BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Most Christian denominations are Psuedo christian, or Athiestic Christian churches

This round, I will simply provide definitions, since Pro has not done so. Next round, I would like to see some sources for Pro's argument. Christian: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"* Or, biblically speaking, "If you profess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. " - Romans 10:9 Atheist: "a person who believes that God does not exist"* Believe: "1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real"* <--- I will be using this definition for the purposes of this debate, as it can also apply to atheists in this case. Pseudo: "Not real or genuine"* I will summarize Pro's argument like this: Since many churches do not practice acts such as laying of hands for healing, they are not genuinely Christian in nature. Pro states, "If churches actually did believe such things you would see all Churches (without exception) practice and openly offer to do laying of Hands for healing and deliverance. .. " Yet Pro has not stated how these acts confirm how a church is "Christian in nature". There is no scripture that states that the spiritual gift of healing is proof of belief in Christ. Certainly, if churches do perform genuine healing, without fraud or pomp and circumstance, then it is likely that they do have a true belief in Christ. Pro makes a statement that is quite prideful, and completely overrides the true nature of the Holy Spirit. ". .. and if they can control the powers that JESUS CHRIST really has to offer. .. " We are not meant to control the power of the Holy Spirit; we are to let him work through us in order to perform good works. Pro's words are eerily reminiscent of Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8, who desired to have the power that Phillip possessed. He was told to repent of his wickedness and pray for forgiveness. That's all for now. I will wait for Pro to provide sources, as well as genuine reasoning for his claims. I look forward to an interesting debate! *All definitions are from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. All verses are from Bible Gateway.
Most Christian denominations are Psuedo christian, or Athiestic Christian churches

Most churches, most church denominations and most preachers, teachers and likewise are afraid to even openly practice the faith of laying of hands for deliverance of spirits/demons, sicknesses and illnessses due to the liberal media portraying all churches who practice and conduct this manner to be all fake, greedy, or great actors with no real effect of evidence for the faith that they claim they practice. As well it is stated and obviously known that most churches who are openly known for this practice are doing it in such vanity and obscenity that these type of churches i would state wolves in sheep clothing are the key culprits of why such christian orientated practice has been discouraged, stopped and argued against time and time over for stopping any such practice anywhere near what it should be going on and doing today. These circumstances and failed ability to properly weed out the fake, the villaineous, the vanity and the obscure have produced a fearful spiritual phenomena where spirits and demons feel free to roam around on this earth, especially in a spiritual church setting where the church leadership would much quicker in nature prefer to turn to man's understanding of psychiatric treatment of medicine and eletrical or any other man-made concepts versus turning to the scriptures directly for the HOLY SPIRIT's guidance and direction of what to do for resolution of the problem. And regarding the Holy Spirit? It is just a figment of your imagination that was set-up but no longer valid today, because today's churches can't speak of demons and spirits taking place today without acknowledging the Holy Spirit... and the requirement of healing and deliverance from anything evil in the sight of GOD. If churches actually did believe such things you would see all Churches (without exception) practice and openly offer to do laying of Hands for healing and deliverance like this website's organization https://flames-of-fire.org...... and more written testimonials like this https://flames-of-fire.org...... going on world-wide without accepting the simple, its all scientific anyways, or its just circumstantial because of some situation you don't understand and similiar type psuedo christian arguements. Churches really are nothing more than for the majority portion, Athiestic, or psuedo christians growing, creating and harboring more of the same from their leadership that is growing because it is easier to grow when churches do not have the Holy Spirit moving inside of them for healing and deliverance of spirits and demons. For everyone who doesn't acknowledge JESUS CHRIST already has a diety of power in them, and if they can control the powers that JESUS CHRIST really has to offer then they can limit their potential to be required to leave the souls they possess. Feel free to leave comments in the comment portion as well if you'd like more clarification.
The U.S. should adopt democratic socialism as its basis for a functioning government.

