BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
LOST was the greatest T.V. series ever

I feel that you are asserting that lost is the greatest TV show and still continues to be great which is in direct violation of your resolution. Well to be grammatically correct I inserted the word was in the resolution because the show has reach and completed its final season. This is simply for grammatical purposes. My case however supports the fact that Lost was the greatest TV show ever by showing that it is still the greatest series ever made. I accept my opponent’s definitions. C1 - The show "house" has an amazing cast. My opponent has made the claim that the show has an amazing cast, however I would like to remind my opponent that three of the main supporting actors were replaced in one simple swoop, which began a process of repacking House’s assistants. This would lead us to believe that without the supporting cast, the show prospers. However you cannot have the show without Hugh Lorie. In the case of Lost, the focus of the episodes revolves around several different characters. Any actor could die, and the show would have still thrived (which happens on the show). The series is not dependent upon one actor. C2 - "house" has won a myriad of awards and so has the main character which I believe is what made it the greatest. I would like to see the evidence for this. Lost has won hundreds of awards for the actors, the screenplay, the director, the special effects, best show on TV, etc. However my opponent states that House has won some awards without any real evidence. Now back to my own case. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a round for rebuttals so I wait for my opponent to attack my case in round 3! Good Luck
LOST was the greatest T.V. series ever

Thank you again for starting this debate. I am going to assert that Dr.House was the greatest TV show. Your criteria for the greatest Tv show is 1. that it should be planned from the beginning, 2. that it should make references to the real world, and 3. how many awards the show has won however I feel that you are asserting that lost is the greatest tv show and still continues to be great which is in direct violation of your resolution. Definitions Lost: A tv show made by JJ Abrams House: A tv show produced by David shore and Brian synger. Greatest: the superlative term of great meaning above all else, the best which none can compete with or compare to. Was: past tense from the verb to be indicating that something is in the past but no longer continues to be in the present. Example- house was the greatest Tv show and now Lost is the best tv show. C1 - The show "house" has an amazing cast such as hugh laurie, omar epps, kal pen, jennifer morrison, jesse spencer, robert sean leonard, lisa edelstein, and many more. In the beginning House was a very well made show it had horactian retorhic and sort of rooting for the guy devoid of feelings who's misanthropic who saves people with his amazing intellect and instincts which makes him take risks with patient lives in order to save them; however now in recent episodes there was a musical which I believe wasn't that funny or humorous and had stopped taken vicodin which took something away from his character I believe that's why they put him back on vicodin but the dammage has already been done. C2 - "house" has won a myriad of awards and so has the main character which I believe is what made it the greatest. Thank you I await your response.
LOST was the greatest T.V. series ever

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ConstructiveRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Closing ArgumentsMy friend showed me the show Lost about a year ago and it has turned out to be the most interesting show I have ever seen! J. J. Abrams is a genious in everything to the exposition of the characters to the surprise twist endings. Whoever accepts this doesn't have to offer another show that they think is the greatest, they merely have to refute the resolution4 8 15 16 23 424 8 15 16 23 424 8 15 16 23 424 8 15 16 23 42 I tried to make the rounds 108 minutes but debate. org doesn't have a setting for that.
adhd

Y what happen you scared of Demonized Human Dog? But you are pro this? Hehe, then I shall state my contentions:1. ADHDs spread Rabies. Dogs which are labeled ADHDs probably have rabies; according to Pet MD, dogs who have rabies show bizzare barbaric behaviour. And that is the behaviour of the Demonized Human Dog.2. ADHDs, by spreading rabies, threaten humanityWe cannot treat rabies; they spread to fast. If one human is infected with rabies, he could infect the whole human race. And we die! !! !! !! !! !!3. ADHD bites are more ferocious than a normal dog. http://www.youtube.com...VIDEO SHOWS IT ALL! An ADHD biting a man in the face. ADHDs are used for police, and even there, they're breeding a pack of monsters.
adhd

Since the opponent did not defy any terms, I shall start by defying the terms:1. ADHDA Demonized Human DogWow.......the opponent is pro a demonized human dog????? U wot m8I mean like if he truly is, then the world is ruined. A demonized human trained dog pet could go and spread rabies to other dogs, and then dogs to humans, and then we all die......AHHHHH....no please.I mean seriously
Resolved: That an oppressive government is better than no government at all.

