BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus Claimed to be God

I will get right into addressing the point my opponent brought up last round. My opponent claims my first argument is not a complete sentence. It is a complete sentence if you understand what “I Am “ means. The fact he uses the present form to refer to something in the past shows he is saying he always has been, and by extension always will be. Again this is referring to what Gold called himself when Moses asked for a name, and again if my opponent thinks it’s an error the burden of proof is on him to prove it, rather than just saying “it could be” without any proof. My opponent says perhaps quite a bit and then doesn’t back up his arguments, so his arguments are mostly speculation unsupported by the text. So his arguments are based on speculation. He says “ perhaps Jesus(PUBH) made for a far better prophet then him. ” What other example is there of a prophet prophesying another prophet in the way John does to Jesus? “there is no reason to assume that he didn’t rebuke him. ” There absolutely is since the text doesn’t say he did and if the text doesn’t say he did we must assume he didn’t unless other evidence can be found he did. My opponent is not going to get anywhere by speculating and dismissing any of my points by claiming they could be typographical errors. That is not how it works unless he has some solid proof to the contrary, we have to go by what the text says. He further address my rebuttals: 1) he continued all night in prayer to God. " (Luke 6:12) (is god praying to god over here ? ?) Yes essentially as stated earlier everything proceeds from the Father and Jesus is in a state of humility. 2) "he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father" (Matthew 26:39) ( really pro, god is reinforcing relationship with himself ? ?) Yes as it can be understood from what I have posted earlier about God making the connection to Jesus. You can’t take the verses in isolation. If Jesus was god why is it that the bible does not record him claiming god, even if the jews blame him of blasphemy. Is he not omnipotent ? ? In order to become a man he limited himself, most obviously he was not omnipresent. However that Does not disprove the essence of God being absent. “when i say claim god means Jesus(PBUH) saying "i am god". In setting up the debate I actually mention he never said those words specifically but we can tell by what he says and by the reaction of those around him that, that is what he meant.
Jesus Claimed to be God

I see my opponent is a Muslim, I actually like debating this with Muslims. I thank him for accepting this debate. There are several places in the Bible where Jesus says something to indicate he is God, and you can often tell that the people he was talking to understood this by their reaction.I will now show several verses that show this point. Before Abraham was I am-John 8:58. [1] Here he is evoking what God called himself in Exodus. Let's Look at another: I and the Father are one.”Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” -John 10:30-33 [2]Why would they stone him for saying this if he didn’t mean by it that he was God? It seems pretty clear from what they said that they understood this. They accused him of blasphemy, and he never denies their claims. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”-John 8:24 [3] Who would Jesus be referring to here if not God?And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”-John 20:28 [4] Thomas called him God and Jesus did not rebuke him for doing so.All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.- Matthew 11:27. [5] Here we see him claiming to be the Son a special kind of Son of God. Put it together with all the rest of the sources above his claim is becoming quite clear. I could also point to John 1 but as that is not Jesus himself speakingI think the above verses are more than sufficient to demonstrate my case.Thanks to my opponent and I look forward to his rebuttal. 1 https://www.biblegateway.com...2 https://www.biblegateway.com...3 https://www.biblegateway.com...4 https://www.biblegateway.com...5 https://www.biblegateway.com...
Jesus Claimed to be God

I have heard quite a few people argue that Jesus never claimed to be God. Maybe those exact words never came out of his mouth but I will argue that if we look at what he said his intention was clearly that he did claim to be God. I will be using the protestant cannon of the Bible, while I don't think the Catholic cannon contradicts this I am not familiar enough with it to use it. Anything outside the Bible is prohibited, so no Gnostic Gospels or outside text,we are going solely on what is credited to Jesus in the New Testament. The first round will be for acceptance only and no entirely new arguments the last round, only replying to points and clarification. Good luck.
Should schools teach ww1 and ww2 from both perspectives (German and axis powers and allied)

