BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is a good source for morals today

GenocideThe god of the bible who is claimed to be of perfect and moral character and the bible is therefore as it was written by the prophets of Yahweh and the disciples of Christ the bible is claimed to be the perfect moral guide. How then can the bible in the name of Yahweh preach genocide? Yahweh in Deuteronomy 13:13-19 explicitly commands the destruction of an entire town if just one person worships another god. Now I know you will come back with the argument that those laws were written in a different time (ignoring that this totally contradicts the entire premise of Christian absolute morality) this is essentially to say that there is a time when this sort of religious cleansing and barbarism is justified. Furthermore Yahweh commands his chosen people to destroy entire peoples for no better reason than because their existence complicates his real estate dealings [1]. This is shown over and over again in the Jewish destruction of uncountable cities [2] [3] [4] [5] and yet this is the character the bible promotes as being of perfect moral character. SexismBoth in the old and new testament women are regarded as the property of either their father or their husband, this is shown by how women are referred to along with property in Exodus 20 and when they are treated like property in mosaic law [6] [7]. Jesus also refers to women saying that they should not be permitted to have any kind of authority over a man [8].Barbarity of Mosaic LawI know it is argued that the laws stated in the pentateuch no longer apply (regardless what Jesus says [9]) but Yahweh did still give these laws so in keeping with Yahweh’s perfect nature Christians must accept that there historically contingent circumstances where:Killing witches [10]Killing homosexuals [11]Killing children who hit their parents [12]Killing adulterers [13]Killing unbelievers [14] And killing apostates [15]Are all justified.Lack of Actual MoralityWhile there are a few good bits in the bible there does appear to be a lack of morality that wasn’t already existing in the secular world. I would like to be presented with profound morality that appears in the bible that hadn’t already been discovered.[1] Genesis 12:1-7[2] Joshua 6:20-21[3] Joshua 8:1-29[4] Jeremiah 50:21-22[5] Judges 18:27-29[6] Deuteronomy 22:23-24 [7] Deuteronomy 21:10-14[8] 1 timothy 2:12[9] Matthew 5:18 [10] Exodus 22:17[11] Leviticus 20:13[12] Exodus 21:15[13] Leviticus 20:10[14] Exodus 22:19 [15] 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
The Bible is a good source for morals today

So, this will be the third time we've tried to do this debate, all the previous times A341 and I forfeited due to life circumstances. Hopefully, it will work out this time. Here is the structure as follows: Round 1: post your opening argument. And the rest of the way, we get to freestyle it, contrary to the styles of the previous times we did this. Good luck to Con in what should be an excellent debate.
Joke debate: The NWO will happen very soon...

My rebuttal to your first point begins. But first, I must make a rebuttal of your rebuttal. Note that while it is evening for you, here in the Central Time Zone of the good old US of A, it is only mid-afternoon. And everyone knows you aren't a believer of this theory yourself because British Standard Time can stand for: Bring Radioactive Iguanas Today In time to Steal Drugs Here And yet you still believe you are drug free? Moon aren't blue and pigs can only fly when the NWO comes, which I will prove to be wrong. Coming in 5..4..3..2..1 1: The Internet is a lie!!! All a lie!!!! A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I read it on the television, which also has time travel prevention software. Not that time travel is even legal anyway. Because the mere existence of the NWO if they travelled back in time would mean that if I had discovered... Wait, whats that. Is..Is THAT A TIME TRAVEL MACHINE!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT THAT'S ILLEGAL IN THE U.N. Um, er, I mean, uh, MOVING ON!!!!! 2: We shall examine the simplicity of these two statements side by side 1)The NWO is coming. OR: 2)The NWO isn't coming. I fear you are mistaken when you believe that #1 is simpler because it would be simpler to not invade than to invade. The reason is to not invade is to let society move on. We, uh, I mean the NWO could sit and do nothing. It would be so easy. But imagine if that didn't happen, and the NWO is coming. Then they would have to start by sending an agent over to a website called debate.org to take the side and unprepare everyone so they wouldn't be ready for the NWO. But I mean that would be a terrible plan, am I right? 3: Staring with more noise isn't screaming. Staring with more noise is a STARING CONTEST!!! Screaming is what people who don't know what the heck is going on do. People who "might" have the key to what is going on and decide to go to a debate website where he challenges someone who "might" be an NWO agent and "might" be correct about calling him out also scream, but we all know that that person doesn't exist, am I right? 4: I'm bored 5: This rebuttal isn't just evidence. THIS! IS!! ALSO!!! SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joke debate: The NWO will happen very soon...

