BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tithing is a scam to fleece Christians and should be abolished

Hello, I am glad that I can have the chance to debate with you. I am a Christian myself, and my dad is the trustee/treasurer of the church, so I know quite a bit about tithing. I hope to have quite the debate with you!Response to tithing being a dogma: Tithing is not a dogma, as it is commanded in the Old Testament. I do not understand why the Old Testament is not good enough for a lot of Christians, as Jesus never said forget what was said in the Old, but only a few concepts were a;tered. However, tithing is mentioned in the New Testament, for example: Mark 12: 41-44: 41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.This clearly shows that Jesus is "praising" the woman for her kind act. Jesus also says numerous times that He doesn't come to destroy the Old law, but to fulfill it. My opinion:I completely understand where you and a lot of Christians are coming from, as all the scam artists these days love to rob people of their money. I totally do not agree with a lot of things that goes on in other churches, as sometimes you can search on YouTube and see all these "pastors" preaching their entire sermon on money and how everyone should give so much money to the church. I totally do not agree with this as because some people do not have anything to give in the first place. Also, how could you base an entire sermon on money? That is just wrong. Also, I hate it when preachers call people to give moeny for an alter call or to be prayed upon. That is totally incorrect. How could you abuse your position in the church to make money. I know God does not need money to conduct divine healing, as divine healing was already accomplished at Calvary, and God does not need your money to save a soul. The money is just going to their own pockets. In the end, however, tithing is necessary for the church today. Without money, a church is not able to operate in today's society. Also, most pastors do not have any other job than to fulfill God's calling, therefore they need income. Part of the tithes go to the Pastor's income, while the rest should go to taxes, management of the church, and to charities. Forgive me for taking quite a bit of time to answer, as I was quite preoccupied. Good luck!
Tithing is a scam to fleece Christians and should be abolished

I have never really liked the concept of the church telling people that they need to give their money to the church. It always just struck me the wrong way growing up. After doing some research into the biblical support for tithing I have discovered that any church that preaches this method of required giving is either ignorant or intentionally obfuscating to rob people. I tend to lean towards ignorant for most proponets since it has been church dogma since the birth of the Catholic church. Either way this tradition needs to be eradicated and exposed for its ignorance or disgraceful attempt to line church pockets. Whichever applies to those who advocate it
Tithing is a scam to fleece Christians and should be abolished

Hello! Again, I am doing the usual (I literally have fourty minutes left to post this debate....)I would just like to say that the BIble agrees with itself. Yes, you are correct when you say that a lot of the bindings of the Old Law does not necessarily apply to Christians nowadays, however, that does not mean that everything that was said in the Old doesn't matter anymore. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He doesn't change his mind on things. Response to Tithing only occuring once:I understand that you are saying that just because it happened one time doesn't mean you should practice it, but Jesus even says in Luke 6:38 (KJV): 38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.Also, in 2 Corinthians 9:6-7, Paul says this: 6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.Therefore, we now know that those who give are blessed. Respone to Jesus and Paul not Collecting Tithes: You say that Jesus and Paul did not tithe, but you have to understand that those times were long ago. Now, just to have a church you haveto pay all these taxes and payments just to operate. Also, Jesus and Paul preached a lot outdoors to a congregation, but now is different. A lot of the time preaching on the corner of the street draws a lot of negative attention, thus interupting the service. I believe that preaching belongs in the church, now in the world that we live in. Also, I live in Canada, where the climate is not all that great (espectially come winter), so preaching on the cornerside isn't that ideal. Where the money goes:In the church that I attend, a portion of the money goes towards payments, part goes towards the Pastor's "money" (he doesn't have a nother job, he is a full time pastor", part goes towards charity and helping the needy, while the rest goes towards building a church (we are currently renting out a place). The money is definitely needed to operate. Response to me being a hypocrite?You are telling me that the Old Covenant does not matter anymore, and then you turn your back and call me a hypocrite for not believing the Old Testament? As you said, certain things in the Old Testament are not necessary anymore, which I agree on, but that doesn't mean you just put away the whole Old Testament. Closing remarks:I understand that if you don't tithe, you are NOT robbing God. I get that. But when God blesses you and keeps you in a good state, with the money you need to live, doesn't it make sense to at least give a portion back to Him, in respect? I do not understand what is so hard to follow about that statement. I thank you for giving me this opportunity. It was quite interesting.
India should not get westernized

