BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Denmark will be the Antichrist's home

The Antichrist will be born. Note, Pro does not say, "If the Antichrist is born, it will happen in Denmark. " He states that Denmark will be the Antichrist's home, accepting as a given that the Antichrist is a real, future person who will be born and live in Denmark. Pro must prove that the Antichrist will be born. I do have reason to believe it will be Denmark (or it could be Britain, but for the sake of argue I'll chose Denmark): for the Antichrist's actions to happen, which is world domination, it has to happen the good old natural way -- conquest from another country of other lands. Denmark still has Greenland and stubborny refuses to apologize for the atrocities they commited against the Inuits, the blacks in the Danish West Indies. That is an un-Godly trait. There is no New World Order. And it will not happen via the EU or UN. That is just nonsensial rabble. Recently, Denmark, along with Great Britain was involved in the brutal invasion of Iraq in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org...And many soldiers from both countries committed deplorable acts of wartime rape, and never have been prosecuted. There's a reason why Northern European countries started the whole Israelism thing. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://britam.org...http://www.israelite.info...;(Denmark is said to be named after "Dan's mark" or settlement")Pro offers no evidence to support this claim, nor to support his claims about the history of Judaism. Even if Pro can somehow prove that Daniel's descendants settled in Denmark, unless he can prove that the tribe of Daniel will not exist outside of Denmark, there is a possibility of the Antichrist being born elsewhere. As I said before, Denmark's name is rooted in Daniel. http://www.nordiskisrael.dk...Pro again offers no evidence to support his allegations. More importantly, Pro has not shown how Denmark's perceived level of sinfulness guarantees that the Antichrist will be born there. Their acceptance of prostitution, very loose drug laws, sex trafficking, lack of Christianity, moreso than most other countries, is proof that the culture of sin is strong there. . http://upload.wikimedia.org...Again, this is all speculation. Pro must prove his assertions about Denmark's racism, and then show that such racism proves that the Antichrist will be born there. Let's see Denmark was the first country to have manditory eugenics, 1929. http://rationalwiki.org...For which they stubbornly refuse to apologize, causing much misery for autistic people, and thus one more reason their history is sinful filled. They also have a history of hate crimes against Inuit immigrants, Asians and black people going back centuriesI have given my argument with sources. Denmark has a very lousy history when it comes to hatred and bigotry, and they have some of the biggest vices in the world.
Denmark will be the Antichrist's home

Let's take a look at the resolution: Denmark will be the Antichrist's home. Note that this is not a question of probability. This is an affirmative statement. Pro claims that Denmark will be the Antichrist's home, and then states in R1 that he has enough reason to believe that assertion.Therefore, the BoP is on Pro to show that, beyond a doubt, his resolution is true. He must provide verifiable, empirical evidence. If he fails in that, he fails in the debate. Again, we are not debating the probability of a Danish Antichrist. We are debating the factuality of an alleged fact.In order to prove his resolution he must prove:1. The Antichrist will be born. Note, Pro does not say, "If the Antichrist is born, it will happen in Denmark." He states that Denmark will be the Antichrist's home, accepting as a given that the Antichrist is a real, future person who will be born and live in Denmark. Pro must prove that the Antichrist will be born.2. The Antichrist will be born in Denmark, or at least call it "home".So far, my opponent has done a lot of speculating, but has not proven either of the above points. I could attempt to counter-speculate. For instance, one source believes that the Antichrist will come out of the Middle East.[1] However, doing so is neither necessary nor helpful to my side of the debate. All I must do is show that my opponent has not upheld his BoP.Since there are no rules about structure, and this debate is short, I will go ahead and post rebuttals.RebuttalsDenmark was settled by Jews from the tribe of DanielPro offers no evidence to support this claim, nor to support his claims about the history of Judaism. Even if Pro can somehow prove that Daniel's descendants settled in Denmark, unless he can prove that the tribe of Daniel will not exist outside of Denmark, there is a possibility of the Antichrist being born elsewhere.Denmark is sinfulPro again offers no evidence to support his allegations. More importantly, Pro has not shown how Denmark's perceived level of sinfulness guarantees that the Antichrist will be born there.The KKK is from DenmarkAgain, this is all speculation. Pro must prove his assertions about Denmark's racism, and then show that such racism proves that the Antichrist will be born there.None of Pro's arguments have proven that the Antichrist will even be born, much less be born in Denmark.Over to Pro.-----[1]http://trackingbibleprophecy.com...
The Sun Rises In The West And Sets In The East