An apology? This is what the government does time and time again! No one is seeing through these tricks! You'll notice how my opponent's account was formed only in the late evening (BST - or British Standard Time(-travelers), for long) of 09/02/13. Well, two points can be deduced from this: 1) 9 + 2 + 13 is 24, a multiple of not seven! Seven is a lucky number, so my opponent's government clearly chose to form this account on an unlucky day. BUT IT BACKFIRED! Just like Stars Wars episode 3! My opponent's government has cursed itself with failure! Luck is only employed by the unlucky, and the unlucky are bad. Therefore, my opponent is bad. This logic is so easy to see! It is infallible, just like every god. Like every god, you want to be on their side, yes? SO JOIN ME! Join the the FORSE! FORSE(ing the future of the NWO) 2) I mentioned time travelers? My opponent mentioned televisions? Really? Well my opponent has clearly chosen the wrong day to trick the masses. For the NWO has traveled sideways in time to trick my opponent. Just like everyone who disagrees with me, he has been deluded! The History Channel is the NWO headquarters, as many of my amazing voters will know! Look how he puts HISTORY in capitals. Bah! They sent a rookie. Rookie mistake! HISTORY Or: HIS-STORY. My opponent's story which he channels at you! Do not be fooled! 4) Good Morning America. It has been shown through the Internet that GMA stands for "Get My Anchor-man", not Good Morning America. This Anchor-man is a NWO spy! How can my opponent not see this logic? Simple, he has been paid, PAID, not to see this! Any studies out of that sublime TV show - or that sublime TV for that matter - is pure fabrication! Foolish mortal! My voters will never fall for that! As for my drug problems, they are non-existent drug problems anymore! The blue moon and flying pig told me! So that was refuted as easy as 14-23-15! Which adds up to 52, a multiple of seven! How? Because 5+2=7, of course! 5) No one noticed how I skipped number three or that there has been more than two points, indicating my opponent's perception field to further blind people! If you did notice, then my opponent's grasp is losing, keep it up! 6) And as for this talk of "payphone(s)", or as we logical people like to call them, P(lease) A(ccept) Y(en) P(eople!) H(ow) O(ne) N(ew World Order) E(xist)(S)! You might wonder why accepting yen is relative to the new world order? Clearly, it's for China! Yes, it will begin in China, after the RAP-TURE. (Did you know there is a Chinese RAPper called WenTURE?) This is more proof of sublime messages in the music industry. 1-2-4-5-6) No! You are not always right, as my flawless logic has shown! You cannot win! You have lost! I will extend all of my contentions; and await your final response(s) before you are hideously obliterated by Wenture the Rapper of Worlds! Hopefully I have opened eyes! 51st December, 1505 ad2! (Clearly, we read the Mayan Calendar upside down!) Oh, and if you're wondering how the NWO can simultaneously exist both in the future and now. Well, SIDEWAYS TIME TRAVEL. You lose, spy! You lose...
Joke debate: The NWO will happen very soon...

