BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Digital Books

In 3 parts, the affirmatives opening statement, followed by a small rebutal from the negative moving to the opening statement of the negative, the affirmatives rebutal and then after that a closing statement. ok here we go: Since the beginning of digital books in the 1970s many people have wondered wether it would be a good thing. A digital book is a novel or comic that is read off of a electronic device. Many e-book companies either sell an e-reader or put out an app. The resolution of this debate is that digital books are a good idea. I"m going to debate the affirmative. Digital books are a good innovation for multiple reasons. For starters it encourages readers and writers alike by making publishing easier and getting books much faster. E-books are also a good step forward because they are environmentally safer. First, digital books are an improvement from paper books because they are encourage both self publishers and readers. The number of books sold on paper are diminishing and move to e-books. This is simply because reading a digital book is easier than a paper back. For example The Chronicles of Narnia an almost 700 page book can be read on an e-reader as light as light as 134 grams. Self publishing has grown with e-books manly because self publishing a paper back book can be difficult yet a digital book is much easier to read and is found faster because its so much easier for the reader to find. Second, e-books are more environmentally safe. Most of our forest have visibly deteriorated. Most readers will go through maybe 2-3 books a month, which adds up. According to the Bureau of International Recycling, in 2010 the US alone used over 5 and a half 40-foot trees per person. A percentage of that is used in paper books. Carbon dioxide levels have rose approximately 35% in the past 50 years. Losing our forest to paper books is not an option. My opponent my try to argue that digital books are a lose of culture. Many talk of the joy or smell of new books however the same arguments were made when the telephone was phasing the letter out. Digital books are moving us forward. As digital books evolve, they should not be fought. Digital Books are going to save forests but also encourage people to read and write, one of humans greatest capability.
Digital Books

Well huh, you repeat the same point again and again , this speech will be short but yet again I'll justify myself on what I had said. 1. "As I said earlier, in the past 50 years our carbon dioxide levels have risen approximately 35%. As population grows, those levels will increase much faster. And the main way those carbon dioxide levels are kept from skyrocketing is by global forests." Well at no point did I deny the fact. But you never said that this is due to us reading books! Now let me say that. yes CO2 level is indeed increasing and it is because of this digitizing, that more trees are being cut and more paper being produced for printing purposes. I repeat STUDY has found that printing and thus requirement of paper has increased by leaps and bounds since a decade, all due to everything electronic. 2. Have you been reading e-books since years that you will be experiencing eye problems? Well, the glare gradually effects our eyes, and obviously not in some days. and you said that "Many digital book companies such as amazon or Barnes and noble, have made very low level lighting that in my own experience has never given me any discomfort. "; this low lighting causes more harm to our eyes, and do you want me to prove this to you biologically? Well I am satisfied that I have proved my point well enough. You may go ahead and try telling me something else instead of discussing on the same lines.
Digital Books

Although It may be more fun to flip through the "soft crisp pages of a new book", that joy is going to exterminate the human race. As I said earlier, in the past 50 years our carbon dioxide levels have risen approximately 35%. As population grows, those levels will increase much faster. And the main way those carbon dioxide levels are kept from skyrocketing is by global forests. Yet in the US alone more than 56% of all forest are privately owned and at risk of being cut down. You have your choice, enjoy the thick warm soft feeling of a paper book while you can't go outside because there's no oxygen left in the world, or make the switch now to digital books, because its going to happen at some point. My oppenent stated that digtal books are not enviormentally safe due to their consumption of energy. Yet as electronics in general move forward, more awarness has been made on the problems of thermal, nuclear, and other none renuable source of power. THis leads to many power companies starting to create grenner alternatives. For example, Con Edison paired with a renuable energy company and have been all around the streets of New York informing pedestrians. Digital books often also run on very little enrgy. And slowly but surely that little bit of energy will come from solar panels, wind turbines and other forms of cleaner energy.My oppenent also tried to argue that e-books strain the eye when reading. Many digtal book comapnies such as amazon or barnes and noble, have made very low level lighting that in my own experience has never given me any discomfort. And e-readers are still just starting up, the telephone wasn't perfected from the moment it was envented neither was the lightbulb, we're still making improvemnt on the lightbulb to this day.
The church of Christ is the one true church.