This is evidence that Pro has agreed that his argument is a fallacy of ambiguity. Using his logic as he agreed to my example of being on the moon.Con reasons:"I could also contend that the sun rises in the North and/or South if I were to travel in a space craft circling the the moon."My response:I agree. Now just apply that same logic to Venus within this debate.You can see that Venus's retrograde rotation allows for the appearance of the sun above the horizon in the west of Venus.It's a fact.This is where pros contradictions and "changing the goal posts" reasoning or logic is exposed thus defeating his argument himself by openly admitting that "the horizon" can be North, South East, West , based on the position of observer and the rotational qualities of the "object" from which the observer stands or is traveling. Therefore his contention that the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East is a non argument without the concise instructions that a planets "rotational" quality and an observers position determines his position or argument. Had he been more concise and not left his assertion (premise of the debate) as ambiguous as he did then he would be by fair judgement the victor. Unfortunately he , in his last bit of "reasoning", admitted that the Sun rises in all directions and sets in all directions. Had that been the title of this debate then he would have no one to debate because that is a logically sound premise.So Con can complain all they want...they agreed to the definitions and these allow for an easy affirmation of the resolution.The sun rises in the west and sets in the east, indicatively.So pro can run from his disingenuously constructed debate "subject" all he wants. He has proved himself a good opponent, although his reasoning and logic wasn't sound. I should have just put him in his place from the start. His definition of what constitutes horizon was a fallacy of ambiguity and his argument relied on this fallacious definition. He now contends that the statement the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East is accurate. It is ultimately a biased sample fallacy to use only one other planet to make his arguments because he now agrees it can rise or set in all directions.
The Sun Rises In The West And Sets In The East

Thanks for that...response, Con. In round 3, Con seems to be confused. Con argues: "Humanity doesn't have the authority to decide what other planets inhabitants, when and if they become inhabited, must use as their terminology to determine compass directions..." My response: Who said anything about inhabitants? Con, please reference the definitions you agreed to in this debate specifically "rise" and "set." Nothing about "appear above the horizon" or "appear to move toward and below the horizon" mentions an inhabitant's sight...nothing. The sun appearing above/below the horizon could be seen by a space shuttle's camera on Venus sans inhabitants. So, even if Venus's inhabitants ever determine directions, it wouldn't Impact this debate, because "the western/eastern part of a specified area" was agreed to by both Pro and Con and doesn't mention inhabitants' perspectives. Con buffoonishly asks: "Are you implying the sun rises in the West at the same moment it rises in the East?" My response: Nope I'm implying that the sun rises/sets in both the east and the west indicatively, not simultaneously. California has sunrises and New York has sunsets, and I privided sources for the times of each of those phenomena. Con claims: "Your argument used rise and set in reference to observations on Earth." My response: What do the definitions to which you agreed say? They say that "rise" is "appear above the horizon"...this doesn't say "earth's" horizon and it doesn't say that a human has to see the appearance of this event. A spacecraft can view this appearance of the sun and the horizon on Venus...we agreed to the definitions of the debate. Con reasons: "I could also contend that the sun rises in the North and/or South if I were to travel in a space craft circling the the moon." My response: I agree. Now just apply that same logic to Venus within this debate. You can see that Venus's retrograde rotation allows for the appearance of the sun above the horizon in the west of Venus. It's a fact. So Con can complain all they want...they agreed to the definitions and these allow for an easy affirmation of the resolution. The sun rises in the west and sets in the east, indicatively.
The Sun Rises In The West And Sets In The East

