BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is Reliable regarding Israel's Covenant and Prophecy

Debate: My argument as Pro will be that it is reasonable to believe that the Bible is a reliable, adequate, factually, logical source of information concerning prophecy in regards to covenant Israel. Historical evidence other than the biblical accounts will also be included in my proof. In my attempt to establish this beachhead of reliability my aim is to show that in this area - Prophecy and Covenant Israel - those who reject the Bible are being unreasonable with the evidence available because it is reliable. Thus, if it is reasonable in this area it leaves open the question to the skeptic that other biblical claims can be trusted and reliable (perhaps these other biblical areas could be demonstrated in other debates as to their reasonableness). Con's burden will be to demonstrate that prophecy related to covenant Israel, as one aspect of the Bible's content, is not a reliable, accurate account, or reasonable to believe. My argument will cover such topics as: 1) Introduction to Israel's covenant with God 2) The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and what it means 3) The predicted promised Messiah as it relates to OT Israel 4) The unity of prophecy regarding Israel in the Olivet Discourse 5) Historical verification of the end of the OT economy 6) Israel in covenant prophetic pattern and shadow/type as it relates to the greater New Covenant 7) Addition proofs that may come to mind *** My burden of proof will consist of showing the reasonableness of prophecy as an accurate account of historic events written before they actually took place. It is reasonable to say these accounts are beyond the scope of anything man is able to predict or foretell. What the Bible prophesied would happen comes about as it is said it would happen without failure. This will be backed up using the unity of the Bible and history regarding both of these evidences where this can be reasonably and factually demonstrated. Cons burden of proof will be to demonstrate this is not the case using these same arguments and any others he chooses to use regarding prophecy related to Covenant Israel. Rules of the Debate: Burden of Proof is shared. Con can work out additional details in the Comment section and we can iron them out there before he accepts the conditions. Round 1 - Outline of the debate, fine tuning, and Con's acceptance. Round 2 - Introductory Statement and laying out the argument - for and against. Round 3 - Support and Refutation Round 4 - Support and Refutation Round 5 - Support, Refutation and Summary Judging the Debate: I request that this debate is judged by any or all of the top 10 active judges of debates as listed above (see Judges Leaderboard). I leave this debate open to the first person accepting the offer in the Comment section. Peter
Aristocracy

IntroductionI am happy to debate this topic with WilliamsP and will be arguing the point that an Aristocracy is not a good idea. I will be using the following definition:A government by the best individuals or by a small privileged classI look forward to this debate.Works Cited"Aristocracy." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 22 May 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Aristocracy

I challenge jamccartney to debate the issue of Aristocracy. Just for clarification, I am most certainly not an Aristocrat, but I do have good reasons to support Aristocracy, primarily the specific forms Meritocracy and Geniocracy. I will be on the Pro side of this debate. Round One: Acceptance.Round Two: Main arguments, no rebuttals. Round Three: Rebuttals (only refuting main aguments).Round Four: Counter-rebuttals and conclusion. Rules:1. All sources will be cited. All formats are acceptable.2. Forfeiture will result in the loss of 'conduct' points, unless the other debater does that as well or is in any way disrespectful. 3. Proper spelling and grammar will be used. A few occasional errors, however, are acceptable.I look forward to this debate with jamccartney.
Aristocracy

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for responding and giving me his rebuttals. Because I have much more time, I will make my rebuttals much longer.RebuttalsFirst, WilliamsP begin by talking about my definition."This definition is accurate, but it does not help my opponent very much. There are certain key words that slightly change the meaning: The words "typically" and "traditionally" are not synonyms for "always." This definition does notshow that an Aristocracy is always run by the wealthy."I have never heard of an Aristocracy not run by the wealthy. I wish there were another round so my opponent could give me an example. I happen to know a lot about history, but I have never heard of this."Perhaps I used the wrong wording. I am fully aware of what an Aristocracy is - more than my opponent, I believe - and I know the leaders are not chosen. I simply used the wrong wording in my statements."I do not think he simply "used the wrong wording". If he truly did, he did it so many times, he should have noticed it as some point."Regarding Democracy, my opponent says this: "It's certainly a better choice than allowing the wealthy, lazy people leading. I would prefer to have a say in my government. In an Aristocracy, the only way to make a change is to rebel, which is what happened in Russia in 1917." In the second round, I quickly talked about Ancient Greece. It had direct democracy. Their democracy began to fall, they did not quite enjoy the system of monarchy, so they decided to decreed an Aristocracy. It worked."Did it work? Today, the Hellinic Republic is not an Aristocracy, but a Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Republic. I think that means the Aristocratic government failed and my opponent was wrong."In history, there are plenty of examples of failures and successes. Russia's aristocratic government failed, but Greece's did not."Yes, it did fail. I just proved that.ConclusionIn conclusion, I believe I have shown that an Aristocracy is not a good form of government. I hope my opponent and the voters see my point. I have enjoyed this debate and hope to win. I will now leave the debate in the hands of the voters.Works Cited1. http://www.greece.com...2. https://www.cia.gov...
If religious propaganda aren't allowed on Youtube, neither should atheistic propaganda be.