Contention 1: If a government is not powerful and strong, it will not have the capacity to rule its citizens and enforce the law with an iron fist to prevent crime. According to the United Nations World Crime Survey, countries entrenched in turmoil like Columbia and South Africa have homicide rates 63 and 51 per 100,000, respectively. Compare this to the homicide rate of the US, "5.5 homicides per 100,000 people." Countries that are in turmoil obviously do not have a strong government that can enforce the law and bring safety to its citizens, and the World Crime Survey has also shown that these countries have rather high crime rates. In addition, according to Facts on File, "Somalia has not had a stable government since 1991. As a result of the general lawlessness in that country, pirates have been able to create sophisticated criminal networks…" and, "Only through the creation of a stable government in Somalia will the threat of piracy subdue." As you can see, lack of a government means that there is no law to be enforced. This puts the lives of a country's citizens in danger. However, an oppressive government will be strong enough to enforce the law and ensure the safety of its citizens, making an oppressive government more desirable than no government when it comes to assuring safety and stability. Contention 2: A country with no powerful government cannot provide municipal and federal services, such as hospitals, fire fighting services, etc., and must rely on other countries, becoming a burden to the world. In addition, uncontrolled Somalia piracy of the Coast of Aden has already cost the world $150m in ransom money and over 95 attempted attacks on freighter vessels. http://news.bbc.co.uk... Contention 3: A country, such as Somalia, with no central government has no federal military to defend itself, both from internal and external threats. According a 2008 survey by the CIA, Somalia has, "No national-level armed forces." This lack of a military has led to uncontrolled internal conflict in Somalia. According to the Elman Peace and Human Rights Organization, this fighting between Somali insurgents has left about 9,000 civilians dead, and around 12,000 civilians injured since the first outbreak of war in 2007. A government For example, following the Bolshevik takeover of Russia and the formation of the USSR in 1922, Hungary staged an attempted revolution thirty-four years later. A government like Somalia's would have been unable to control the revolution, but the USSR, whose oppressiveness has given it power, was able to suppress both Hungary and the Revolution within days. Therefore, we can see that a country with no government is a breeding ground for rebellion, which can harm both a country and its neighbors. I'm doing this for a debate I have to do in class, so someone please argue with me.
The website "Debate. Org" has serious problems that must be addressed.

First off "must" simply means that the glitches are impacting the utility of the site. If they are not fixed, Many people, Including my self will simply quit the site. Here are some proofs of the problems #1 I get an email saying that an argument is due. When I follow the link ( sent by Debate. Org) I get this Server Error in '/' Application. The resource cannot be found. Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, Had its name changed, Or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly. Requested URL: /debates/The-website-Debate. Org-has-serious-problems-that-must-be-addressed. /2/ #2 When I go to my messages ( on this site ) and try to access my debate I get this Server Error in '/' Application. The resource cannot be found. Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, Had its name changed, Or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly. Requested URL: /debates/The-website-Debate. Org-has-serious-problems-that-must-be-addressed. /2/ #3 The only way to access my debates is to go to the list of debates on the home page and look for my debate #4 I have only posted this debate once, And now find it is up at least four separate times. #5 I have had arguments posted, Which have then disappeared #6 These disappeared arguments later show up as "forfeited" #7 I had one debate opened for voting and then asked for "arguments due, " and then rounds 3 and 4 ( which had been completed ) showed as "forfeited" by both PRO and CON. These conditions get in the way of the debates and must be fixed.
The website "Debate. Org" has serious problems that must be addressed.

I am Con, And I am trying to prove that there is not enough evidence to claim that debate. Org has serious problems that must be addressed. My first argument is to claim that the word "must" is incorrect in this statement. These problems do not have to go away. For the statement "must be addressed" to be true, Then there is 100% certainty that the problems will indeed be addressed. Pro has not given evidence that the problems mentioned will be solved. Pro has merely made an effort to prove that there is problems in general. Perhaps pro is giving a more adequate argument on why the problem "should" be addressed, However, They have giving zero proof of why these problems are certain to be addressed. I would also argue that evidence would point to the fact that moderators likely will not address these problems. You have given cases where "glitches" have occurred. These do only pertain to you. For example, I experienced a similar glitch in my own debate (1), And it does not look like it will be addressed. The likely outcome at this point is that moderators will not do anything. Until I see them take action in a specific scenario, I would argue there is not enough evidence to claim they will take actions here in the problems mentioned. I am excited to see the response from Pro. (1) https://www. Debate. Org/debates/USA-should-KEEP-troops-in-Syria/1/
Water Baptism is no longer required.

