BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is reliable

I believe the Bible is reliable in that it accurately recorded events as it happened. It's up to Con to present an argument that prove this cannot be true. Please use only one or two examples at most per round. Examples must preferably prove that God made an error or contradicted Himself. Humans are able to err. History books contain lots of examples where people lied or made a mistake but that do not make the history unreliable. If more than two arguments are mentioned I will choose which ones I want to answer without any obligation to address the rest. I hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible in the same way we interpret things literally during normal communication today. In other words, parables, figure of speech, examples, sarcasm etc. has an essential literal interpretation. For this debate, please use the King James Version Bible as reference as support for your arguments.
Abortion aka kill you child because of your mistake

Human being We used the same definition and a fetus clearly doesn't meet it. A fetus is not independent as it depends on its mother to live. Racism Disallowing abortion will have a harsher effect on minorities. This is institutional racism. Reproductive coercion Whether my opponent overreacted or not, this is the topic we are debating. It is not always the fault of the women. You will be voting Aff on the following reasons. Anti abortion legislation is institutionalized racism. Not girls' fault
Abortion aka kill you child because of your mistake

-Yes it is a human being biologically speaking because a. It comes from human parents b. It has a unique DNA c. Fully independent https://www.google.com... -A fetus is part of the homosapien species which makes it a human being -Denying a woman's right to kill her unborn child is not racism. I don't consider this as a viable arguement because there are many flaws. -Yes i understand, i Over reacted with the title.
Abortion aka kill you child because of your mistake

Human being A fetus is not a human being. Google definitions defines human being as having qualities such as "superior mental development, power of articulate speech" Killing human being is awful. However, not aborting can result in a mother's death and this is not killing a human being Racism Has not been refuted. Look at the source. By disallowing abortion, you are disproportionately hurting minorities Reproductive coercion There are variety of circumstances warranting abortion w/o moms fault
Abortion aka kill you child because of your mistake

1 rebuttal: I Overeacted with the title,my bad i'm new to this site. but anyways if a woman gets forcefully pregnant ( which is a very rare occurence) then she still has no right to kill her unborn child because that child has a unique dna that is different from the mother's. Therefore, the child is not part of the mother and human being that should have the right to live http://www.operationrescue.org... 2: Having a right to kill your child is not racist.
Abortion aka kill you child because of your mistake

I affirm. Argument 1: reproductive coercion Pregnancies aren't always because of mistakes. reproductive coercion is the idea of forced pregnancies inflicted upon women. This is a common trend in the U.S. [1] Argument 2: Racism Five times as many blacks in the US abort than whites. Any action against abortion is an act of racism [2] [1] http://www.care2.com... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com...
Evolution is false

1. Glue Poisoning the well fallacy from my opponent [1 http://www.fallacyfiles.org...;] 2. LLNMy opponent still has yet to show how the LLN disproves evolution and I have adaquetly shown that evolution=/=all animals will morphologically change.3. Irreducible ComplexityI did not evade your argument, you evaded mine. I showed how your example was not irreducable complex.4. Sexual Reproduction.Already shown.5. Second Law6. ChromosomesIf anyone reads my arguments, they will see that I have answered the arguments in full. My opponent needs to elaborate on the chromosome argument as I pointed out in round 3.
Evolution is false

1. Glue. God"s little proof. Wikipedia isn't a good source. That's all the source you have. Your Propene thing is irrelevant. As were dealing with the Acrylate. 2. The Law of Large Numbers. Some animals still change rapidly from their ancestor. Just because some don't doesnt mean all so. 3. Irreducible Complexity This isn't how Behe defined IC. You evade my argument! 4. Sexual Reproduction You evade. Ring species have nothing to do with anything. A fully evolved dog needs to have a fully evolved female dog. Ring species only deal with created kinds. 5 Second law Wrong. Its not an equivocation. You haven't shown it is. You evade my argument that top experts in the field saying the second law applies to open systems too. 6. Chromosomes. You evade. You go after the video in a fail way. Ignoring the argument. Fail.
Evolution is false