It is clear that according to my opponent India has been getting westernized for the last 5 centuries. "in last 5 centuries India because of rule of British got many things but lost more than she got. "So according to my opponent India gained many things, but these gains were not balanced with what it lost. Below I will give examples of fields that India has improved in due to westernization. First we will define westernization. Westernization - cause (a country, person, or system) to adopt or be influenced by the cultural, economic, or political systems of Europe and North America:Contention 1 - GDP GrowthIndia's GDP has skyrocketed starting from the 1960's. This has been due to modernization that has been brought forth through the West's increasing influence on India. Contention 2 - Education Education was made a priority in India during the British Raj. Under Thomas Macaulay, there were thousands of of schools opened, and universities were also opened in Kolkata, Mumbai, and Madras by 1857. The government had opened 186 universities and other post secondary educational institutions by 1911. In this graph, you can see that the literacy rate of India has skyrocketed, for both males and females, since the beginning of the British Raj and their implementations of modern education. Contention 3 - Human Rights India's HDI has been on the rise for many years. If, as my opponent is saying, India has been subject to westernization for the last 5 centuries, then it can be safely assumed that all of these advancements have been because of westernization. Contention 4 - Democracy Now it's important to note that westernization of India doesn't only refer to the British Raj. If you refer to the definition above, it also includes political systems in India that have been adopted from the West, and this includes democracy. Before the increasing western influence on the world, India had been subject to conquests from a lot of different empires, includes the mughals, the Maratha Empire, and the Vijayanagara Empire. It imporant to note that none of these political systems had the benefits of democracies, most of them came about through military conquest, and the people had no choice in who their leaders were. Now, with democracy, which is a western political system, the Indian population excersizes much greater choice in their government. It's clear that India has never had a government that was more representative of the people's wishes than the ones they've had under the Western system of democracy. With that I'll toss the ball back to my opponent and await their furthered arguments and rebuttals.
Monarchy vs Autocracy

Let us first distinguish the fact both forms of government are very similar. One difference that we often see between the two governments is how the government is passed down from leader to leader. In the modern absolute monarchy, we can see that leadership is passed down to the first born son, or closest of kin. This makes transition between rulers easy and usually without contest. A good example of this, would be Saudi Arabia after king Adul Saudi and his recent death. In an Autocracy however, we can see that this is not always the case. In 1924, after Lenin died, we saw brutal competition between Stalin, Trotsky, and numerous other members of the boshlevik party fought between each other resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths. This pattern was seen throughout the soviet union for following decades of inter party feuds which resulted in thousands of deaths. The same could be seen the Germany, under the Nazis and the communists, and China, under the Communist. In the modern absolute monarchy we do not see the problem, as whom will receive is well known and therefore such heated competion is not necessary. Note, that I speak only of recent regimes, as would be the era in which a test like this would take place. I will except you to do the same. Lets try and keep the regimes within the last 115 years. The Second most apparent advantage of Monarchy over autocracy is how it's subjects support the regime. Absolute monarchies are in support of old world conservatism ( as compared to the new world conservatism which is more resembling of classical liberalism) People whom may not support the monarch, still may support the regime out of dedication to tradition, or, they may support it due to a former dynasty. Tradition and loyalty to noble families build incredible bonds of support because they are historic, meaning, unchanging. Autocracies however, tend not to have these same traits. Most autocracies ( There are exceptions, I am simply generalizing) are set up based around a new idea, and often in mass support of a single charismatic leader. Examples of this are Lenin and communism, Hitler and national socialism, Mussolini and fascism, and Saddam Hussein and ba'athism. If we look at what happened to these leader nations after they died though... Lenin/ Stalin takes over and kill millions more than what he did... Hitler/ National socialists flee in a diaspora across the world and not even germans support the old way... Mussolini/ half his own nation leaves him and the fascists are not welcomed even in Spain and Argentina... Saddam/ the Ba'athists are spread acrossed the middle east and infighting begins between the Iraqi and Syrian Ba'athist ensued which lead to the parties eventual downfall everywhere. In autocracies, the people tend to only support a leader and his new ideology. When that leader has gone away, so to do their enthusiasm for the regime. Under a monarchy, the people do not need to support the leader, they need only support the tradition, and perhaps his ancestors.
cell phones in school

