BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity Offers Freedom of Choice and Freewill to all.

Thanks to my opponent for the quick response. It is clear at this point that my opponent and I are talking at cross purposes about free will - which is hardly my fault, since he has not provided a definition for free will or even indicated what he means by it. He repeatedly asserts that Christianity does not offer free will because of X or Y, but he does not say what he means by free will so the points are void of any force. He appears to mean that Christianity does not offers free will because it also provides constraints - you cannot choose to not believe in God and go to heaven, you cannot choose to believe and worship God and go to hell, you cannot simply ask for evidence of Christianity and receive it etc. However, a moment's thought destroys this argument. If this were the case, free will could never exist - there are always constraints. Your choices will always be limited in all circumstances - does this mean there is no free will? Well, only if we're using a definition of free will that is impossible to apply to reality. I cannot choose to defy gravity and float into the air using thought power. Does that mean free will doesn't exist? Of course not. It is clear from this that the answer to my opponent's questions are simple - if the terrible situation arose where you were forced to kill one of your parents or the other, your circumstances would be terribly limited. However, you would still have free will. Free will is not affected by this scenario, just as it is not affected by the choices Christianity lays out. My opponent continues to bash Christianity without actually upholding his resolution. My opponent can write all day long about how Christianity offers either slavery or torture, about how there's no evidence for any of it or how faith is a ridiculous concept. However, none of this is actually upholding the resolution. I have provided a widely accepted definition of free will and shown how the resolution is affirmed. My opponent has ignored this, not posted his own definition or indicated what he really means and instead gone on a long rant against Christianity.
Christianity Offers Freedom of Choice and Freewill to all.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:18* 1. Free will: Christianity does NOT offer free will. You are forced to choose either slavery to a "god" or to be damned for ALL eternity. That is not freewill, that is a no win situation, If I gave you a gun, while holding a gun to your head, then said for you to kill your mother or your father, do you actually have freewill to chose what you WANT to do? No, that is a no win situation because you are required to kill or take a life. It is the same with "god's" "free will" you either become a slave or condemned to hell for all eternity. That is NOT free will, that is someone else's will FORCED on you. You are required to believe in a "god" by faith without evidence that this "god" exist. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1* But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God MUST believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6* For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Romans 1:17* For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:26* So you are condemned already because "god" gives you the "free will" to either believe "god" exist without any proof that "god" does exist so you have to believe by faith that something exist that can NEVER be proven to exist or die and go to hell. 2. Choice I order for FREE WILL to actually be FREE, IT has to offer you a CHOICE that you can accept without being doomed for making your decision. Your are not "free" when your only choices are between two negatives. This has nothing to do with someone choosing to be bad or "evil" this is about being free to choose how you want to LIVE your life, while not hurting any other individual. * King James Perversion Sorry if you are not following my original post, try reading it again...
Christianity Offers Freedom of Choice and Freewill to all.

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. First, allow me to have a gander at the resolution. It states 'Christianity Offers Freedom of Choice and Freewill to all'. In other words, on the Christian worldview, freedom of choice and free will are part of the package. Now freedom of choice doesn't mean much without specifying the choice in question that is to be had or withheld. However, Con never really specifies which choice this is. Does he mean that we don't have the choice to go to heaven or hell? If so, he already concedes that this is not the case - he points out that if we fail to choose worship and belief in God we will go to hell. However, going to hell is part of the choice - it doesn't negate the fact that it is, indeed, a free choice. Now, it is crucial to understand the resolution Cavin is presenting here. He is not questioning God's moral character - it is perfectly possible for me to concede that God is an evil, twisted, psychopath with a severe penchant for sadistic torture and ridiculous ultimatums (which are all fair enough propositions) and still win the debate - they have nothing at all to do with the resolution presented. As long as I can demonstrate that Christianity offers Free Will and Freedom of Choice I will have won. 1. Free will: In short, Christianity does offer free will because of the soul. Defining free will is no easy task, but I think a fair definition is the ability to choose different courses of action under the same conditions - if you can only act in one particular way in any given situation, you do not have free will. You are constrained into one particular 'route' from birth to death. In Christianity, the soul provides this function - it is an immaterial part of you unconstrained by deterministic forces, and serves as the part of a person that makes moral (and possibly other) decisions. 2. Freedom of Choice: Again, I'm not sure what kind of freedom of choice my opponent is referring to here. If it is between heaven and hell, he has already conceded the point. He has already stated that people can choose either to believe in Christ and salvation or not, albeit with the condition that you are totally and utterly screwed if you (freely) choose the latter option. If it is something different, he is free (heh) to inform me next round.
Christianity Offers Freedom of Choice and Freewill to all.