Thanks. 1.Glue The molecules that hold glue together are short lived, in 20,000 years they would've decayed.[1] Thus the universe is less than 20,000 years. Too little time for evolution. 2. Law of large numbers. The law of large numbers say that things tend to revert to their average over time. Evolution directly contradicts this 3. Flagellum " The flagellum of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of irreducible complexity as publicised by Professor Michael Behe. Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Professor Ken Miller attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum."[2] 4. Mates All animals would've just happend to evolve at the same time as a mate with perfect reproductive parts. 5. Thermodynamics The second law of thermodynamics says over time things tend to disorder. Evolution is in direct contradiction. 6. Chromosomes Humans have 23 pairs of chromosome while apes have 24. Evos say there has to be a fusion. Yet go back before the apes we should have its ancestor with 25 pars and its ancestor with 26 so on and so on. Yet we don"t see this. [1] Jefferson, Jack Decay of Atoms (2006). [2] www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution#Irreducible_Complexity
God is not Required for Moral Reasoning

(By the way, anything that is capital is used as emphasis, and is not meant to be rude. ) just 2 days ago, i was debating and came up on a case about morality. the standard for [morality (the value)] was Kont's categorical imperative. Basically, it states that religion is not required to determine morality. THEREFORE, i have proven that the resolution MUST be true since this imperative exists. THEREFORE, the resolution is an absolute, and by the Kont's categorical imperative, the NEG can never hope to win, proving the resolution an absolute, and thus, the NEG is not given a chance for a FAIR debate. Therefore, you must vote for NEG. now, i will go on to debate my best against why god is not needed to determine morality. This is a epic argument that is hardly debatable, but it still is the least bit controversial, so therefore by this argument, the AFF is given a chance to debate agaisnt this statement: Morality is rooted from religion, and God is the basis of religion. Now, to rebutt: My opponent states that people of all these religions do not rely on god to determine morality. However, where do you even think that morality rooted from? where do you think these people even learned what morality was? Schools do not teach moral beliefs: they are a bread-based system, to help people earn money in their future. So, the only place a person gets morality from is religion. I highly doubt that a six-year old is going to be Googling Kont's categorical imperative. Therefore, religion is the basis of morality, and god is the basis of religion. Therefore, God must be used to determine morality. THUS, NEGATE
God is not Required for Moral Reasoning

My opponent seems to be very confused... He first contends that the resolution is an absolute and that CON cannot win. This is simply not the case. Kant's categorical imperative does not have any sort of final bearing on this issue. It is an argument for the Pro side of the issue, but it is not a trump card. In short, my opponent cannot think of how to formulate a good negative argument, so he has classified the argument as unwinnable. Responses: >> "My opponent states that people of all these religions do not rely on god to determine morality. However, where do you even think that morality rooted from?" Obviously not God, if people from other religions can conceptualize morality without knowing God... Your statement is self-refuting. People cal appeal to utility, subjectivity, convention... a whole host of other concepts to obtain a moral system. >> "where do you think these people even learned what morality was?" This is not an argument against my proposition. I have no burden to answer it. I must simply show that some people did not learn morality from God. That said, morality can easily be "learned" by consideration of whatever standard you wish to apply to "wrong." If people can "learn" morality from God, they can "learn" it from considering utility. >> "Schools do not teach moral beliefs...So, the only place a person gets morality from is religion." Appeal to ignorance. You do not understand any of the other systems, therefore yours must be correct. I hope you can see how ridiculous this statement is. >> "I highly doubt that a six-year old is going to be Googling Kont's categorical imperative." You need to Google it more. KANT, not KONT. >> "Therefore, religion is the basis of morality, and god is the basis of religion. Therefore, God must be used to determine morality." Ad Nauseum fallacy. Respond to my argumentation from the first round that defeats this exact claim. Then we can discuss it. ********************************** My opponent has put forth no substantive argument. All my points from Round 1 remain in effect. AFFIRMED.
Round 1 - Feverish VRB Tournament