Thank you very much for the compliment. As a suggestion I would advise more detail and organization in your debates. However, I will now turn to my rebuttals for this round, and then some explanations. A huge issue with Pro's arguments is that the notions within each bear their own falsehood. To begin with, most education systems provide a proper explanation for the incentives the Axis Powers fostered in order to become what they did. For example, Japan had the motive of being embargoed in its supply of oil by the Americans for their attacks on other countries in the Pacific Coast. And their national oil supply was on the decline after the embargo was issued. Germany had the motive of having a poor economy, restricted military, and having to pay a wicked (estimation is about 500 million) in war reparations preceding the First World War, even though the war had started in the Balkans and Germany only took the most heat because it was the last standing power on the "enemy" side. The only Axis Power not many people know about is Fascist Italy, and how Mussolini's seizing of power was the product of a major political tension that arose in Italy in the 1920's, and landed Italy in deep warfare, sending troops into Africa and successfully pushing Ethiopia to a formal military surrender in 1935. Now it is actually quite rare for people in the West to even have comprehension of how the Second World War ended, yes, but that is also on the fault of the teachers, as they are given state/province-regulated curricular lessons to teach their students are responsible for delivering the information however they deem fit. Yet the downfall of the Third Reich was a very slow thing and generally the battles between Axis and Allies leading into the end of WWII are briefly covered in most World History classes. And most students seem well-aware that the two major battles leading into Hitler's suicide were the Battle of Stalingrad and Battle of Berlin, both involving the Soviet Red Army and Nazi Military. Many who recognize Adolf Hitler's downfall acknowledge his suicide, but also fail to recognize the suicide of other High Command officials such as Joseph Goebbels and his wife, Hitler's wife, the murder of their children by cyanide, the murder of Hitler's dog, Blondie, and several others. But these are minor details that can be learned in elective courses - they are not necessary in common core. So people learn what they need to, they learn about the Holocaust, invasion of China, the invasion of Ethiopia - but Italy still remains ignored, which is logical because its only involvement in WWII would really be a pre-war attack on Ethiopia ordered by Hitler. Mussolini just wanted a rich Fascist world leader on his side as it was lucrative and ensured the safety of his people.
Should schools teach ww1 and ww2 from both perspectives (German and axis powers and allied)

well done I admit you are very good a this. ill friend you after debate. they are only taught the bad parts of the axis powers but there are good parts to there were friendships formed between axis soldiers and allied soldiers. the germans struggled near the end and are taught that the downfall of the third Reich was good and quickly. but it was not they took young men my age and younger to fight for the front lines and sure I admit the Nazis were bad. but history by the victors. there are stories of allied soldiers killing civilians some Americans and lots of Russians. but they don't teach the war crimes Americans and Russians commited
THW believes that eating meat is better than eating vegetables

Please provide rebuttals in each of the rounds. The last round will be the clashes. I will first state my points. We believe that eating vegetables is certainly better than eating meat. Vegetables are packed with minerals and have a lot of fibre in them, which prevents a lot of serious diseases, including cancer, heart problems and much more. When we eat enough vegetables however, our chances of having those diseases will be highly lowered, and our lives will be healthier, which in turn allows us to have less limitations in life, because we do not have to stay in hospitals to be cured. We can go out and live our own lives. We will be happier, since our lives will not be plagued by various diseases. Doesn't this life sound attractive? Well, it's not too hard to get. Just eat more vegetables, and our lives will not be full of suffering from various illnesses, but bursting with bright colours-- because we ate vegetables and have a healthy body. Thank you.
On Debate.org debates, there is, on balance, a net Contender advantage.

This looks to be a much better debate than the one I had against Truthseeker about the "last word advantage. " I wish to only re-iterate the BoP, as stated by my opponent. He said, "The burden of proof is not absolute; Pro must demonstrate that the resolution overwhelmingly likely, either at least 95% probable statistically or through other methods. " This means, that my main objective is to cast doubt that their is an net contender advantage, and that the advantage is held by some other feature than the instigator/contender position. As such I will let my opponent begin.
On Debate.org debates, there is, on balance, a net Contender advantage.