Okay... lets say, you were found guilty of... uh... lets say disobeying a law of some kind. Nothing really bad, violent or gruesome but you were found guilty. Now the penalty, for breaking that law, is that you will be tortured and then if you survive, be put to death. Suppose, that I hear of your plight and I tell you, that I love you more than anything else in the universe; even more than even the life of my only child, that I will gladly give, in your place, to let them mutilate, torture and ultimately kill. To make it an even better offer, you can live in a palace for all eternity with riches beyond your wildest dreams with me in my perfect city in the afterlife. All you have to do is believe, with all your heart, that I am your one true God. I will allow nor offer any proof whatsoever that I am who I say. I will send my "holy ghost" to comfort you and to help you understand the book, written by other mortal men, just like yourself, to be my "holy words" for you to use as a guide. Oh, there is also an evil "devil" that will tempt you because I let him to help build your "faith" along the way. I will let him, at times, touch you with illness, troubles, trials and other evils all to help you become a stronger believer in me. Oh, there is just one very last thing, IF you do not take my offer... then your soul belongs to the "devil" and you will be tortured, for all eternity, in a place I made for him and all his followers, that were not happy with my perfect city. You are free to choose either way you want and always remember I love you, so very, very much. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18 (King James Perversion) That alone is the ULTIMATE PROOF for saying that "christianity" has NEVER been a whosoever will or that it's "god" gives anyone freewill. It is the same as the others that give you only the choice of servitude or eternal torment if you fail to choose what their truth is. Free will in religious context can only ever exist, when you have the CHOICE to make your own decision without being penalized when you do.
Christianity Offers Freedom of Choice and Freewill to all.

At this point I'm unsure of what to say. Con has ignored virtually every point I have made and instead elected to write a long diatribe against Christianity. It should be clear to everyone that he has not succeeded (or even tried very hard) to negate the resolution. Instead, it appears his purpose here is solely to rant against particular Christian doctrines. As the instigator, he had to negate the resolution. He clearly has not. Again, there is no basis for the claim that because X has bad consequences, free will is somehow negated. He has not attempted to define free will in the first two rounds, despite my attempts to coax the answer out of him. Free will is an extremely controversial subject, with many, many varying definitions and connotations. The fact that Con has not addressed this means everything he says is essentially meaningless. He conceded in the very first round that Christianity offers you the choice between heaven and hell, and since he has continually refused to clarify what he means, I assume that's what he meant when he wrote the resolution - I can't think of anything else. He has therefore failed to negate the first part of the resolution. He has done nothing but repeatedly claim that because of the bad consequences that occur when someone chooses hell over heaven, free will is somehow negated. He has not substantiated this assertion, and so has failed to negate the second part of the resolution. In his final round, he has attempted to define free will - I should ignore him, since it's clearly absurd to attempt to define keywords of the resolution in the final round, however, I will address them. First, he states that the scriptures say what free will is, then quotes some passages. However, having read through them, I can't understand why he thinks they shed any light on what the biblical understanding of free will is - or even why we should accept it. Later, he actually points out that the phrase free will is barely mentioned in the bible (what was the point of quoting scripture then?). He points out once again that bad consequences will occur if someone chooses hell, but doesn't say why this negates free will. Second, he says religion will offer free will if it offers 'to give you the ability to select a choice that gives you freedom to choose without automatic condemnation for your choice'. This is a definition of free will found nowhere but in my opponent's head. He has retroactively invented this definition to give credence to his earlier rantings against Christianity as negating (part of) the resolution. This is clearly absurd, and without a source and considering when he presented the definition, it should simply be ignored as the desperate ploy it is. In the end, Con has failed to negate the resolution, and instead has elected to rant against Christianity.
guns are bad