Round 1 Vid: http://www.youtube.com... This is my round 2 vid: http://www.youtube.com... Round 2: First of all, what the fvck was that sh!t - you had two days to prepare The only explanation for whack sh!t like that was that your @ss was scared Tell me I'll be screamin' obscenities like sh!t sh!t sh!t Bruh you must be talking about your last round, shi+ would be a compliment And while we're on some math terms I'll derive you and square root it Locate your 14 year old a$s and tap my boot to it Tried to come at me, said your "flow" would make me cry Yep, it was so bad I shed some tears, now prepare to be dominated by I Let's start with the track - what the hell was that I'm fully armed and you come at me with some kiddie combat? Rockin' some disgusting riffs like - "rock on dude" Its like you were tryin' to growl or some sh!t, do you know what a rap includes? Let me break it down for you, you seem a little slow Here's where I am, and where you be - you gotta ways to go Let me put it in terms that maybe you can understand Here's where I be, and then there's you out in no-man's land I'd like to point out that most of my lines went unaddressed This little boy be sweatin' me, sh!t's so pressed I have to say it like - my flow so sick its like a tumor I be bringin' the serious stuff; boy, you be bringin' me humor I'll put you out, end your flow, leave your as$ with nothin' Try and call me out, I ain't bluffin' with my muffin' I'mma come up and sing it like a love song, put you to be- e- ed Put my lyrical chrome to your cranium and fvck with your head Boy, stop tryin' a front, admit your flow is empty Or we could wait 'til the end and see who gets a victory I wonder who is gonna advance from this bracket My flow, or Sylux's whack shi+ In my opinion, this is a massacre like what the French did to the Indians So, hit the trail of tears boy and never post shi+ like that again I can see you say,"where's your beat, you frontin" I'll put it to you simply - even without four bar phrasing my flow is still stunnin' By the way bro, what was with that minute long introduction Slow that $hit down - necessary speed reduction I'm closing out this round and closing up this battle You've only barely shaken the cage, only given me a little rattle
Round 1 - Feverish VRB Tournament

Voi! (Bad quality, I know. Get out of my face.) http://www.youtube.com... The heat's been turned on; this sh!t's about to get real I've got a can of whoop-arse, and I'mma break open the seal I'mma let it fly, hit it high, fvck some sh!t up, If you're drinkin' I'mma make you spew it back yo' cup Cuz I'm the real deal, no sh!t, no bull, no lie My rappin's so rough and harsh it'll make you break down in cry 'Cuz you realize that there's just no winnin' with me; I'll fvckin' humiliate you in front everybody Sh!t sh!t sh!t! You'll be screamin' obscenities Before the judges even come in and make their decrees Like I said earlier; there is no winning here You've stepped here on my turf; it's the final frontier For you in this rappin' battle tournament When I'm through, you will sit brooding and lament- Ing me in a filthy sanitarium Because my rhymes will make you crazy and really fvckin' dumb Voi! If you think you can front with me... then come on and try it, motha' fvcka'.
Round 1 - Feverish VRB Tournament

For this round, I'm gonna post my first argument which is really like only one verse. Unfortunately, my camera is on the fritz at the moment, and I'm waiting to get my webcam back from a friend. So, I will rap my round 1 and round 2 verses together. My apologies. And here, is my rap Allow me to introduce myself, I'm an untitled entity. Zero hero, myself a new brand of emcee. I'mma thank Sylux for the opportunity, of which I'll take advantage Fvck up your rhyme scheme leave you with collateral brain damage I'll fvck with any of your rhymes - call me a freakin' prostitute And, when I rap cap your @ss you'll see there's no substitute My flow air shocks, yours some socks - I warm my heels with it This sh!ts about to be a card game - you might as well deal with it Even if you have a million flows - you've got a million flaws I did your mom, girl and sister, all in one night, call me fvckin' Santa Claus I'm giving birth to greatness, pronounce your shi+ sterile Made this rhyme so Krispy, hear it snap and crackle This is $hit is out of this world, like a fvckin' Alien I'm superfvckin' human, not your average homosapien Hit you with my lyrical seismic waves like what happened in Haiti I k-know my flow is stunnin', listen to it bravely I'll sit and shock you with my reverse Hegelian Dialectic I know your a$s is shakin', call you an epileptic Here's my message to you, Mr. Cullen Bentley It's time to suit up and ship out and try to come and get me
The Electoral College should be abolished

He makes a very pragmatic case, although to tell the truth, he hasn't given a single reason why we should maintain the electoral college, beyond delegating the burden of proof to me. I admit that my opening was a little vague and somewhat lofty. It was, of course, nothing more than an opening speech, some ideas to get the debate started. Now I'm going to explain some things and adress what my opponent said about my opening. My opponent's argument pretty much comes down to this: 1. ) He claims that I cannot substaniate the claim that our government's leadership should reflect the will of the people 2. ) He claims that I have contradicted myself by calling the electoral college superfluous and then claiming that it should be abolished I will begin with the first point. Perhaps the most famous phrase of the American revolution is "taxation without representation". It's catchy, and it gets to the heart of the problem with a tyranny or monarchy: the lack of popular sovereingty and consent of the governed. Both of these government principles are missing in a monarchy, and when the U. S. government was created, it was designed to include both. I have proof right here: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... Both of these imply that leadership should relfect will. I have like 10 minutes, so I'll be quick. Secondly, if something is superfluous, then it should be abolished. Otherwise, it only wastes time and energy. What I meant was that the electoral college fails in its intended purpose, and today it only succeds in inhibiting modern elections. I said that the popular vote should prevail, and we now run elections so that if often does, but the electoral college often prevents it from prevailing. I have no time , so I've go to go. Thank you
The Electoral College should be abolished