Pro says"Most of the planets in the solar system rotate in a counterclockwise direction when viewed from above their north poles; this direction is called direct, or prograde. Venus, however, rotates in the opposite, or retrograde, direction."http://www.britannica.com....Appeal to authority. Humanity doesn't have the authority to decide what other planets inhabitants, when and if they become inhabited, must use as their terminology to determine compass directions... It is more than reasonable to assume that an individual of great wealth could take an expedition to another planet and using "homestead" laws declare ownership of the planet. That person may also use different terminology for compass directions as would be their right under the interplanetary land claim agreement which was decided on in 1972 by the United nations here on Earth. Unfortunately this agreement has been declared "for eyes only" TOP SECRET and no longer is available for public examination. A one time announcement was made at the time the declaration was agreed upon then was sealed until an actual claim is filed as to ownership of any planets. Pro saysThe truth is that the sun rises and sets in both the western US and the eastern US;Are you implying the sun rises in the West at the same moment it rises in the East?Californians and New Yorkers both experience sunrises and sunsets.Fallacy of equivocation and/or ambiguity depending on what you're implying.Experiencing sunrises and sunsets doesn't therefore mean they are where the sun rises or sets. Experiencing this is ambiguousWhat do you mean by experiencing a sunset or sunrise?At no time does a new Yorker experience New York as being on the horizon. You defined rise and set as being on the horizon. "Venus rotates backwards (retrograde rotation) when compared to the other planets. This means that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east on Venus."In response to my link....Pro says what does this have to do with Venus....Your argument used rise and set in reference to observations on Earth. How the sunrise experience is on another planet is irrelevant.Since your title to this debate was a fallacy of ambiguity the debate itself is undebatable. Your title didn't specify on what planet the argument of where the sun rises and sets addressed. You used Venus as a rebuttal to what NASA says about the Earth. That's a fallacy of moving the goalposts.I could also contend that the sun rises in the North and/or South if I were to travel in a space craft circling the the moon in a path that takes me from the "South Pole" on the dark side of the moon to the "North pole". If your debate title said "The sun rises and sets in many directions based on who is observing what we call rise and set and where they are observing the phenomenon, then there wouldn't be anything to debate.
The Sun Rises In The West And Sets In The East

I have affirmed the resolution by showing that the sun rises in California (west) and the sun sets in New York (east) and by showing that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east on Venus. Con has dropped the California and New York arguments. Con instead has focused on Venus. Con asserts: "On Venus there aren't any directions." My response: Oh really? Then how did the Magellan spacecraft map 98% of Venus's surface, including an image of a "30-km diameter crater Adivar, with a jet-like streak extending off to the left?" http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov... Con emboldens: "There has never been an established unifying body of people on Venus to agree upon which compass directions should be established." My response: Why does the established unifying body of people who agree upon which compass directions are established have to be on Venus? Why can't any of the 40 spacecrafts that have visited Venus and the consensus of NASA astronomers on Earth suffice? Con hypothesizes: "It is possible that humans would then consider magnetic north on venus as being South. Then it might be established if a colony of humans were living on Venus that West is actually the direction that would be East if we projected Earth compass settings onto Venus." My response: Nope. "Most of the planets in the solar system rotate in a counterclockwise direction when viewed from above their north poles; this direction is called direct, or prograde. Venus, however, rotates in the opposite, or retrograde, direction." http://www.britannica.com... The direction of rotation is determined relative to the planet's objective north pole, irrespective of our compasses on Earth. For example, the Magellan spacecraft correctly identified "Aphrodite Terra [which] has two main regions: Ovda Regio in the west and Thetis Regio in the east." http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov... From a spacecraft that was on the surface of Venus, with respect to Venus's objective North pole, West and East and other identifiable directions have been determined. Con furthers: "Using Venus as a basis for directions is flawed reasoning because no documentation by humans living on Venus has ever been written or established what compass settings would be agreed upon." My response: Despite the fact that no humans have ever been to Venus, Venus has a North pole, just like all of the planets do, and Venus's rotation is retrograde, which is in contrast to all other planets in the solar system; the 40 spacecrafts sent to Venus confirm this and there's documentation on it. Con then provides a "titbit" of information to counter the claim that on Venus the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. The link con provides and neglects to explain mentions that the "Earth rotates or spins toward the east, and that's why the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars all rise in the east and make their way westward across the sky." My response: Great. What does this have to do with Venus?
The Sun Rises In The West And Sets In The East