You question my belief in The KJV Bible. I question yours. I experienced Numbers 12:6, in the spring of 2003. Is not Numbers 12:6 in The Bible? Do you believe in Numbers 12:6? I have also listed personal beliefs and practices, that are in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to what is written in The Bible. I am confused. Just what 'BIBLE' are you following? Who are you glorifying...GOD, OR YOURSELF? Why do Roman Catholic ministers call themselves 'FATHER'? This is in direct contradiction to the scriptures. The scriptures tell us, "Call no MAN [spiritual] Father. You have ONE Father, who is in heaven." Roman Catholic ministers respond with, "This is not what they mean [spiritual Father] when they call themselves 'Father'." Then, pray tell, what DO they mean? I have come to the conclusion, that Christian ministers believe they are above all other people on this earth, in terms of their 'closeness to God'. They are filled with their own vanity (high-headedness). They have become modern day 'scribes and Pharisees'. No matter who God sends to correct this problem, they will not listen....after all, are they not 'ordained' [BY MAN] ministers? Do they not have theology degrees [which mean NOTHING to God]? I have visited a great many churches over the last 10 years. What I have witnessed, would 'blow your mind'. The majority of the ministers do not even understand God's Word. They have not sought wisdom from God. They have been taught by the 'blind', and are now blind themselves. Many services are ritualistic in nature. Many congregations have become 'cliques'. They leave the church just as blind as they entered it. Very few members of the congregation even are aware of what is written in The Bible. They barely ever read it. The 'Bible discussions' held by a few, are DOMINATED by blind ministers. Good Luck.
Water Baptism is no longer required.

Pro starts out with the unfalsifiable claim that God told him that water baptism is no longer required, which ought not to be a terribly convincing argument. To match it, I counter that God told me it is still required, and that should Pro wish to contest this he can argue with God.The only real argument that Pro forwards is that everyone is born of water, but he regrettably misunderstands the verse in question. I'll quote it in context to show why.Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” The Lord is clearly not referring to the first birth, but rather the second, as he is clarifying to Nicodemus how someone might be born again when Nicodemus doubts that someone could literally be rebirthed. This shows Pro's only arguments to miss the mark, and as he has provided nothing else but a little story, extend my other arguments.
Water Baptism is no longer required.

You can argue this topic with God. It is God who has told me differently. We are ALL born of water, in the beginning. We are contained in water prior to birth. Our bodies consist of a great deal of water. It is the 'spirit' that we lack, at birth. I have NEVER been baptised by any human being. Every time I went to do so, there was always something that intervened. I too know the scriptures, and this is why had sought baptism in a church. It was God that stopped me from becoming baptised by a minister. I started attending church at five years of age. I read through the KJV Bible at age 10, and gave my heart to Christ soon after. God has guided me throughout my life. Satan has tried to 'kill me' many times throughout my life, but God has intervened on my behalf. I was not even aware of the posing dangers. I then became 'anointed' by God, in the spring of 2003. What I post, is not my word, but His. During my teen years, I would go to church in winter, about one hour before the beginning of the service, light the oil furnace, return home and then return for the service. I helped the minister many times in making repairs to the church. I 'lived' my faith...DID YOU?
Water Baptism is no longer required.

Pro has seems to lack an understanding of baptism. The Sacred Scriptures neither directly nor implicitly teach that baptism is merely a 'personal declaration' in front of an audience. I deny that it is possible for the requirement of water baptism to have ended, for we have the teaching from the Lord 'He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned' and also 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'. Similarly, we have that Apostolic teaching 'Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you' from St. Peter. The quirks of Pro's own theology do not obsolete water baptism.
Water Baptism is no longer required.