This isn't an argument about whether or not Atheism propaganda exists on Youtube, or even one about theists bashing atheists or vice versa. It's a matter of whether it should be banned if religious propaganda is banned. Trying to push people that there is a lack of God on Youtube shouldn't be tolerated if convincing people that there IS one isn't tolerated. Neither side should be allowed to attack each other. That is all I am saying. Agreed?
If religious propaganda aren't allowed on Youtube, neither should atheistic propaganda be.

Yes, atheism is the lack of belief in a god. I have watched many, many videos by or of atheists. None came out and said "stop believing in god". Only them disputing a claim by a theist, or explaining how something about science provides a better answer than "God did it". However, theist videos try to convince people of a god, and a lot of times I have seen them outright bash the ones who disagree with them. Not only that, they say why they are right, and fabricate stories for their sake. I can provide several links to videos for both my claims. Although I can't prove it's random, I will post several links of theist and atheist videos at random to support my claim. http://m.youtube.com... http://m.youtube.com... http://m.youtube.com... http://m.youtube.com... For the time being, I provided what I could at random. However, it was difficult because the theist made videos that were negative towards atheists had their videos removed. If you look at even the suggestion bar, you will see no bashing of religion. Do not take the title of videos of the videos as representations of the content of the video because some videos were made by fans of shows, not members of the show themselves.
The democratic party is morally superior to that of the republican party

The following actions by the democrat party show that they are not only morally inferior to the republican party, but they also have almost no real morals at all. Their hate of God and religion. Their are numerous examples of Democrats trying to take away religious items, or even mention of God, from the public. The country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The founders knew that to have a moral society, we need to have God. "Endowed by our CREATOR..." How could you possibly claim that the anti-god party is one of moral superiority Their push for making a new kind of marriage. It is obvious from the bible that the right thing to do is have a man marry a woman. Integrity and truthfulness are moral acts. The Democrats show their lack of these qualities when they deceptively take advantage of black Americans to further their political aspirations and keep a voting bloc. The Democrat party is known to be the one which okays abortion. Killing an unborn baby, especially if for no good reason,is immoral. The Democrats try to build up strife in America by turning citizens against each other. They make sub groups and tell them that the republicans hate them. One example is the wealth "classes." The Democrats tell the lower class and middle class that their suffering because of the wealthy. This creates a negative attitude towards the upper class in this country. I do have more examples of the Democrats' lack of morals, but ill start with these.
Being poor should be a crime and repeat offenders should be given the Death Penalty

I'm sorry my opponent had to basically forfeit this round but, nevertheless. I would like to point out the main argument my opponent conceded. There are better ways to deal with the issue. As I said, and it remained uncontested, "it's much cheaper to have the government simply pay for a poor person's 2 year college costs. They have comparable graduation rates (57% to 60%) and it is still cheaper to pay a person's college tuition." Since this remained uncontested, there is a better way rather than throwing people in jail. The cost alone attacks the refutation. You would be replacing parts of welfare with something which is many times more expensive. PRO dropped much of my analysis under point number 1. PRO dropped most of my analysis under point 3. Now to my opponents last points. 1) It was up to Pro to define all parameter's necessary for this change in the status quo to take place. Since Pro failed to do so, Con is free to interpret unsaid parameter's. 2) My opponent did not define work. Being a drug dealer is a job, it is work. It just is not legitimate. Once again, my opponent failed to define the term "work" as such, it was up for interpretation. It is Pro's job to define exactly what the change in the status quo should be. 3) Concession. (Plus my analysis above). 4) If there is a better way rather than putting people to death, we should take this option. 5) Work had to have been specifically defined. It was not. I took the implied definition of the "pursuit of wealth". Thank you imabench for this debate. :D
Being poor should be a crime and repeat offenders should be given the Death Penalty

I have to FF this round because I have to study for a calculus final. The con has probably won this debate already but I would still like to say a few things 1) people would not be thrown in jail the second they become poor. The time limit would range anywhere from 3 months to a year, it wouldn't be instantaneous... If it really did concern you then you could have asked me to define such a time limit in round 1, round 2, in the comments section, or in a PM. Dot wait until round 3 to address a problem and then try to tie my hands to not answer it because Pi had plenty of time to do so beforehand. Since the time frame isn't instantaneous that makes the number of people at risk for going to jail less than 14% if they can prove they have the means to get out of poverty. 2) proving people can find work means finding legitimate work, not illegal work like being a drug dealer. To prove you can escape from poverty means showing you have the ability to hold down a steady legit job, not an illegal one. 3) The cost is heavy, I'll concede that, but think about it, if we no loner need all these programs such as affirmative action or Medicaid to help the poor, then the amount of money the US has to pay the costs jumps down quite a bit 4) the 1% of all people being put to death was unrefuted 5) illegal work isn't an acceptable excuse to show one has the means to escape poverty, and this is designed to lower crime, lower health costs, lower divorces, lower pregnancy rates, all kinds of things, not just crime. Education and police only go so far I thank the con for a wonderful debate nonetheless, and I thank the voters for reading :D
Being poor should be a crime and repeat offenders should be given the Death Penalty