You claim that "on Venus" humans have agreed upon what would be considered directions. On Venus there aren't any directions. People from Earth have merely used Earth directions to communicate information concerning Venus yet there has never been an established unifying body of people on Venus to agree upon which compass directions should be established. Let's take a hypothetical and say because Venus rotates in retrograde there isn't a magnetic "north" but instead a magnetic "south". It is possible that humans would then consider magnetic north on venus as being South. Then it might be established if a colony of humans were living on Venus that West is actually the direction that would be East if we projected Earth compass settings onto Venus. Using Venus as a basis for directions is flawed reasoning because no documentation by humans living on Venus has ever been written or established what compass settings would be agreed upon. And of course there is also this titbit's of information we might consider from Earths own Government organization NASA. They seem to contradict your claim. . http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
The Sun Rises In The West And Sets In The East

Pro's (my) burden is simple. .. to affirm that the star around which the earth orbits appears above the horizon in the western part of a specified area and appears to move toward and below the horizon in the eastern part of a specified area. *The Resolution Is True* First, let's choose a specified area. I'll choose the specified area of the United States, since I'm American. The United States has a western part and an eastern part. In California, the western part of the US, the sun appears above the horizon; the sun rises in the west. . https://www.google.com... In New York, the eastern part of the US, the sun appears to move toward and below the horizon; the sun sets in the east. . https://www.google.com... The truth is that the sun rises and sets in both the western US and the eastern US; Californians and New Yorkers both experience sunrises and sunsets. Next, let's choose another specified area, to really crystallize this affirmation. I'll choose the specified area of Venus, since it directly affirms this resolution. "Venus rotates backwards (retrograde rotation) when compared to the other planets. This means that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east on Venus. " . http://solarsystem.nasa.gov... I affirm the counter-intuitive resolution, because the sun rises in the west and sets in the east on Venus, and, in the US, in the western part, the sun rises, and, in the eastern part, the sun sets.
The Sun Rises In The West And Sets In The East

Full ResolutionThe sun rises in the west, and sets in the east. ProHas 3 sets of 8,000 characters and the Burden of Proof to AFFIRM the resolution that the sun in fact rises in the west and sets in the east. ConHas 3 sets of 8,000 characters to refute Pro and NEGATE the resolution that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. Definitionssun - the star around which the earth orbits. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...rise - appear above the horizon. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...west - denoting the western part of a specified area. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...set - appear to move toward and below the horizon. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...east - denoting the eastern part of a specified area. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Resolved: Cities should deny Chick-Fil-A from expanding their franchise into their perimeter.

Since you did not respond I will not take advantage of round 5. I will merely restate my most important point: In refusing to allow free speech or the opening of stores you set yourself up as an enemy of freedom. And since your lack of response could be misconstrued as an admission of defeat I will also stand up for you. I have forfeited rounds mistakenly in the past because sometimes things happen in life. Therefore, I assume that your forfeit was a mistake and encourage all readers to do the same.
Four Point Calvinism

The following debate will be over four of the five points of Calvinism. The four points within question are Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Each round that contains Biblical positions should be cited as well as any extra-Biblical sources with in-line format as well as a bibliography (MLA format preferred). Information cannot be copied or pasted without proper reference, as this will be considered plagiarism. The primary means of defending a position should be through the Scripture's applied with critical thinking and a thorough understanding of the context. Finally as a reminder, this debate should be approached in a manner that upholds integrity and respect. The following assumptions will be applied during this debate (Piper): “The Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct” (Article One, “Bethlehem Affirmation of Faith”). Right thinking about what the Bible teaches about God and man and salvation really matters. The work of the Holy Spirit, and the pursuit of his work in prayer, is essential for grasping the truth of Scripture. Thinking is essential for grasping Biblical truth. The definition of the four points of Calvinism will be defined as seen below (Slick): Italicize mine I. Total Depravity Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin. Because of this man is unable to turn to God out of his own will apart from God's divine intervention. II. Unconditional Election God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not. III. Irresistible Grace When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. IV. Perseverance of the Saints You cannot lose your salvation. The debate will be separated into 5 rounds: Introductory Statements Total Depravity Unconditional Election Irresistible Grace Perseverance of the Saints Text Cited Piper, John. "TULIP: Introduction." Desiring God. N.p., 07 Mar. 2008. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. Slick, Matthew J. "The Five Points of Calvinism, TULIP." Calvinist Corner. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. Introductory Statement: My name is Patrick Trester, I am a student in General Education and Biblical Studies at Liberty University. I will be defending the four points of Calvinism that are in question.