar eclipse if there is no orbit? Lunar eclipse?
The earth is a ball or sphere or anything but flat or possibly concave.

I see you've been youtubing its okay I do it too I do try to look at both sides, trying to debunk it, but I've already seen and learned what the smart people want us to know, but when I started thinking for myself, I'm amazed at what proof on the contrary I find. I'll start with with the moon.Inverted Moon If it's one thing I learned from people like Albert Einstein, it's keep it simple stupid. So I'll give you an analogy: You and I are on opposite sides of a room, a FLAT one. In this room is a round ceiling light in the middle, on this light a bug lands that is closer to you than it is I.( can you end a sentence with I?) Now because we on opposite sides of the room (disk that is earth) the bug will be at one of our tops of the light (moon) and the other's bottom... <Lol< the moon is simply passing between us overhead, we don't even have to Skype each other for that experiment! Sorry I'm a little blazedSpherical objects in the sky.I'm wondering if I should just copy and paste from the last round, or try to simplify it even more. No disrespect. 1.There is no reason to assume that little lights in the sky should be identified as a faraway "place" like the one you and I are standing on. At all! It's as ridiculous idea and I don't what idiot first came up with the idea. Again no disrespect, it's not the first time I've heard it. From that logic, we can all assume that we were in a giant ball of fire! The only difference between a(planet) and a star is that they move around the earth differently. We can also use this logic to say that all cats are dogs. We know that cats are animals and all dogs are animals, so logically all cats are dogs, 100% proof!2. Telescopes consist of round lenses and CONVEX or curved mirrors as most people know. If not I'll give you a minute...https://en.m.wikipedia.org...; Now the problem is, with curved mirrors or lenses, the image is distorted in that the center of the image bulges towards the viewer, causing a fisheye appearance, making lines curve, and straight objects appear round.https://en.m.wikipedia.org...I'm glad you at least know NASA lies, I'm curious, what have you found out that they lie about? I can only find one true document NASA has produced. Here's a copy, treasure it because they are rare!http://www.nasa.gov...Please note the very first paragraph. If you're talking about google, feel free to use their search engine and search for the image they put on their search engine's home page for 2013 earth day. I'll give you a hint, it's not a globe!I'll give you one to debunk:If the earth spins at 1,000 mph, a person traveling to another continent for example, would only have to fly a bit north or south, wait on their destinations to come to them, and try to land on a target that is moving 1,000 mph.
The earth is a ball or sphere or anything but flat or possibly concave.

If you take a telescope and observe that everything is spherical why isn't the earth a sphere? We can see our moon is a sphere and you can see moon orbit other planets, we also don't see any plane type planet out there. Another easy experiment you can do is to just look at the moon, on the Southern Hemisphere it will be inverted, which can only happen if the earth is sphericle, we have easy global communications now. Find any random person south of our hemisphere and skype them to confirm the inversion of the moon. As far as testing the light on the moon, just test that with a golf ball. You can only get the shadow curvature with something sphericle I brought up the boat thing hoping you'd try to disprove it. just because we can't see the curvature of the earth does not disprove it's sphericle shape. The only thing it proved is just how, minuscule we are compared to the earth. It's like putting an ant on a giant boulder, let's say 40 meters Boulder. That's a gigantic Boulder compared to the ant, that's bigger than my house. However the ant will not be able to notice it's curvature because of how tiny it is. Besides nasa isn't the only institution that claims this. Just because they may have lied before does not mean everything is a lie.