Essentially, this debate is about whether or not the Contender has an artificially higher chance of winning any given debate because he or she is the Contender. "On balance" means that not every debate needs to have a Contender advantage, and "net" means that the Instigator doesn't necessarily have no advantage. This assumes that neither debater is acting naive or forfeiting any rounds, and that the Contender had the option to decline the Instigator's challenge with no repercussions OR the debate's resolution and rules were chosen by an unbiased third party, with both debaters agreeing to them, as most debates are. The first round will be for acceptance only. If any clarifications need to be made, they should be requested in the Comments section. The burden of proof is not absolute; Pro must demonstrate that the resolution overwhelmingly likely, either at least 95% probable statistically or through other methods. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate.
should we be allowed to use ipods durind school for music

Pro attempts to bring in the fact that the internet and texting are cut off suggesting that this limits distractions on the iPod. While this may be the case to a point, it still doesn't speak to the several abilities inherent to the iPod previously discussed, such as videos, games, and pictures. Neither has Pro even approached my other arguments and as such, they stand. The iPod is a distraction in school. It (and all electronics) should be banned in schools because they degrade the learning experience and provide minimal benefit.
should we be allowed to use ipods durind school for music

I will be arguing that iPods should not be used for music in school. I thank my opponent for the opportunity. The fact of the matter is that electronics of all sort are a distraction in school. iPods are not just used for music. There are also the problems that arise from stolen property. Tension, fighting, suspicions, and again, the overall distraction in the school. This can certainly affect student performance. Finally, there has been a general movement to make schooling more and more personally situated to each student's "needs". While this might be an ideal situation, the fact of the matter is that schools must operate on aiding the highest number of students. I don't believe the smorgasbord approach does this. It adds confusion and allows students to hide behind "preferences" instead of being challenged to complete in the current situation. This also promulgates an attitude of anarchy which overflows in the workplace and lowers overall productivity in the economy. Who wants an employee that needs their every whim satisfied before they can do their job every day? No one that intends on making a profit, certainly.
Is the string theory right (Pro) or is Albert Einstein right? (Con)

"The black hole is a portal to another dimension......"We Don't know If the black hole is a portal to another dimension, can you prove that? Well, no, because you are not brilliant as einstein and can you specify the name of the robot please?? and you can't explaian when you went through a black hole, you would be ripped to pieces and why would the robot find a peice of life? I would like my "So called brilliant than einstien" to answer that
Is the string theory right (Pro) or is Albert Einstein right? (Con)

I see that you want to protect the so called brilliance of Einstein? Well may I ask does Einstein explain that when you go through a black hole that you will be ripped up and thrown to waste in the fabric of the universe? In fact, how come the robot that we sent into space have not found any sort of life? Well it is quite simple. The reason that we have not found any sort of life is due to the fact that the black hole is a portal to another dimension. And in that dimension are places and life forces that we may not comprehend! Maybe even whole new types of energy, and that I am sure of is not explained in Einstein's equation!
Mimes ought to have a voice in Congress.

INDIVIDUAL ARGUMENTS My opponent claims that each of his original claims work together rather than separately. However even when they are linked, the fallatic four still remain. We absolutely cannot just say a mime needs a spot in congress just because he is human and humans have rights, given that there are a vast amount of other factors that go into it, that were argued in my round 1. Like if it were in a mimes interests. Or by not allowing them a spot we were really being discriminative. Going on to my arguments. DISCRIMINATION My opponent makes a rather ridiculous claim that mimes are being discriminated against. In all honesty however, I have not noticed any active movements of discrimination towards mimes, no have I personally seen any. So in this scenario, are mimes really being discriminated against? And if so is it just minor discrimination from a few people. REALLY, are there congressman and others going out protesting mimes for there lack of sound? And last, is this really an argument? RELEVANT ARGUMENTS? My opponent agrees that everyone deserves a spot in congress. Okay good, that's out of the way. Now unfortunately you have not answered the question I asked in the previous round. Are we really dis-allowing everyone a spot in congress belonging to a group? I asked what law was passed, what quote was made, and who "by George" ever said mimes couldn't have a spot in congress? The whole resolution falls given that it not relevant to any actual front hand dis-proval of mimes from congress. Earlier I said, if a mime wanted to be in congress they definitely could be. In fact they probably wouldn't want to be a mime, as it would be easier to achieve there steps to congress with speech. However, the fact remains, mimes still can be in congress, until someone proves me otherwise. There are no speech requirements for congress at all actually. (To be a State Representative: -must be 25 years of age at the time of the election -reside in the state that you represent -citizen for 7 years -win election To be a Senator -must be 30 years or older at time of election -citizen for 9 years -reside in the state you are running in) . http://wiki.answers.com... No where in any of that does it say "Mimes cannot be a member", or must be able to speak. So please, dear audience, As my opponent says, Choose sanity! Choose the obvious answer, because mimes already do have the ability to join congress. Why should mimes get special privilege just for being mimes, while they are just as human as anybody else! Thus I strongly urge you to vote con. Thankyou!
Mimes ought to have a voice in Congress.