I will first layout a few definitions that are important. Church of Christ (CoC hereafter): “Churches of Christ are autonomous Christian congregations associated with one another through common beliefs and practices. They seek to base doctrine and practice on the Bible alone in order to be the church described in the New Testament. (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) REBUTTALS My opponent makes several spurious claims. First, he claims that the CoC was the Church that Jesus founded more than 2,000 years ago. This, however, is false. The CoC is a Protestant group that was not founded until the 19th century (. https://www.britannica.com...). The second claim that he said was that the Catholic Church was founded in the year 313 AD. This too is false. The Catholic church is the only church that has an unbroken chain of history that goes back to the time of Jesus Christ. No other church can claim this. Next, my opponent attacks Sacred Tradition and endorses Sola Scriptura. The problem is, Sola Scriptura is *NOT* found in the Bible! Take a look at these verses: II Thessalonians 2:15 (KJV) states, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. ” My opponent must show where in the Bible it teaches Sola Scriptura. CONCLUSION In conclusion, my opponent’s arguments are bare assertions and do not hold any water. In order for my opponent to show that the CoC is the true Church, he must show that it is the Church Jesus founded and must show *HOW* the CoC aligns with the New Testament. Furthermore, I have shown that the doctrines he uses to attack the Catholic Church with are, in fact, Scriptural. In the next round, I will go into more detail about the Catholic Church and how we know it is the true Church.
The church of Christ is the one true church.

The bible is clear, that the churches of Christ is the only true church spoken of in the bible. The church of Christ is the only church that worships according to New Testament scriptures, thus the church of Christ is the only true church spoken of in the bible. Romans 16:16, Matthew 16:18, Acts 20:7, Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, Acts 2:38-47, Mark 16:16 1Corinthians 16:2, Matthew 28:19-20, 2 Timothy 3:16, John 4:24.
God and Hell cannot simultaneously exist

This will be my third go at arguing a problem of evil variant. In my past two debates (and in their comments sections) a theme seems to emerge – people disagree that more or less with the premise that there is evil in the world. There have been many different ways of doing this; you can (correctly) point out that I don't define evil, or say that evil is just an "absence of God" or whatever. While these arguments are useful and necessary to establish the problem, I grow tired of them, so I hope that this argument will sidestep that criticism and allow us to move on to something else. Here's the argument: if God exists, no one would go to Hell. I want to start out my mentioning that I will use Hell a lot here, but if you don't believe in Hell, the argument still applies if you substitute "non-Heaven", meaning just that God is incompatible with people going anywhere but Heaven. This avoids the questions about evil because by definition, heaven is good and Hell is bad. If you deny this premise, I cannot see a reason to be religious. Religions all seem to prescribe ways to get into Heaven, so if you don't agree that heaven is better than Hell, then there is no reason to try to get into Heaven. My argument formalized is this: 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to send everyone to Heaven. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows how to send everyone to Heaven. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to send everyone to Heaven. 5. According to religions, everyone does not go to Heaven 6. If Hell exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to send everyone to Heaven, or doesn't know how to send everyone to Heaven, or doesn't have the desire to send everyone to Heaven. 7. Therefore, either God, Heaven, or both do not exist. I think that's enough to get us started. I look forward to it!
Can video games be healthy

I will open my debate with a two facts :- RISK OF ALZHEIMER"S RESEARCH at the University of Montreal has found playing video games could increase the risk of developing Alzheimer"s disease in later life. It has been shown to affect the hippocampus part of the brain which controls memory, learning and emotion linked with Alzheimer"s and depression. secondly: CONTRIBUTES TO VIOLENCE STUDIES over a decade found that exposure to violent video games is a risk factor in aggression in game players. The American Psychological Association report stopped short of blaming video games.
Homosexuality is Compatible with Christian Doctrine and God's Law