Water baptism is totally 'defiled' (as 'divorce' became). The Christian ministry has 'gone beyond' the scriptural 'definition/purpose' for becoming baptised. The scriptural 'purpose' for becoming baptised, is part of our 'turning over a new leaf', which is our seeking forgiveness for our sins, accepting Christ as our saviour, and becoming water-baptised. The Christian ministry has 'defiled' water baptism. They have have gone beyond the original 'purpose' of baptism. Many baptise dead people. Many require a previously baptised person to become baptised again, in order to become a member of their church. Many baptise infants (even new born children) who have no idea what baptism means. When someone says that they are baptised, what does this mean? It should mean the same to ALL people. It should follow the scriptures. Baptism is a personal decision (you must be 'alive') that a person takes, which is a form of 'personal declaration' in front of an audience, that says, "I have put away my previous evil ways, asked God for forgiveness for the sins that I have committed, chosen Christ as my saviour, and now seek to follow The Bible and glorify GOD."
The Big Bang theory was made up by scientists to have something interesting to say.

All I need is one contention to refute Pros stanceResolution - The Big Bang theory is not realCMBRThis is how we know beyond a doubt that the Big Bang actually occurred. It was accidentally discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965. CMBR - The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place and that as it expands, the gas within it cools. Thus the universe should be filled with radiation that is literally the remnant heat left over from the Big Bang, called the “cosmic microwave background", or CMB. [1]Penzias and Wilson found this on accident and won the Nobel Prize for it. "Today, the CMB radiation is very cold, only 2.725° above absolute zero, thus this radiation shines primarily in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and is invisible to the naked eye. However, it fills the universe and can be detected everywhere we look. In fact, if we could see microwaves, the entire sky would glow with a brightness that was astonishingly uniform in every direction. The picture at left shows a false color depiction of the temperature (brightness) of the CMB over the full sky (projected onto an oval, similar to a map of the Earth). The temperature is uniform to better than one part in a thousand! This uniformity is one compelling reason to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the Big Bang; it would be very difficult to imagine a local source of radiation that was this uniform. In fact, many scientists have tried to devise alternative explanations for the source of this radiation, but none have succeeded."[1]ConclusionHow do we know the Big Bang exists. We can see the remnants of it in the sky. The resolution is not upheld. [1] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Jesus Christ and the Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

As Pro mentioned I had conceded another point that Jesus rose from the dead, to allow for PSAT to be focused on. I am not going to rebut most of the points made by Pro, cause I don't think Pro is actually defending PSAT. Pro says "Penal substitution is not saying that he is serving our sentences for us. It is saying that - His righteous sacrifice - His tasting of Death as a righteous man - His death at the hands of an unjust system and human persecution - His committing himself to the justice of God rather than man, - His being vindicated and set free by the justice of God" Pro is arguing that these unjust things that happened to Jesus is the same as penal substitution, I contend they are not. It seems to me what Pro is arguing here that cause Jesus suffered these unjust things, Jesus is owed compensation. With this compensation Jesus can pay the sin debt of others and thus God is satisfied. Even if this is true, this doesn't defend PSAT, cause PSAT makes very specific claims of how God is satisfied. Here are some explanations of PSAT "Penal Substitution Atonement Theory = Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory)[1][2] is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, especially associated with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment" . http://en.wikipedia.org... Penal Substitution is a theological viewpoint within Christianity that maintains Jesus was legally punished in place of the sinners. That is, he took the place of the sinner. It is "penal" in that Christ suffered the penalty of the law, taking the "penalty" of the Law. It was substitutionary in that Christ took our place on the cross when he bore our sins (1 Pet. 2:24) and became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21). . http://carm.org... "Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve" . http://www.theopedia.com... Notice the difference between what PSAT is claiming, and what Pro is claiming. PSAT clearly states that Jesus was PUNISHED instead (the substitute) of the sinner. As reformed arsenal has commented to you Pro. .. .. "Penal Substitution Atonement Theory and Propitiatory Satisfaction Atonement Theory are not the same thing. You are arguing that Jesus did not serve our penalty, so you cannot be arguing for PSAT. You are arguing that Jesus being punished satisfied God's requirements for forgiveness, which is Propitiatory Satisfaction. " At this point I will see whether Pro will defend PSAT, or whether they still maintain that their view of PSAT is correct.
Jesus Christ and the Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

I shall extend again, As Stated; I have refutted the one objection completely, have shown my opponents opinion that I was detailing prop sat only was completely from a missunderstanding of the two theological concepts. There has been no meaningful rebuttal from my opponent to the resolution of his single objection. The Penal nature of Jesus' substitution for us remains a valid tenant of Christianity and a useful means for us to come to terms with God.