Well just incase my opponent decided to participate, I'll outline the arguments: 1. Socialism results in restriction of capital flow and results in defecit spending 2. Socialsm results in stagnant economic development 3. U.S. tax policy cuppled with socialism will result in less tax revenue, turning any AC argument 4. Socialism calls for national, single-payr healthcare. This will have disasterous consequences.
Poem about rape

I saw you walking down the street alone I thought maybe I should rape you to teach you that it is not okay to be alone and on your own I like the way you are shaped Maybe you want to be raped You don't need clothes Just take the right pose They say we came from an ape I don't feel, I rape Maybe one day I will make a tape I don't feel, I rape I am really attracted to your shape I don't feel, I rape They say I belong in jail But in this quest I will not fail Because the power of God guides me When you insult me, It does nothing It doesn't stop me There is no escape I don't feel, I rape
Poem about rape

I think your poem is disgusting because it is about this rapist who does not sympathize with the victim that he raped and he basically proves that he wants to rape. The poem states, "Because the power of God guides me". This is him saying that God guides him to rape despite the bible being against rape (https://www. Gotquestions. Org/spousal-rape. Html). This is both insulting and false to the will of God. I say this as an atheist.
Cap and trade is a far more desirable alternative to fighting pollution that a carbon tax.

Okay, So your point is that whenever you have something undesirable in the economy, Taxing is the best alternative. I do not think this is true for most of the examples you have listed, But let's not deviate. In this round, I will be solely explaining why taxes are inferior to a simple Cap and Trade. So why does taxing not work in most countries? 1. )Possibility of evasion Ever heard of "Pollution Havens"? When a country imposes high amounts of tax on emissions, The firms try to cheat the system and shift production to other countries, Where the tax is low or almost nil. The big companies are able to easily bypass the tax process by moving their production to another country. 2. )Inefficiency Like I have addressed in the first round(to which there as no rebuttal), Setting up a Carbon tax is hard. Setting it too low, And it affects no one. Still at the same level of pollution. Setting it too high, And the final goods become way too expensive(incidence of tax shared by both consumer and producer). Suddenly, No one wants to buy your good. But at the same time, You're incurring a lot of production costs. So you decide to shut down production. What does that mean? Loss of jobs(and mind you the industries that tend to give off lots of pollution are also heavy employers), Income, And economic variables in the economy, Thus shifting against economic growth. Hence, Deciding the right amount is hard. And the rate of tax in most countries(currently) is unable to help reach the desired levels. Not to mention the cost which the government has to bear to administer these taxes. I will be making more substantives in the next round. Please do attempt to refute these points. Thank you.
Cap and trade is a far more desirable alternative to fighting pollution that a carbon tax.

If you want people to drink less you tax drinkif you want people to smoke less you tax smokingIf you want there to be less rich people you tax them to deathtax something and you disincentivise itand we should tax consumption the more we consume them more we polluteand we should tax rich people to death they are the ones wasting and cosuming the mostif you want people to invent clean energy you give them a tax credit. . The better the invention the less tax they pay
Cap and trade is a far more desirable alternative to fighting pollution that a carbon tax.

Carbon taxes are not as effective as a cap and trade. This is because when a good is in high demand, The producers know that there will always be buyers for the commodity, So they always have the incentive to keep producing, Even if it means bearing the cost of the carbon tax. So in this case, There is no such guarantee of less pollution, Only benefit being that it is a lot of revenue for the government. Meanwhile, A cap and trade system puts a limit on the pollution directly. A firm that chooses to pollute needs to purchase a permit, Which allows for a limited amount of pollution. The government only keeps a few of these permits circulation and allows for trading of these permits between firms. This way, No firm is legally allowed to pollute in excess of what is permitted under the permit.
The next President of the US SHOULD meet with Raul Castro- if he is elected President of Cuba

"Are you saying Castro would completely ignore the possibility of ending the embargo?" No, I'm saying Castro doesn't care about the embargo because it is not hurting him as much as it is hurting the people. It's actually helping him now because he can tell Cubans once again that it's all America's fault. There's nothing to expect from a visit to Cuba from the President. Obama's idea of going to Cuba and fixing 50 years of hostility is nothing but a pipe dream. There are no new arguments posted by you for me to reply to so I'll leave it at that. Obama going to Cuba is simply 100% useless.
The next President of the US SHOULD meet with Raul Castro- if he is elected President of Cuba