This is a part of OberHerr's devil advocacy tournament. The Resolution is: Being poor should be a crime punishable by a prison sentence and people who are repeat offenders of being poor should be put to death. Parameters: 1) Poor is anybody who is living below or within $1,000 of the poverty line 2) Poor people who are of working age and refuse to work and are poor are elegible to go to jail 3) Jails are the rape dungeons owned and operated by the US Government. 4) Poor people go to jail for the first 3 violations go to jail for 3 and 1/3 years 5) If they break the law for the fourth time, jail time is increased to 10 years 6) A fifth time, 20 years 7) A sixth time, death sentence First Round is Acceptance only
Bill: Banning the production of all Styrofoam packaging peanuts.

Thanks to Pro for a debate on a very timely topic. The main reason why Styrofoam packaging has been banned (by the various People's Republics within California, for example) is that it doesn't deteriorate quickly. That puts it in the same category with safe materials like rocks and glass bottles. Things that deteriorate produce methane and noxious by-products. 1. Pro made the claim that there was no significant demand for packaging peanuts, and I argued that *if* Pro's claim is true, then the resolution fails. It fails because then there is no significant problem to be solved and we should not ban products that good, although limited uses. I didn't concede it was true. 2. Pro says that there is little demand for packaging peanuts, yet claims that "that packaging materials (much of which is packaging peanuts) creates less than 33% of all waste." Pro needs to speed more time in landfill dumps. It's apparent that landfills are not characterized by great drifts of packaging peanuts. In any case, Pro bears the burden of proof and has provided none. If 30% of Styrofoam peanuts are recycled, then the 70% of new peanuts required will be imported. The net effect is to move jobs and commerce overseas. the resolution only bans production in the U.S. 3. Pro granted the point about water (dihydro monoxide) not being toxic. Pro never linked data about the volume of Styrofoam peanut waste. I used reliable government data. Pro failed to rebut the point that Styrofoam, while light, is highly compressible in landfills, given the heavy overburden. 4. Pro grants that there is no evidence of risk being translated to worker harm. We should not ban Styrofoam packaging because it is inert and, therefore, environmentally friendly. It is lightweight and that saves fuel in transporting goods. It recycles better than alternatives. There is no evidence of significant harm in manufacture, use, or disposal. The resolution would move jobs overseas. Negated.
Bill: Banning the production of all Styrofoam packaging peanuts.

1: My opponent conceded that there is not a great demand for Styrofoam packaging peanuts, so trade deficit would not be in danger. 2: I do agree that packaging peanuts are useful in certain situations, and my opponent has stated himself that packaging materials (much of which is packaging peanuts) creates less than 33% of all waste. If you put this together, you see that by banning PRODUCTION of new packaging peanuts, we would create less waste and STILL be able to re-use Styrofoam packaging peanuts. (about 30% is re-used now, we would raise that number and help the environment by creating less waste. ) 3: I was completely unaware that the Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide was not as credible as I thought it was, rendering my statistics useless, so I must concede that point. As for the waste created by Styrofoam, see rebuttal #2 4: There are risks to Styrofoam workers, but not a significant number of people have been affected, to my knowledge, so I must concede that point. 5: I must disagree with my opponent on his comment about Styrofoam peanuts being "great stuff for the environment". Kevin Dick of Chicago's Delta Institute points out that although Styrofoam can be recycled (Backing up rebuttal #2), the environmental impacts are negative. I do not have exact numbers on how many animals have been affected, but it still poses a danger to the environment by creating waste, and still does affect animals negatively, even if I do not have exact numbers, so I do not see why we should NOT approve this bill, considering that contrary to my opponents conclusion in round 2, Styrofoam is NOT good for the environment, and Styrofoam DOES have an impact on landfills. 6: Considering all of this, I see no reason why this bill should not be approved considering the only benefit is using them, and we would still use them, except they would be obtained through recycling.
Bill: Banning the production of all Styrofoam packaging peanuts.