Well, unfortunately, my opponent never offered any of her own arguments. I was hoping we could discuss the issues. Having said that, I'm willing to offer some of my own. Argument: Cell phones should be in school. They need to be there for two reasons: 1. In today's busy world, parents need to keep in touch with their kids. Does the parent have to work late and the student needs to know someone else is picking them up from school? A cell phone is the best way to share this information. 2. Unfortunately, school shootings are a reality. In the event of such an emergency, students equipped with a cell phone make it more likely police can be informed in a timely manner. Summary of debate: 1. Plagiarism is poor cinduct. 2. I was the only one who offered an original argument.
cell phones in school

So my opponent admits to some plagiarism, but I still contend all of it was a straight copy and paste. But don't take my word for it... besides the website I posted above, I ask the voters to compare what we see in round one with what they find on this website: http://cellphones.lovetoknow.com... Pay special attention to the paragraph that begins with "Kids will be kids." I continue to await my opponent's first offering of original material. Once I have that, I will finally have something to rebut. I'm supposed to be debating her, not the authors of those two articles.
i5;l6;k4;n3;k9;l6;l2; l6;k9;l5;k2;m5;k2;m0;n0; m1;k5;l8;l6;k9;m1;

My opponent fails to refute my argument. Extend arguments. I win. Further, my opponent does not come anywhere near proving that either Terrorists have AIDS nor has be proven that the Turbans are the reasons they have contracted AIDS. Therefore, I win the debate. I have provided legitimate evidence in opposition. My opponent merely speaks gamer.
i5;l6;k4;n3;k9;l6;l2; l6;k9;l5;k2;m5;k2;m0;n0; m1;k5;l8;l6;k9;m1;

Well turbants of olama plus pi times 1000000000000 pi = c*ncer so sir you where wrong your d*mb and ret*rded.M8 if you think your better than me your not your just sh*t like a f*g named arthur and a nazi canadian called eddard, if you rly have eb*la like you said you should go to UK they need that sh*t now go s*ck a horse di*k furry f*ck. U wot m8 u gonna replay replay than u lil b*tch i rek you again h*e 1 v 1 m8
i5;l6;k4;n3;k9;l6;l2; l6;k9;l5;k2;m5;k2;m0;n0; m1;k5;l8;l6;k9;m1;

My opponent clarified what he means with his gibberish. He noted: Raccoon Von Faget: it's about turbants [turbans] meaning terrorism Raccoon Von Faget: and how they have Aids [HIV/AIDS] However, most terrorists are from the middle east, which has low HIV prevalence (http://www.prb.org...). Therefore, terrorists likely have *lower* AIDS rates than a typical person. So, I presume that the resolution is negated. My opponent mixed up pro and con (I am con). Here is proof (Steam message): Kealy: Are you saying terrorists have AIDS? Raccoon Von Faget: No terrorist with turbants have aids (turbans; AIDS) Raccoon Von Faget: because of teh turbants (turbans; the) Raccoon Von Faget: m8 (mate) So not only do terrorists have AIDS, but terrorists have AIDS because of Turbans. However, the source above notes how must HIV/AIDS transmissions in the Middle East are due to injection drugs, unrelated to terrorism or turbans. Vote for me.
i5;l6;k4;n3;k9;l6;l2; l6;k9;l5;k2;m5;k2;m0;n0; m1;k5;l8;l6;k9;m1;