I must begin my contrary argument with an apology, that my opponent has picked the wrong side of the argument. And here are my reasons 1: Television Although the Internet might try and try, everyone knows how to get their hands on a TV: STEAL IT! :) Once the average joe has successfully committed legal crime, everyone will be able to learn from all the people who have done this necessary act. Which means 200% of the population will be able to defend from the NWO. And inside corruption won't be a problem at all, 'cause who would want to backstab anyone, am I right? But how does a Television defend from extra corrupt politicians and anyone else. Because of the HISTORY CHANNEL!!! Everyone knows the History Channel can cause enough fear in anyone to hide in a panic room beneath their mom's basement. Which means with 200% of the population owning TVs, the NWO won't come soon due to our perfect and clearly foolproof scheme to scare them away. 2: My opponent thinks so too! Clearly he does! A study done by Good Morning America (GMA) shows that 300.32% of the world that believe the NWO is coming are taking an elephants trunk full of cocaine! And drugs are proven to cloud someones thinking, even leading them to accuse others of accusing them, which clearly isn't taking place. This isn't a conspiracy theorist but a poor victim of drug abuse! And you can help him by dialing this number. So I have proved that he doesn't think what he is 1-800-DRUGS-ARE-EVIL-#NWO So I have proved that he doesn't think what he is saying is true because I am always right, am I right? 3: Symbols don't exist due to the triumphant return of PAYPHONES!!! Payphones are a great way to call someone when you are lost as long as you have left over change. But wait, you might ask, how does this tell you how the NWO isn't coming soon. Well, I'll tell you! Coins all loaded with a banana's bunch of anti potassium!! Potassium is the main ingredient found in dollar bills, and as long as there is more anti potassium than potassium, the NWO cannot attack. And due to the rise of pay phones, the government is minting twice as much coins as dollar bills!! Which means we will all be safe. 4: Because I'm always right, am I right? :) I look forward to his rebuttal to my arguments, and my rebuttal to his.
Joke debate: The NWO will happen very soon...

Well, well! I thank my opponent for accepting the debate, although he is fighting for a lost cause! Clearly, the NWO (or New World Order, for long) will happen very soon! I will show you why: 1: The Internet. As we all know, anything that we read on the Internet must be, by its own virtues, the Gospel truth! Well, according to the Internet itself: The NWO will happen! How much more proof do you want? Oh, you might well say that "the Internet states the the NWO won't happen", but well, have I got new for you? (Yes, I have.) Due to Occam's Razor, which clearly states that: "Simpler is better". Which is more simple? 1)The NWO is coming. OR: 2)The NWO isn't coming. Well, the answer is number one, because number one has not one or two more characters, but THREE more characters. THREE! So clearly, by using the simple logic of Occam's Razor, one is correct. So the Internet claiming otherwise is nonsense, clearly. Do you know what the Internet states? It states that the NWO will happen, therefore, the NWO will happen. BOOM! Disprove that! 2: My opponent violated the rules! Clearly, he has! I mean, look at this! The Internet states that if someone is called a "conspiracy theorist" then that person has been branded as someone who doesn't believe the lies that all our governments tell! So, you have stated, by calling me a conspiracy theorist, that because you have down graded me (calling me "branded") then you have committed an ad hom fallacy! Using an insult as an argument, well I caught you out! Your plot has been foiled, government spy! Who could withstand such logical coherence? 3: There are symbols everywhere! The evidence is screaming us in the face! (It's like staring, but with more noise). The pyramid on the green paper dollar thingy, the ace of spades! All of those sublime messages in the rock stars. How do you think hippies came to be? Those poor souls were brainwashed, man! If you'd only chill, you could see that! Even one of the most esteemed scientists in the field of "High School Scienceology" Dr Kent Hovind, acknowledges it! Who are you to argue with Dr Hovind's authority? Do you have a doctorate? 4: Many, many people believe in it. According to a new poll from "rejectedpolls.nwo", 98.463542% of world leaders believe in the NWO. AND! AND! 100.1% of people believe in it! Just mull that over. The majority believe in it; why don't you? I eagerly await my opponent's so called "evidence" that there will be no NWO! And I will be most interested to see how he will apprehend my "exquisite logique"!
Joke debate: The NWO will happen very soon...