On the Cause of EvilThere has been no misapprehension in my part. Droughts and soil depletion, as reasons for why crops fail, has nothing to do with biological evolution! Biological evolution cannot explain earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic erruptions, hurricanes, etc. Biological evolution cannot address why asteroids hit the earth. Biological evolution cannot adjudicate the moral quandary regarding the senario of a baby born with leukemia.. It is what the American Protestant theologian, John Hick, calls "Dis-teleological Suffering". In other words, suffering for no-good-reason. Is there a reason why we suffer for no good reason? "Why do bad things happen to good people?"I totally agree. That is whyI also said in Round #3 evolution without the adjective biological:Again, also, Original Sin does not account for Natural Evils (natural weather disasters, earthquakes & volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, asteroids hitting the earth, solar radiation, etc., etc,), cases in which human choice can not explain death, pain and suffering.Nobody "sinned" and caused the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed over 200,000 people. The tsunami was caused by an earthquake. The earthquake was caused by shifting tectonic plates. The tectonic plates shifted because of geo heat convection because the earth is still a geologically active terrestrial planet in our solar system.Again, natural evil exists because evolution is reality.This natural process is one of the consequence of the original sin. Evolution is a post-fall reality.The reality of Evolutionliving things evolve but it is also true that non-living things are part of this process. Everything changes. It's a fact that change is a permannent thing in this world.The processes which shape the topographic features of the earth include earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes. These are natural events. Even in the absence of humans and life, the natural processes would continue to change the shape of the earth.On the compatibility of the Christian faith with TranssexualityI already provided logical, coherent, and historically unbiased argument for transsexuality as not a sin done by a person affected by it but is one of the consequences of the original sin in the biological realm. Unless my sound arguments are refuted, the stance that I upheld still stands. Hence, I am not sinning being a transwoman. I recommend to my opponent the book of Romans chapter 14. If I'm right in my stance then this chapter is the clear answer to his seemingly enigmatic question. Transexuality is Compatible with Christian Doctrine and God's Law.Conclusion:I really thank my opponent for rationally accepting me as a real woman but I don't concur with his stance that a transgender cannot be a Christian at the same time. Thank You!
Homosexuality is Compatible with Christian Doctrine and God's Law

On the Original sin The doctrine of the original sin does not in any way contradict reality. Every good things comes from God but every bad things is from the inevitable consequence of the original sin. "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." James 1:17 ( NIV)Of course, the Devil and his demons also causes bad things ( Job 1:1-22,Mark 5:1–20).Still, God never creates evil but he only allows it to exist. Obviously, for his own glory ( Ephesians 1:11, Romans 8:28).Do you REALLY believe crops fail because of sin rather than a drought or soil depletion? Do you REALLY believe HIV is caused because of sin rather than bush-meat being consumed from poached primates (who are so similar to us that by eating their flesh the HIV virus could be contracted)?! YES. I believe and this is in line with scripture AND science. Crops fail and HIV became existent because biological evolution exists. Again, also, Original Sin does not account for Natural Evils (natural weather disasters, earthquakes & volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes, asteroids hitting the earth, solar radiation, etc., etc,), cases in which human choice can not explain death, pain and suffering.Nobody "sinned" and caused the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed over 200,000 people. The tsunami was caused by an earthquake. The earthquake was caused by shifting tectonic plates. The tectonic plates shifted because of geo heat convection because the earth is still a geologically active terrestrial planet in our solar system.Again, natural evil exists because evolution is reality.This natural process is one of the consequence of the original sin. Evolution is a post-fall reality.Nobody "chooses" a baby born with leukemia.I totally agree. Do you believe in evolution? It's because it's the answer to all these things. The Scriptures confirms it. "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." Romans 8:22 (NIV) God is still intervenes on earth because there are still creatures capable of fellowship with him. These are the saints. Saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. They're the chosen ones bought by the blood of God's own Son ( 1 Peter 2:9, Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 20:28). Don't worry, Jesus is coming very soon! He'll create all things anew. Even so, Marana tha!
Homosexuality is Compatible with Christian Doctrine and God's Law

Homosexuality is not compatible with Christian doctrine or God's Law. I am not religious. I am not gay. I love all people. I am for gay rights. It is a matter of equality under the law. I think gay people are wonderful people. I would like to understand the dynamics of a religious mind with that of a gay mind. How can anyone be gay (homosexual) and endorse the a orthodox religious belief considering what the bible says about homosexuality? By accepting this debate you agree to defend both being gay and Christian and agree to use the Bible and to support arguments. First round is for acceptance and cases. Thanks in advance!
PC is the best gaming console

I will gladly accept this argument 1 Whilst many high end pc's do produce exceptional graphics the costs associated with continually upgrading are prohibitive. This alone prices out your average gamer and leaves them to play games on machines that are not fit for purpose. The console provides an even keel for multiplayer games (equal fps for everyone) 2 This has no bearing on whether one or the other is "best" 3.Control pads allow for easier movement and are far more intuitive than keyboards
PC is the best gaming console

PC is clearly the hands down winner of the console war. I will explain 1: Graphics and performance. The PC is upgradeable and offers the best graphics and FPS of any modern consoles. 2: PC caters to a more mature fan base (unlike Xbox/PS3) , usually do to the PC costing more and people growing up with it. 3: The mouse is exponentially more accurate than a controller and less "clunkyness" in playability. Listed were just 3 of the infinite reasons why the PC is better than it's "rivals".
Atheist can't have objective morals.