i5;l6;k4;n3;k9;l6;l2; l0;l9;l7;l6;l3;n0;k9;m1;n2;m0;l9;n3; m0;k7;l8;l8;l6;l8;l0;l9;m0;l0;m5;k7;l9;l2;l0;l4;l0; l7;l6;n1;m0;l6;l4;m1; l6;l5;l0; l0;l4;k7;n2;m0; i7;i5;h8;h4;l6;l4; l0; l6;l5;l0; m1;k5;l8;l6;k9;k2;.
i5;l6;k4;n3;k9;l6;l2; l6;k9;l5;k2;m5;k2;m0;n0; m1;k5;l8;l6;k9;m1;

THE BLOOD OF JESASTHE BLOOD OF JESASTHE BLOOD OF JESASI REVOKE YOU SATANTHE BLOOD OF JESASTHE BLOOD OF JESASAHTHE BLOOG OD JESUSAH But yeah extend. I win.
Conservatism vs Liberalism!

I have A LOT to say. First off, what is your other option besides fracking and drillig for oil? Obama, Hillary Clinton and many other democrats are completly controlled by oil companies. Together they have supported fracking despite 'the enviormental crisis.' Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE at this time to use solar energy etc. to power our country. We don't have the knowledge at this point to complete such a task. On healthcare you are completly wrong. Forbes http://www.forbes.com... shows how premiums have risen from 15% to over 40%, while deductibles have also increased. THERE IS A REASON why so many people have been 'insured' which by the way i disagree with. Forbes says how there was actually a net decrease overall in citizens having healthcare. BUT even if i do accept that more people have Obama Care there is a fundamental reason as to why. It's because if you refuse Obama Care and choose a different private insurance company you get the good ol' Obama Tax. This tax is a PENALTY FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD HEALTHCARE. I EXPECT a rebuttal as to a reason why this is 'good' in your response. It essentially penalizes poor Americans who can't afford the rising premium, higher deductible Obama care. Great democratic values there huh? Now on Trump, he has said he would implement HSA's so you can have your private healthcare without a tax on it. There would be no tax penalty and it would allow MILLIONS of uninsured citizens to become insured. He said he would remove health insurance monopolys in certain states, while also bidding out drug companies to save money. He can do this unlike any other politician because he isn't a bought out puppet like Obama or Clinton. My last points will prove to you why a conservative approach is the right approach. Under this president we have seen an increase in jobs leaving the country and moving to less taxed places like China, Japan or Mexico. I would like a formal answer as to why that is the case and why under Obama he has done nothing to change this. Instead he has supported NAFTA and TPP both of which kill jobs, the economy and leave our country in shambles. It's fascinating that under Reagan we saw an increase in wages, jobs and military strength unlike the current president. My last point involves a new point. Should we raise the minimum wage? I believe we shouldn't. An increase in the minimum wage causes businesses who can't afford it to leave the country and or state. It also causes inflation because they must raise their prices to compete with the higher wage. This causes housing prices to increase and the same with commodities. Another example as to why a higher minimum wage would do more harm than good is Walmart. Walmart has said http://www.heritage.org... they want an increase in the wage so they can force smaller companies to lesve their area thus monopolizing that area/state. This is crony capitalism at it's best and is EXACTLY why we need a fighter as our president and not a bough, sold out lightweight.
Conservatism vs Liberalism!

