BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mormons are Christians

My opponent is attempting to re-define Christianity using an online dictionary. Not that I disrespect using dictionaries to define a topic as that is there purpose. However, when the word Christianity is so pertinent to the topic of the debate, I believe that one should logically back up the definition. Furthermore, I made a logical argument for my definition. That argument must be rebutted. It cannot be wholly ignored as my opponent has ignored it. I derived my definition of Christianity from pure logic. I have shown how the addition or subtraction of a book makes a completely different religion. In this instance an online dictionary reference is insufficient enough to prove your claim. Logic must also be applied and in this instance rebutted if you are to succeed in proving your resolution." I am not attempting to redefine Christianity, and your specific statement that I'm "attempting to re-define Christianity using an online dictionary." is absurd. The dictionary defines what something is, and one of the ways that the dictionary defines Christians is "7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity." In fact this is such an inherently important definition that it says at the end that it is the adherent of Christianity. On top of this I see nowhere that a Christian has to believe in the bible. To be Christian one has t believe in Jesus Christ. Now let me offer up some of the logic that you are asking for. First off before the Bible as we know it today was put together after having been written for hundreds of years. People were calling themselves Christian because they believed in Christ. Now lets look at the actually word. C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. Here are the 2 parts of the word. "Christ" and "ian." The Christ part refers to Jesus Christ. The second part "ian". Below is what "ian." means. (below that is the link) -ian suff. 1. Of, relating to, or resembling: Bostonian. 2. One relating to, belonging to, or resembling: academician. So putting "Christ" and "Ian" together means Of, relating to, or resembling (or) One relating to, belonging to, or resembling to Christ. http://dictionary.reference.com... My point with this is that nowhere does it talk about the bible in the definition or in the broken-down meaning of the word. CONCLUSION To be Christian one must try to be like to him as shown in my breakdown of the word. Taking that literally one who does not believe he was Jehovah could still be Christian if he or she tried to be like Christ. However Christ has a religious sect called Christianity and today being Christian refers to believing in Christ. With both of these in mind Mormons are Christian because we believe in Christ as Jehovah and our religious group is focused around tying to become like him. So with all this in mind Mormons are Christian.
Mormons are Christians

First off I have no idea where you got your definition of Christian but I will tell you my definition as well as cite the source. (the noun not adjective) –noun 7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. 8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian. 9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren. 10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. 11. a male given name. http://dictionary.reference.com... now, these are all the multiple definitions of what a Christian is. Lets take a look at number seven shall we. It says that a Christian is "a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity." the adherent of Christianity basically means that it is the ultimate requirement. Now as for your scriptural reference which holds up a lot of your argument aimed specifically against the Book of Mormon. There are 2 ways we can take this that I would like to explore. 1)We can take this literally and throw out the rest of the bible because the books in the bible were written separately over hundreds of years and put together with the creed of Nicaea. 2)We can take it to mean specifically the book of Revelation in which case the Book of Mormon does not interfere with the mentioned scripture. So based on the actual definition of what being Christian is as well as my rebuttal of my opponents irrelevant attack against the Book of Mormon I would say that Mormons are in fact Christians.
Mormons are Christians

===> D E F I N I T I O N S <=== For clarity let me pose the following definitions: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - Christians - Those who believe Jesus is the Christ (God's son) and follow only one religious text as the Bible. No other religious text besides the bible influences their beliefs in what is and isn't sin or on what is or isn't God. Mormons - Those who believe Jesus is the Christ (God's son) and follow both the Bible and the book of Mormon. No other religious text besides the bible and the book of mormon influences their beliefs in what is and isn't sin or on what is or isn't God. Catholics - Those who believe Jesus is the Christ (God's son) and follow only one religious text as the Bible. No other religious text besides the bible influences their beliefs in what is and isn't sin or on what is or isn't God. Protestants - Those who believe Jesus is the Christ (God's son) and follow only one religious text as the Bible. No other religious text besides the bible influences their beliefs in what is and isn't sin or on what is or isn't God. ===> A R G U M E N T -- A G A I N S T -- R E S O L U T I O N <=== Without the Bible there would be no Christianity, Catholic or Protestant. Thus from this analysis one can logically conclude that the text from the bible determines sin/religion. --Logical Premise -- Jews = Old Testament only Christians (Catholics + Protestants) = Old Testament + New Testament Muslims =Old Testament + Qua-ran Latter Day Saints (Mormons) = Old Testament + New Testament + Book of Mormon As one can see, to argue that the church of latter day saints are equivocal to Christians would be similar to saying that the Jews are Christians because they share the old testament or that Muslims are Christian because they too share the old testament. Religious text one observes dictates one religion. The requirement to be Christian is to observe only the Old Testament and New Testament, accept Jesus Christ as your savior, and follow his commands. I will leave my opponent with one Bible verse from the very end of the New Testament which I think makes clear Christ's position on the subject. Revelation: 22:18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Bernie Sanders Should be The Democrats Nominee for the Presidency of the United States.