I gave you a reason why Obama shouldn't go. Because it would be a waste of time. What do you expect he will achieve in going to Cuba? However, you chose to forget I said that and go giving false information to contradict some of what I said. Here are some examples: < > The U.S. wanted Batista to stay in. Ordered Batista out? What do you think, that America is this huge ruler of the world that whatever America decides everyone obeys? It was clear that Castro was gonna be the leader and the U.S. had no choice but to recognize him as the leader. So once Batista was so obviously losing, they pretended to accept Fidel when they really didn't. Proof: Bay of Pigs invasion. < > From anything! Either Obama has something for him, that he wants, or there's no negotiation period! < > Fidel wanted to launch missiles at us knowing that Cuba would be annihilated if he did such. The only reason why Castro agreed to some preconditions set by JFK was because mommy (the Soviet Union) said so. < > You can always play the "you're ignorant card", but just so you know I am Cuban, my grandfather is a professor in political science, previously ambassador of Cuba to Belgium and Japan, and previously an assistant to Fidel Castro. At least I know where I'm getting my facts from and according to him, you are the one that has no idea of Cuban-American relations. Raul Castro doesn't want to even speak to the U.S.. His brother is still the decider, still working in the Communist Party and he's still loved by many Cubans and he's one of the only true Cuban heroes. And what has he been saying to the people all his life? "Americans are scum!" You still haven't told me what Obama has to offer to Raul or Fidel Castro. He has nothing, and neither Castro will be ok with nothing whatsoever on the table. < > 1st of all, why is it that I have to be interested in the status of the people of Cuba to take this debate? It's a bad idea to negotiate with those who want the worst for us. Or with a man that wanted to launch missiles at Florida as soon as he got the chance. < > This does not pertain to the debate, but if there's one thing Cuba has that we don't is better Health Care. So I'll be looking forward to seeing what you expect to get from a meeting with Obama and one of the Castros. Because I expect nothing, except maybe another dead president in American history. Which makes me wonder if Castro could actually have killed Kennedy after that stupid bay of pigs invasion and all the attempts on Fidel's life by the C.I.A.
The next President of the US SHOULD meet with Raul Castro- if he is elected President of Cuba

"America can never make Cuba release any prisoners or change the way they run the country." -Noone has stated that should be the goal or even a goal of a visit by the next US President. There are prisoners being held by the US in contempt of the wishes of dozens of other nations, but that doesn't stop anyone from having discussions with our leaders. "Last time we did that Fidel Castro took over the island with 200 men." -I didn't start this debate to give my opponent a history lesson on Cuba, but suffice it to say you are completely misinformed. The US ordered Batista out of Cuba, and recognized Castro as the new leader before he even got the memo... "Because all the Cubans who he was supposed to "fight", joined him as he went along taking over Cuba." -Castro was losing, but ok... "Because 49 years ago, they were all sick of having America telling Cuba what to do." -That's not exactly how things went down, but ok... you are not even giving a good description in laymens terms... "Castro will never back down." -Back down from what? "They will give Obama the finger like they did to JFK and there's nothing we can do about it." -First Castro now "they"? They who? They didn't give JFK the finger, JFK got shot! They were in communication through third parties before he got shot, and Castro was open to many of the preconditions set by JFK for an actual meeting... "Obama thinks it'll look good going to Cuba but he doesn't know what he's talking about." -How do you know this is his motive for wanting to engage US enemies on a diplomatic level? How doesn't he know what he's talking about? How is it that you do? "Either Obama puts something on the table or they won't even let him step foot into Cuba, and Obama has nothing to offer to Raul." -You really know nothing about Cuba. Raul Castro doesn't WANT to be President of Cuba. He WILL be as long as Fidel is alive, but his wishes are to resume diplomatic ties with the US. In the past he has been much more lenient towards progress than his brother, and has shown signs of possible cooperation with the US. "It's a waste of time, we've been fine these 50 years while we've been ignoring Cuba." -Now if you are disinterested in the status of the people of Cuba then why did you accept this debate? WE have been fine for 50 years, but Cubans have NOT. Not because of the Castro regime, but because of it's isolation by the US and it's allies. "How about we find ourselves some real problems? Like... umm... leaving out 15 million uninsured Americans for example?" -That's a funny suggestion. So you're for universal healthcare? Who to learn from better than Castro? You really presented no argument against why Obama should visit Cuba. I don't know why you chose to waste both of our time, but let me know now if you aren't going to debate this topic...
The next President of the US SHOULD meet with Raul Castro- if he is elected President of Cuba