Today we will be debating key issues that plague our country. First I noticed you were a Bernie supporter, Considering we didn't speak about him last debate, this debate we will. Bernie is a controversial man, with policies that would kill the economy to out right lies he tells his supporters. Bernie has been asked on multiple occasions how would he pay for a healthcare and college for all system. Although he has stated a speculation tax on wall street would work, outside sources disagree. Forbes states that not only would the speculation tax not work but the numbers he has shown on his website for the way to pay for it are demonstrably wrong. . http://www.forbes.com... . Forbes sites that such a tax would lead to a decrease in financial assets and a loss in revenue. This coming from an outside source not only confirms he's a liar but how his supporters will eat anything up. It once again shows how increasing taxes leads to LESS economic growth, a LOWER GDP and thus a failing economy. Another crucial problem is since he wants college and healthcare for all free, who pay's for it? During an interview with Bill Maher, Bill kept telling him how his plan doesn't add up, Bernie then conceded and agreed he would have to increase taxes substantially in order for it to work. . http://youtu.be... . Again even without looking at facts we know that if someone says something is free it really isn't someone somewhere HAS to pay for it. Another point is how would a government run healthcare work? Well, under Obama's single payer healthcare premiums have doubled and triple while deductibles have grown as well. This is a reciepe for disaster, one other key problem is the Obama care tax imposed on citizens who refuse Obama care, but that's a seperate issue. My point in this debate is to highlight the problems with Bernie while poking holes in all of no solution policies. Lastly, Bernie has said he would agree to stop fracking and other money making industries that employ millions here at home. Because it's 'BAD FOR THE ENVIORMENT. ' There was recently a graph (Can't find it) that showed areas where fracking was being used and areas where it wasn't. Coincidentally the areas using fracking had a more robust economy with more employment. Bernie Sanders is not a leader we need in this country, nor is the socialism that follows.
Conservatism vs Liberalism!

As the opponent of Yeeet2016 ("Yeet") I will be arguing against a very vague idea. 1. Only problems need solutions, so by "providing an economic solution" one would be saying that there is a problem with the economy. I agree with this and this is not a contentious point, but I wanted to make that clear. 2. Is Yeet saying that Conservatism has "long been missing" from this country, or is Yeet saying that "an economic solution" has been missing? I will assume the latter because just eight years ago there was a very conservative man (George Bush) in the Oval Office. I hope that Yeet doesn't think that eight years is a long time. But If Yeet is arguing for the latter, then he/she is also wrong: - I hope that we can both agree that the 2008 recession was a economic crisis. - The country has nearly recovered from this, or at least it is not in a recession anymore. - With this in mind, let's look back to what I said earlier about there only being a solution if there is a problem. - If the problem was fixed, then that means there was a solution. I hope that we can also both agree on this. - So, since we are not currently in a recession anymore, there has been "an economic solution". If this is not what Yeet meant by his 'thesis' statement, then I urge him/her to explain further.
Deaf people have better sight than Hearing people does.

Alrighty, last round. You said, "What is there to suggest that hearing people ALWAYS depend on what they hear rather than what they see? Furthermore, the fact that there are many visual learners within the non-deaf population completely disproves this baseless assertion." Now, look what senses you said you used, "No, I listen, smell, hear, feel, and taste my environment to know what's going on." See my point? You don't use your eyes to be able to look. Also, "1. For that matter, he gave NO ARGUMENTS, thus gave me permission to determine the direction this debate would go in." Not really no, the debate would stay with the topic, and I know you are using the 'Confusing tatics' and forcing people to think that I'm giving you permission to change the whole course of the debate which I never did. Don't try to use any tatics to change the whole meaning of debate. Now, seems like you only using your eyes sight for enjoyment, "In fact, when I play games such as Dance Dance Revolution, I strongly rely on my eye sight to get high scores." But, it seems like you don't use it to know your surrounding area, or knowing what's going on around you. Why in the world would somebody compare this topic to "DareDevil" ? DareDevil is not real and it's made up from comic books. You also said, "In the next round, I'd like my opponent to expound on the following claim: "Hearing people depends on hearing things and always depending on what they hear not what they see."" You're giving me any view on how to expound my claim, therefore, I can not tell you what you want to hear.