My opponent gave decent reasons on why the Newtown shooting was more of human evil than a gun problem. However, what my opponent didn't rebuttle was that guns are way too accessible in the U.S. There have been countless cases of guns being stolen from peoples homes and little children accidentally shooting other children. Is this pure evil? I ask you or is it because guns are way too accessible. In Canada, they have strict gun-registry laws that restrict semi-automatic and automatic rifles, machine guns and any other semi-automatic and automatic guns. This significantly lowers the accidental gun-deaths and homicide death rate. My opponent also said that psychopaths can just use knives instead of guns. But don't you think psychopaths use guns because they are more efficient and can kill massive amounts of people. This was probably the mentality of the Psycho's in the Newtown and Columbine shootings. The point is that guns are way too accessible and have an extremely negative impact.
guns are bad

to start off law abiding gun owners stop around 82500 crimes across the nation annualy. An example of a homicide stopped by a law abiding gun owner would be in portland oregon three days before the newtown school shooting. So what happened was a sociopath walked into a mall carrying an AR15 he opened fire on a crowd but was stopped when a man carrying a concealed handgun put the sociopath at gunpoint, the crazy man then proceeded to kill himself. Looking over to the newtown shooting and though I agree that it is terrible someone would do that however that guy was crazy and he would have found to kill kids with or without a gun. the reason he used a gun is just because that was just the most conveniant method. Even if you dont believe me in china on the same day as newtown a man walked into a school and stabbed 22 children. this proves that a gun isnt going to kill anybody it requires an evil person behind it. its basiclly like the saying goes, guns dont kill people, people kill people.
guns are bad

My opponent gave very legitimate examples on how guns could be could. However looking at our home country U.S.A., we can see that guns have had an extremely negative impact on our society and the world. From past events such as the Columbine massacre, to the terrible tragedy in Newtown, we can see that guns can have cost innocent children lives. Not only that, but in 2011 31 940 people died from gun-related injuries in 2011. In 2007 and 2009, the rate of homicide per 100 000 individuals was 2.98, and the unintentional gun-fatality rate was 0.27. To put that in perspective, the homicide rate was 99 times more than the United Kingdom and Japan combined. Also, if we look our neighbors up North (Canada, they're doing just fine without the need to bear-arms. Carrying guns in homes does not make a country a better society, but a rather paranoid and unstable society as we can see in the U.S. The summary of this round is that guns to much more harm than good and have an negative impact.
guns are bad

So I do not think guns are bad for many reasons first a gun ban would not keep guns out the hands of criminals, (Just look at what happened in Australia) this is because a criminal could just go to a black market and get a fully automatic AK-47 as opposed to a hunting rifle at a local sporting goods store. The same would be true for a longer or harder registration process, it would only punish law-abiding gun owners. lets compare Australia and Switzerland. In Australia were a ban on on privately owned firearms has only made the crime rate go up nearly 300% in the state of Victoria alone! look over to Switzerland were every adult male owns a rifle and handgun and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. So now lets review that The likely reason for that is probably because in Australia a criminal can walk into someone's house knowing they are unarmed. In Switzerland a criminal is not going to go into someone's house knowing they are armed. This is why I am not for more gun laws.
the US government should prioritize the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interest.

Thank you. I would like to begin by saying that throughout your case you do not once mention refugees only immigrants. Our resolution is about if the US government should prioritize the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interest. A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her home country. An immigrant however is someone who chooses to do so. This fact make a large portion of your case insignificant. I would like to point out that the Mexican immigrants are not from nearly as bad a situation as others. They are also here illegally. Though they may make money for the US with taxes they also cost money. In a way that am I trying to say they are an object but humans cost money. the value of a statistical life turns out to be around $5 million over the course of their life. There were 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2014. You have made it a point to say that Muslims are smart. I never in my case stated that Muslims were not smart nor that they are all terrorists. Many Muslims are very kind people and I personally have Muslim friends. I was using Muslims as one of many examples because terrorism in present day society is not a scarce thing. There were over 400 terrorist attacks around the world killing hundreds of people (by a TON of different groups) in 2015 alone! By opening our borders there is no way of knowing how much violence we would be letting in. You say that the money would not be an issue but the only evidence you have to support this claim is the fact that we owe money! How on earth does that help you. Yes we owe a lot of money to ourselves but that does not mean that it is any less important than if it was to another country. Also to quote YOU "We owe about $5 trillion to other countries, including China." The fact that this is true is reason in itself that we can not provide for countries or those from countries other than our own. In your rebuttal if you would please answer these questions: 1. Where is the limit? Should we let in every refugee that asks from Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq? 2. If so how are you intending on paying for the medical care, schooling, teaching of English, housing, and food? 3. How would we prevent a terrorist from coming through the borders?
Uk voting age