Hello, everyone! This is a joke debate used purely by me to allow myself to get away from all of the serious stuff I've been debating recently. So, without further ado, the rules are as follows: 1) First round is acceptance only. 2) Debate must be kept light-hearted. 3) Sources are not required to verify a point. 4) Except for ad homs, logical fallacies will not be considered fallacies. The most entertaining wins! Allez!
Ban beauty contests

One of the largest issues that deals with Child hood beauty pageants is the problem of little children being forced to be dressed in sexualising costumes, that ruins their innocence and such. However it should be pointed out that a childhood beauty pageant ranges til the age of 18 years old. A 18 year old girl is allowed to choose to do a beauty pageant and if she wishes to wear something revealing. What will we achieve by banning the pageants other than a huge amount of protest and disapproval? Just because showing off may not be the best thing in the world why should we ban it?It is wrong to ban something because people look up to it and think they are not as good. Most people are intelligent enough to not do crazy things when they see someone prettier than them. It's like taking away a sport from little girls. It helps them prepare for possible job when they get older. Maybe they will be a model, this will help them prepare and practice for that. It also takes away from all the people that work to do these. More jobs getting taking away. Studies have shown that competing in a beauty pageant is a great way for young women to develop themselves, and their career for the future. Competing in a beauty pageant can also increase someone"s confidence. Many people look down on beauty pageants because it can be degrading for young women. But that is far from the truth. Many young women who compete in pageants do compete, to win scholarship money or to be a role model for other young ladies. It is a great way to display talents that young women have been holding in, waiting to show everyone. Most women lose confidence by judging the way they look. A beauty pageant can defeat that bad feeling that young women have towards themselves for the way they look. it also depends on the child, and the "state" their in. Like if they're healthy for the pageant, or they have the right characteristics to adapt to such an environment. Some children don't mind all the attention, or getting loudly ordered all the time
Ban beauty contests

Hello and thanks for starting this debate! I'd like to begin by stating that beauty pageants are not the choice of women- rather their parents. Since the topic if fairly vague, I'd like to interpret the meaning to, "Ban Child Beauty Pageants". This way, the choice is up to the young adult, who wishes to be a part of something as vile a beauty pageant. Because I have given my argument, and have used so little space, I will jump into rebuttals early. "The only result of a ban will simply be to reduce the choice of women " who of course do choose to participate" As I said earlier, the choice is not up to the girls, but to the parent who want "the best" for their daughter, yet are willing to put them in an environment where they are forced to look be a part of something that will change them. Something that has cause eating disorders, something that has caused hurt in the world of our young girls- something that is as despicable as that. It's terrible to think that parent of a small, young girl are okay with putting them in situations, and it is irresponsible. Not to mention the lack of self-esteem associated with not winning. Next: "Should it be illegal for people to dress up, use lots of make-up, have fun and potentially win prizes?" I suppose not, however this does sound like a prostitute getting ready for a big night, which I might add is already illegal in the majority of America. What your missing out on is how if a woman want to put on makeup and have fun, she should be a allowed to do so. If a parent wants to put a pound of makeup on theirs toddlers face, then they should not be allowed to do so. "all a beauty pageant is, are people trying to win stuff, have fun and show off a bit. It is not as bad as millions of people smoking and getting lung cancer is it?" I'm not sure why lung cancer relates to this topic, nor did you explain how it did, so it's invalid. Thanks you, I am now finished.
Ban beauty contests

A ban is a very blunt instrument with which to attack a practice. Banning beauty contests would do little to destroy the ideal of beauty as it is prevalent in many other areas of society which are unrelated to Beauty Pageants such as advertising, fashion and the entertainment industry. The only result of a ban will simply be to reduce the choice of women " who of course do choose to participate. Choice is fundamentally a good thing and everyone should have as much choice as possible so long as they are not limiting the choice of others. People participate in the beauty pageants voluntarily and are not forced to do it. They choose to participate in them. Should it be illegal for people to dress up, use lots of make-up, have fun and potentially win prizes? If people want to participate in them why should we stop them? Also, as long as there brain is more developed than a pile of mush, shouldn"t they be able to make up their mind on whether or not they want to do it? People participate in beauty pageants because they want to, not because they are forced. Pretty much, all a beauty pageant is, are people trying to win stuff, have fun and show off a bit. It is not as bad as millions of people smoking and getting lung cancer is it?
Albert Pujols should have resigned with the Cardinals