My opponent's response does not question any of my premises, nor does he show any flaw in my logic; he instead offers three points of his own to show why mimes ought to be content without a voice in Congress. Considering his lack of opposition to my logic, the voters may consider it correct for the purposes of this debate. That logic I will summarize here briefly: 1. Mimes are human, 2. Humans have equal rights, 3. Mimes have no representation in Congress, 4. Some humans have representation in Congress, :. Either a) No humans should have representation or b) Mimes should have representation in Congress. A is obviously intolerable. The obvious conclusion is B. As this logic has gone unchallenged, the resolution has been upheld. ====== Furthermore, my opponent's points are faulty. 1. Mimes have exactly the same needs for representation in Congress that everyone else has, plus their special status as a persecuted minority. Clearly there needs to be some advocate for those strong, silent chaps who stand suffering on our street corners. Protection from injustice, that is what they need; and it is attitudes like those showcased by my opponent that have repressed mimes and their like into the sideshows of life, baring them from the center stage. I ask the voters, is this fair? Is this just? 2. Of course they are a minority. Most Americans have such faulty communication skills that they cannot be kept from talking, whether or not they have anything to say; public radio is the proof of this. So mime are uncommon; so what? This does not limit their legal rights, nor does it alleviate the injustice of their being forced to have no say in what goes down on Capitol Hill. My opponent, in a classical elitist twist, argues that we cannot let mimes into the government because then we would have to let all the minorities in. I am sorry that he does not feel that bikers, birdwatchers, grandmothers, Polynesians, and mimes are fit to govern; the petty focus that would exclude these people from Congress is exactly what I m arguing against. 3 is both irrelevant and unfounded. There is no evidence that they do not want representation, nor is there any reason to let their tastes in this matter influence our logic. The point is, they OUGHT to have a voice in Congress; whether they WANT one or would use it if they had it is a matter of personal choices. We cannot let a principle of human rights be decided on the transitory preferences of the victims; I invoke the Stockholm Syndrome as a classic example. Just because the victims decided they like their kidnappers by the end of their captivity doesn't make the kidnapping any more excusable, nor can anyone use that incident to argue that laws against kidnapping should be abolished. In short, all three of my opponent's points are empty, or even work against his case; whereas my original reasoning remains unchallenged. The resolution is upheld. C.
Mimes ought to have a voice in Congress.

I stand in the con position dis-agreeing that mimes ought to have a voice in congress for the following reasons. 1. Mimes have no need for a spot in congress! Given my opponents definition of mime, a mime fully expresses them self through the use of expression, gestures and movements. Anything a mime wants, can be created through the use of their actions and movements. A mime has no need to have a place in congress, because what could congress possibly offer a mime that he or she didn't already have? Also mimes want different things then those of the members of congress. For example, a congressman may want to put a ban on sexting, while a mime may just want an invisible glass case to trap you in. The difference is that the congressman wants something currently not available to him, while the mime can have what they want by creating it through imaginative means. Thus mimes have no purpose in congress. 2. Mimes are a minority! Mimes are but a small group of people. Why should they get a voice when so many others don't? You know what? I think bikers deserve a voice on congress then! If mimes earn a place in congress the opposite minority will be offended and want equal voice rights as well! If we give mimes rights in congress it will start an uproar from the sound maniacs such as bikers! See video. . http://m.youtube.com... We can cross apply this to my opponents first and second point. If mimes are Human then they must have an equal voice in congress. However why doesn't every other group of minority get a voice in congress as well? ! 3. And finally, mimes probably don't want a voice in congress. Mimes are simple group of people intent on enjoying the small things in life such as entertaining people or causing them mild enjoyment through the use of their antics. A mime would have no reason to want to have a spot in congress. While some mimes may experience discrimination from "soundists", discrimination simply is something that may never be solved. Some people (like the biker) may even take offense to the mimes quiet lifestyle, feeling it is discriminative of those who prefer to be loud! Discrimination as such that you point out is only relevant to those being offended.