I do not have a large knowledge in the subject, nor do I really have that large of an interest either way, so this will be a good exercise. As much as I hate this, my first argument will primarily revolve around a response to my opponent's arguments. I do not believe I have any sort of burden of proof; however, I will, as a side part of my arguments, attempt, with my lowly knowledge of the subject, to build a case for the Electoral College. That said, the onus is still on my opponent to show why it should be abolished. I believe my opponent has contradicted himself in a couple of areas. First of all, there are a few classifications to the word "democracy" which make it more applicable to our type of government. We are a representative democracy, a Democratic Republic. [1] "the belief that leadership in our nation ought to reflect the will of people. " While this seems to be an obvious claim, I would still like to ask for some kind of a source. There may be a distinction in a government which is supposed to protect the people, as opposed to reflect the will of the people. "There is a now somewhat bureaucratic mechanism in the United States which makes it possible for the will of the people, the majority to be subverted. " I don't believe this is necessarily a bad thing. I think for a claim that it is bad to be substantiated, my opponent would have to show that the government is, primarily, supposed to reflect the will of the people. My opponent has not, so far, shown why it is a bad thing. "It was believed then that a popular vote for president would be nothing more than mob rule. " I agree. This was one of the Founding Fathers' greatest fearï¿½€"tyranny of the majority. "Today, however, popular votes for president are presciely what occur. " My opponent argues that the electoral college has become "superfluous. " He implies that the majority decides the election anyway. However, this is in direct contradiction to what he has said and what he says next: "As previously stated, the electoral college is outdated and makes it possible to subvert the will of the people. I have provided examples of where this has happened and where it has almost happened (1):" My opponent argues that the electoral college subverts the will of the majority, which he has not shown is a bad thing. However, he also contradicts himself and says that the electoral college is superfluous and that the popular vote, the will of the majority, essentially prevails anyway. It does not seem to me that my opponent has really presented a case so far. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Electoral College should be abolished

Electoral College- see scource (1) Abolished- To do away with wholly; to annul; to make void; to end a law, system, custom or institution The United States is a republic. By this I mean that we generally elect our government officials--our lawmakers and executives. The nation was founded with the belief that the common man ought to have some say in his who leads his government, so that there not be 'taxation without representation' (although at the time, only white landowning males may have qualified as common men). Over the course of time, we have expanded the width and breadth of our democracy with the passage of the 15th, 17th, 19th, and 26th amendments. We have done so with the belief that all people should have a say in the leaders of their country; the belief that leadership in our nation ought to reflect the will of people. And, to a large extent, we have been succesful in securing the blessings of democracy and the republican form of government for our citizens. Unfortunatly, democracy has not always been triumphant. There is a now somewhat bureaucratic mechanism in the United States which makes it possible for the will of the people, the majority to be subverted. It is a mechanism that allows people to have their voice heard at the polls, only to have a candidate rejected by the majority leading the nation. This mechanism is the Electoral College. Have no doubt, the Electoral College was created with the best of intentions. The electoral college was created to provide states with a way to have a say in presidential elections. It was also a compromise between those who wanted congress to elect the cheif executive and those who wanted the cheif executive elected by popular vote. It was believed then that a popular vote for president would be nothing more than mob rule. Today, however, popular votes for president are presciely what occur. The electors usually just vote the way that their state population desires that they vote. The founders' point about mob rule is now entirely superflous. The electoral college does not do much do protect states themselves either, as it is ultimatly the population of the state, not the state electors, that determine the president. As previously stated, the electoral college is outdated and makes it possible to subvert the will of the people. I have provided examples of where this has happened and where it has almost happened (1): 1876 1888 2000 (of course) 2004 (had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won without the popular vote) I am sure that I will be doing a lot of elaborating soon. I look forward to a good debate. Thank you Sources: (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)