Albert Pujols is the greatest player of this generation. Albert Pujols may or may not break Bonds' record . This will depend on his performance in the back 5 years of his 10 year megacontract. Very few teams were interested in Pujols out of high school. The Cardinals wound up drafting him in the 13th round. Not at all was Pujols a prestigous prospect out of high school. Very rarely will players from the 13th round become notable major leaguers let alone the best player in the last 20 years. Pujols owes a ton of credit to the St. Louis Cardinals for the amount of interest they put into him. The Cardinals then win the world series last year and because of an extra roughly 5 million per year. He gets up and walks away from all of the Charitites, foundations, connections and life he had in St. Louis. Thank you and I look forward to hearing your response.
Albert Pujols should have resigned with the Cardinals

Albert Pujols is arguably one of the best players of all time. I can go into all the numbers about his home runs and how he is on path to pass Barry Bonds for the Home Run King title, but its more then numbers. Albert Pujols is a man who knows what he wants. He goes and he gets it. He was the most fought over free agent in recent history. He has the ability to change a team just with his presence. He wanted to leave St. Louis, so Albert did what he wanted to do. He is in a place were he will be happy, and can make a huge diffrence. I say all the luck to Albert Pujols, and all the luck to my opponet in the upcoming debate.
In the last two years, The Indianopolis Colts were a better team than the New England Patriots.

Once again, I apologize that I was gone. My opponent made one faulty move that cost him the round, he extended his third argument, "The resolution is comparative. This means that games against other teams ought not count. I contend that last season the Patriots beat the Colts 24-20." First, as the resolution is now comparative, all of his other arguments are now non-applicable. Second, he addressed that it was a comparison between the Colts and the Patriots, rendering all of his arguments about "Indianopolis Colts," void. So then that only leaves us with the ability to compare the two times in the last two seasons they played each other. In the 2007 season the Patriots won 24-20, in the 2006 season, the Colts won 27-20; the Colts won by more, they are therefore a better team.
In the last two years, The Indianopolis Colts were a better team than the New England Patriots.

First, I would say that my opponents forfeiture of two rounds should have a major impact on the voting of this round. @ Misspelling- 1. Because you agreed to debate and the so called team does not exist. 2. You accepted thus you must debate under the resolution provided. Now I'll respond to the other arguments. 1. I said that the Pats routed a lot of teams not that every game was a rout. Also, a bye is not considered a game. 2. The Pats have won 12 and 16 which is greater than the amount of wins by the Colts. 3. The resolution is comperative. This means that games against other teams ought not count. I contend that last season the Patriots beat the Colts 24-20. 4. The Patriots didn't cheat insofar as the fact that there was no rule against what they did. There is no way to prove the Colts didn't do the same. I have succesfully adressed everything my opponent has brought up.
In the last two years, The Indianopolis Colts were a better team than the New England Patriots.

Sorry, didn't have time to post for a while. First my opponent said that the misspelling in the resolution was a default for con. 1) That is a cheap low-blow, why should he win for his misspelling? 2) "3. Create an arguable and clear topic The topic of your debate should be a controversial statement. The topic should imply that there are only two sides to the argument. Creating a clear and arguable topic helps the debate look more professional and allows the reader to more easily comprehend the content of the debate and who is on which side. "- debate tips My opponent failed to create an arguable and clear topic. Don't even look to that argument. Second, my opponent gave a laundry list of Patriot wins. 1) I find it laughable that he considers a bye a "rout. " 2) The Colts won 13 games last year and in the prior season won 12 games and the Super Bowl. Also note that they were the first dome team to win a Super Bowl Outdoors, not only that but in the rain. 3) The Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl. 4) The Patriots were helped in part because of their cheating.