Pro asserts that there is no significant demand for styrofoam packaging peanuts. If so, the resolution is moot because there is no significant problem. We shouldn't pass pointless laws whose only effect is to ban a product useful in certain applications. Pro made the claim that Styrofoam causes starvation of wildlife. I challenged Pro to back up his claim with data showing it is a significant problem. Pro bears the burden of proof. He just reasserted his claim without providing any proof. It's not just proving that styrofoam is a problem to wildlife, but that styrofoam peanuts in particular are a problem. "Dihydro monoxide" is another name for water. The Coalition to Ban Dihydro Monoxide is a hoax popularized by a 14-year old who collected signatures on a petition to ban it. http://en.wikipedia.org... I could not find any information on the bss.sfsu.edu regarding Styrofoam. Its a liberal arts school with no authority on the subject. I gave accurate numbers from a government web site. The government says that packaging materials of all types are a little less than a third of all waste, so it's not possible that Styrofoam peanuts are 25-30%. While Styrofoam is light, after a few hundred tons of stuff is piled on top of it in a land fill, it will compress nicely. Citing risks to workers does not equate to there being a significant problem. Many manufacturing processes use dangerous substances that pose risks if improperly handled. For example, steel workers *risk* being burned if they mishandle molten steel. It doesn't mean that they do so. Pro must provide proof that harm actually occurs from out-of-control manufacturing. Because Styrofoam is inert, like rocks, it is great stuff for the environment. It is used as a soil amendment for growing vegetables. It can be recycled. It is light weight so it saves energy by lowering the energy used for shipping. It compresses in landfills. It is manufactured safely. Hooray for Styrofoam!
Bill: Banning the production of all Styrofoam packaging peanuts.

As a guide for all those judging, I will be defending my case and attacking my opponent's at the same time. As for the issue of importation of Styrofoam packaging peanuts: There is currently not a great demand for Styrofoam packaging peanuts, so why would we import packaging peanuts when we can re-use them? Opponent's point A: My opponent states that Styrofoam packaging peanuts pose no significant hazard. This claim is completely false. I have stated that Styrofoam causes starvation in birds and marine wildlife. Another hazard that comes with producing Styrofoam is the Dihydrogen monoxide gas, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, and kills thousands of people each year, according to the Coalition to Ban Dihydromonoxide. Considering all of this, it would be ridiculous to consider Styrofoam peanuts as harmless as "rocks". The resolution is to ban packaging peanuts, not Styrofoam altogether, so Styrofoam additives would still be legal. (The intent of this bill is to lessen impacts of Styrofoam by banning peanuts, not to ban Styrofoam. ) As for the landfill space, I did not do the math myself, but I got it from a link, so it actually is accurate. (bss. sfsu. edu) "Our nation averages 547,945 tons of garbage per day and Styrofoam products make up 0.25% of this weight. It sounds a little more impressive when that comes out to 1,369 tons. Don't forget, Styrofoam is pretty light-weight. So, by volume Styrofoam waste takes up 25-30% of our nation's landfill space. " Styrofoam actually does take up significant landfill space, and by banning production of packaging peanuts, we would be reducing it. I am running out of space, so I will address the last point very briefly. Impact on workers: Cyanide is produced by manufacturing Styrofoam, according to the Journal of Emergency Nursing. Cyanide is a toxic chemical, and an occupation listed under "Risk of Styrofoam poisoning" is "plastic worker".
Bill: Banning the production of all Styrofoam packaging peanuts.

The resolution does not ban importation or use of styrofoam[tm] pellets. Therefore, the resolution if adopted will only result in the styrofoam pellets being imported for use rather than manufactured. None of the claimed environmental hazards, if true, would be avoided. However, the balance of trade deficit would be made worse because money to buy the commodity would be sent overseas. Domestic employment would be lost as the jobs are sent overseas. Thus there would be no environmental benefit, but money and jobs would be lost to overseas producers. Point A: Because styrofoam takes so long to break down it poses no significant hazard. It is virtually inert. Compare it to rocks. Rocks take millions of years to break down, yet rocks pose no hazard at all. In fact, styrofoam is so nearly inert it is used a soil additive to keep soils light. "A continuing aim of agricultural research is to find materials with good and persistent action in the soil, such as is observed in humus. It is possible to attain this goal by using expanded plastics. Thus, for instance, styrofoam, is suitable for permanent improvement of heavy soils structure and garden mixes ..." http://www.actahort.org... It is not true that styrofoam takes up 25-30% of landfill space. The total amount of waste is in the US is about 56 tons/yr x 300 million people = 16800 million tons/yr. Pro says styrofoam is 1,369 x 365 = about 0.5 million tons/yr. Therefore styrofoam is only about one part in 32,000 of the total waste. http://www.cleanair.org... Moreover, if styrofoam were not used, something else would take its place. Pro provides no evidence of a wildlife problem. Point B: Many manufacturing processes use hazardous materials. Pro provides no evidence whatsoever that workers are inadequately protected from the potential dangers. If they are not, then OSHA is not doing its job and should be fixed. The resolution is negated.