This will be my closing argument:Atheists can have objective morality since we believe morality comes from the people and the society. The law makes objective morality to make sure we make a pleasant place of the earth. There is no God needed for that. Morality exists within the nature of the humans (source on this: . http://rebekahrichards.suite101.com...). Objective morals change over time depending on the circumstances in that time period. If God's morals never change as my opponent says, then his morals are flawed (source: . http://fayfreethinkers.com...). If anarchy occurs then the morals of an atheist don't disappear, but they may be abandoned by desperation. Also the Greeks managed to create a society with fine morals without the help of Gods. Also if the bible is the true source of morality then a lot of countries would do it wrong since they have different religions and beliefs.
Atheist can't have objective morals.

First I would like reiterate that atheists can be morally good. They can be people of integrity. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn't mean you have objective morals. One atheist's good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist's isn't. 1."Robin Hood was unlikely to have simply been a myth." There is no conclusive evidence found confirming Robin Hood, therefore it stays a myth. And was probably created for the poor people not to lose hope. It was just an example of how some might agree with stealing and others would not agree with stealing. Making stealing subjective and not objective. 2."Not everyone shares that belief which makes it subjective." The universal declaration of human rights is globally accepted as the law and therefore it is objective. Again that's false as consensus objectivity. Classic example of argumentum ad populum. That is assuming the declaration of human rights is globally accepted, and judging by the actions of some nations, it is not objective. In conclusion the bottom line is that other than simply asserting as a brute fact that certain things are right and wrong, atheism provides absolutely no answer to the question of moral objectivity. Atheist try to smuggle it in by saying it's objectively wrong to cause suffering, but then when asked why that is wrong, they either throw it back in the face of the one asking the question i.e. "Well don't you think it's wrong?" or just assert it as though it is obviously true. But what is not so obvious is why it is obviously true, given atheism. One can see that atheists, humanists, and or secularists who desire to ground objective morality still have a lot of work to do.
Atheist can't have objective morals.

You're starting to narrow the line between objective and subjective and thereby contradicting yourself.So I'm drawing the line again: Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice; based on facts; unbiasedSubjective: pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual"Robin Hood was unlikely to have simply been a myth."There is no conclusive evidence found confirming Robin Hood, therefore it stays a myth. And was probably created for the poor people not to lose hope."At the time he lived people did not think he was doing a bad thing."First off, only the poor people thought it, they rich didn't, thereby making it a subjective moral.Second off, stealing is still objectively against the law and morally wrong despite the purpose."Not everyone shares that belief which makes it subjective."The universal declaration of human rights is globally accepted as the law and therefore it is objective.1. I'll grant you that one.2. Not that it's important but most of the germans do think he was a horrible person. Also Hitler didn't kill in Gods name. Also what Hitler was doing was against the law therefore it being it morally incorrect.
Atheist can't have objective morals.

In medieval times religion determined ideas about everything, including personal conduct, the law, morality, the behaviour appropriate to various roles, politics and economics, and the nature and functioning of society. In any domain you thought and behaved as the scriptures and the church said you should. The supremely important concern was salvation. All people had their function, contribution, role, and place, and with this went rights and duties. The church administered all this, ruled on disputes, interpreted, moralized, made judgments and punished. The social order was unalterable, to be accepted, not changed or improved. You say it is always wrong to mug a person? Robin Hood the vast majority of historians and scholars agree; Robin Hood, whatever his real name may have been, was unlikely to have simply been myth. Earliest stories tell the story of a common man who took to the forest with a band of men to become altruistic bandits, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor and dispossessed. At the time that he lived people did not think he was doing a bad thing. So no it has not always been wrong to mug a person. Why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the society, in an atheist view? You said "Because every person deserves to have a decent life." I am glad you feel that way. But the problem is that not everyone shares that belief which makes it subjective not objective. It might also be interesting to know that in slavery times the majority of the people who decided it was unacceptable were Christians. So your point is moot. To answer your counter arguments: 1. You said the "Golden Rule" you should treat another the way YOU WOULD like to be treated yourself. YOU WOULD is the key which makes it subjective not objective. Not everyone would like to be treated like you. 2. You said if that were the case God would be a horrible person since many people have killed in God's name. Once again who judges what is horrible ? Hitler was one of the worst people to ever exist but not to the german people which makes it subjective and not objective. Without God and the laws of the Bible to live and die by life is subjective not objective.