America can never make Cuba release any prisoners or change the way they run the country. Last time we did that Fidel Castro took over the island with 200 men. Why? Because all the Cubans who he was supposed to "fight", joined him as he went along taking over Cuba. And why? Because 49 years ago, they were all sick of having America telling Cuba what to do. There was racism, poverty, and Batista killed more people than Fidel ever did. If Obama goes to Cuba, there will be nothing to discuss. It's unnecessary. Castro will never back down. They will give Obama the finger like they did to JFK and there's nothing we can do about it. Obama thinks it'll look good going to Cuba but he doesn't know what he's talking about. Obama will only help Raul tell Cubans how terrible America is, telling them what to do (just like Fidel did for the past 50 years). And frankly, Obama can't go telling them what to do and that's not even their intention. Either Obama puts something on the table or they won't even let him step foot into Cuba, and Obama has nothing to offer to Raul. It's a waste of time, we've been fine these 50 years while we've been ignoring Cuba. Ever had a problem? No. How about we find ourselves some real problems? Like... umm... leaving out 15 million uninsured Americans for example?
The next President of the US SHOULD meet with Raul Castro- if he is elected President of Cuba

Hillary Clinton's nads are as big as McCain's... oooooooohhh... Too bad that macho rhetoric hasn't worked for the past 50+ years. The regime in Cuba is hardly "rogue", and if it IS, it's leaders should be engaged and at least spoken to- after all, "el bebe que no llora no recibe leche" (baby don't cry, baby don't get fed). What is the harm in Obama meeting with Castro, dictating to him his concerns, and receive any feedback in return? Does HC suggest we go another 50years without recognizing the Cuban regime as legitimate??? What good has that done for ANYONE??? O, I know- they have very good healthcare and a great educational system. I am sure the political prisoners and prisoners of conscience rotting in Cuban prisons are DYING for a US President to come in and argue their cause! I'm just DYYYYING to hear a logical argument as to why the next President of the US shouldn't speak with the next President of Cuba...
Abortion

I agree with pro's stance that there's nothing more morally wrong than taking the gift of life away from an unborn for ostensibly financial reasons. Our future is our greatest asset, and it is unjustifiably wrong to abort a fetus that can have a valuable future. With that being said, I believe that there are cases where an abortion is perfectly ethical. In particular, it is when the rarest circumstance occurs when killing the unborn would save the life of the mother that the mother should make the moral call to abort her fetus. The consequence of not taking such an abortion would be morally wrong, as it would take away the simultaneous life of both, the unborn and the mother herself. And if through the doctor's careful treatment of the mother"s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical. You can view one of a case that I've described here: http://www.usatoday.com... Therefore, in my opponent's words, abortion is sometimes "the right thing to do" because if both lives cannot be simultaneously saved, then the mother's life must be our primary aim. Everything I have said so far is consistent with the pro-life ethic. Again, the bottom line is, abortion should always be prohibited in cases where the life of the mother, and simultaneously the baby, is threatened.
Abortion

Abortion-the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. Morality-principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Fetus killing-Without getting into the science of it, we can all agree that in abortion the fetus is terminated. We can all agree that once a fetus is terminated, than it is gone. We can all agree that once the fetus is gone the baby is gone. If I was aborted, than I would not be here. If my opponent was aborted, than he would not be here. This is the truth. One cannot debate this. These are simple truths that cannot be disputed. Most people would define it to be immoral to kill somebody. That is a simple truth. I will be arguing that abortion is a basically cheating somebody out of their existence. Life-Let us just say for the sake of the debate that you were making a decision to either get your wife or yourself an abortion. You are making a decision for someone's life. If you chose to take the abortion, it is a simple fact that you will never have the child you just aborted. If you choose not to take the abortion, than the child will be born. These are simple facts. I know that Pro might try to say that people that usually get abortions are in financial harm. That is irrelevant, because killing someone outweighs financial harm. This is a strictly moral debate.
Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections

welcome thank you for accepting the challenge, i am a public foum debater so please dont bring up the NPV plan the electoral is a critical and necessary part of our government. For this reason I strongly negate the resolution. Resolved direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections. For three reasons The electoral college protects the minority states, spending, and less voter fraud. First the electoral college protects the minority states. By minority states I mean the small ones with not very large populations. The electoral college makes sure that they still have a say and many candidates go and visit those states because they need as many delegates as possible. Second is spending, The cost of presidential elections is all ready controversial. in the 2004 election candidates raised 919 million dollars, and only toured sixteen states. so that's a little over 57 million dollars a state. With the direct vote planning on touring 50 states it would cost over 2 billion dollars. Finally with direct popular vote there is an increased chance for vote fraud. If every vote must be counted and know without a doubt who voted for who there will be a huge possibility for mistake, but with the electoral college. If a state makes a mishap they would only have to recount that state. since it would go to the states total, and not an overall count So to conclude the electoral college is a necessary part of our government for three reasons, First it protects the minority states with small population, it saves a lot of money, and it reduces the chances for voter fraud