Kind regards for your reply. I will now present the conclusion, as well as making some rebuttals. Final Round Rebuttals and Conclusion:Pro has neither displayed any valid arguments nor has attempted any form or sort of valid rebuttal. Indeed, Pros statement and most meager, but to be honest entirely useless attempt at debate and rebuttal actually proves the point Con tried to bring across. Furthermore, Pros incapability of spelling 'wrong' correctly, as well as the simple lack of effort in writing 'you', yes, 'u' saved two letters, 'y' and 'o', and did not bring any credit to your case by doing so, coupled with Pros assumption that Cons case is 'rong' and that Con is 'silly' creates the concerning display that Con presented in round 1. Voting is for people who are willing to educate themselves about what their vote does, if they neither care about who they vote for nor about what they vote for, they shall not engage in the practice. Not attempting to be offensive or to insult, however, Pros lack of argument as well as their non existing ability to display coherent thought, but rather to state one is wrong and silly, without any justification, proof or evidence thereof, makes one consider if Pro could fall under named above category. Therefore, as no actual case has been laid before, no evidence was provided, nor was there a valid form of rebuttal, Con will have to stand by their original statement, that young individuals should not vote. Kind regards to pro, thanks to all readers and voters. Have a nice day.
God Truly Exists

No shame in it. To be clear, If I saw or was provided for evidence for your God the only way my tune would change would be to try to convince people that we still must somehow fight against him anyway. No one deserves eternal damnation. We as a society have to learn how to forgive people. Jesus preached forgiveness, A trait that is impossible to say your God has when hell is eternal. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
God Truly Exists

Round 1 is opening round and outline round. Please post your arguments here C1: God isn't a being that can be reveal to us, But through experiences in daily life. C2: The reason that God don't responds to your prayer is because the thing you want, Is often what not god wants you to have. C3: The reason that God don't prevent suffering is because the majority of us have fallen, And refuse to accept that god is a being that is much higher than us and more holy than us, But instead, Dreamt him of a stranger human.
Cheerleading is a sport

Since my adversary didn't provide any definitions I shall take the liberty of doing so.Sport: 'an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment' For winning this debate my adversary has to prove beyond all doubt that the activity of cheerleading is a sport.And in response to the arguments presented in round 1 by PRO, none of them explain why cheerleading should be considered as a sport.Hope to see more pertinent arguments from PRO's side.Iwish her good luck!
Cheerleading is a sport

Don't say it's easy and you don't sweat unless you've been one. Id like to see you go to practices four days a week for 3 hours at a time and do full outs and conditioning for that one time when you out on the mat for 2 minutes and 30 seconds. You come and live the life of a cheerleader for a day, I'd like to see what you say after that.c95;
Medicle Marijuana

"Like I said marijuana that is used for medical purposes is not just being prescribed to anyone you have to go through certain steps" I understand that marijuana is not prescribed to just anyone. I have shown you that because there are so many other available medications, however, there is no reason to want to use medical marijuana unless the patient does have some desire to get high. Heroin is a painkiller. Does that mean that we should administer heroin to patients that are in pain? NO, because there are so many other treatments out there that don't alter your brain chemistry. "Lets look at a common cold, you can use Vick's or dayquil and many others but sometimes peoples chemistry doesn't work well with that drug and they could be allergic to it. Wouldn't you rather have another alternate out there for example marijuana, that you can take and it could help you out." As I have already stated, there are many drugs out there that can be used and the chances that someone is allergic to ALL of those is infinitesimally small. Also, I have already addressed this point by saying that scientists have synthetically produced the chemicals in marijuana that have medicinal properties, so if someone is allergic to these, they are also allergic to marijuana.
Medicle Marijuana

I would think that using this would be highly preferable to unnecessarily altering your brain chemistry. Unless, of course, the patient is using marijuana primarily to get high. Like I said marijuana that is used for medical purposes is not just being prescribed to anyone you have to go through certain steps and on to the part about it having other solutions.. Lets look at a common cold, you can use Vick's or dayquil and many others but sometimes peoples chemistry doesn't work well with that drug and they could be allergic to it. Wouldn't you rather have another alternate out there for example marijuana, that you can take and it could help you out.