Bernie would be an excellent nominee for the democrats as he speaks for the poor, which is what not a lot of other people do. Wealth gaps are the poison of america as it divides the american people so that some have an easier life and others have a hard life. My dad works 15 hours a day and we are lower-medium class. Some of my friends' parents work 6 hours a day and get hundreds of thousands of dollars a year because they got lucky in business. Bernie believes that things like this should not stand, as they are unfair to Americans. Even Bernie himself is the poorest of the presidential candidates. Republicans and some other democrats believe that poor people have done something wrong in life. That is just a false stereotype. Plenty of rich people have done way worse than many poor people, and the only reason they are poor is because they can't find a perfect job. While capitalism is a good system, it isn't very rational. I'm not saying america needs to be socialist, and I"m not even a socialist, but I am saying that socialism can be better than capitalism. They also believe that 15 dollars an hour is too much, when whats happening right now is rich business owners that oppose Bernie's minimum wage are stuffing their pockets with extra money they earned from the more poor, hardworking people. Most of Bernie's opponents are VERY hypocritical. They are also sometimes stupid, saying that reducing the tax for poorer people will put America in even more debt, when the rich are being taxed higher. The rich will do anything to not be taxed higher, and deep down they know that what Bernie thinks about taxes is right.
On balance government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States

I am sincerely sorry for forfeiting the last round. I was unable to reach a computer while camping. 1. My opponent seems to be avoiding the fact that government needing more money means you have to pay more. You still have to pay more when government labor unions want more. 2. My opponent also seems to be avoiding the fact that no matter how few, government workers slacking off still has a negative effect on the US which is what this debate is all about. My opponent has failed to clearly state how my second point doesn't have a negative effect on the US so therefore my 2nd point still has a negative effect on the US. 3. My opponent fails to realize that employers aren't included in this vote. So they are voting to make the employer treat them better so they are going against they're employers. This makes them feel like it's employees vs. employers which has a negative effect on the US. 4. My opponent fails to say anything about the effect a government worker strike has on you. If the postal service has a strike you won't get any mail at all. Is not receiving any mail even mail that you must get like pensions okay? Of course not! Government employee labor unions may give a slightly higher quality on the US but as my opponent has said we must look from a broader view. From a broader view slightly better education is almost nothing compared to the other horrible effects government employee labor unions have on the US. On balance government employee labor unions DON'T have a positive effect on the US since they support communism, cause high taxes, increase debt, cause distrust, and cause strikes. This is why urge a CON BALLOT.
On balance government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States

thanks for the great debate so far 1. The issue with the tax increase is that our government has many sources to acquire funds. Right now the government's main source of income is borrowing. Also according to the Keynesian theory of economics government spending increases aggregate demand which boosts the economy. 2. Obviously with any scenario there will be imperfections, and the same is true with unions. However the resolution does state on balance so as my opponent states "a few bad apples" do not disturb the balance. In fact quite the contrary is true. Public sector labor unions provide services to the American people. Remember were talking about policemen fire fighters and teachers. 3. For the point of pitting employees and employers we have to look to the nature of unions and why they are a great thing. Public sector unions are one of the many small hands that can push big brother around. I go back to the fact that unions facilitate the democratic process. When two groups have friction and they use voting and democracy to solve these issues that is obviously a good thing. This in no way calls for any distrust between the two. 4. The very reason these people go on strike is because they are not getting these benefits. They are being treated unfairly and thus they go on strike. However I did look into this and according to the federal employee act of 02 federal employees cannot go on strike. The AFT confirms this stating that teachers who strike are not part of the union and they risk being fired. With that I move on to state some summary arguments What you have to do when casting your vote is look at the on balance effects. A million dollar increase is not a momentum swing. When a broader view is taken one million dollars is a minuscule number compared to the overall budget less than a 1% increase. Also it is not accurate to say if you aren't in a union you are not cared about. These benefits I have discussed that Unions get passed benefit all workers such as minimum wage OSHA FMLA FSLA so again the benefits are on balance. Lastly Unions benefit education. This point is one my opponent failed to refute. Strong teacher unions birth better education systems. It is no coincidence that the states with the highest public unionization also have the best schools. So for today's debate you must look at an on balance effect and when you do that you can surely see that on the Pro side the on balance approach has been taken. My opponent however has failed to do so.
On balance government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States

Thanks for posting. I now block my opponents rebuttals. 1. My opponent has stated "public sector unions truly have no effect on tax increases" could that be more untrue. My opponent obviously needs to check his facts. Of course government labor unions increase or taxes! Where else would the government get the extra money labor unions make the government pay it's workers!? My opponent's rebuttal is incorrect and only hurt themselves. 2. My opponent stated "Workers taking advantage, this is simply untrue". Workers taking advantage is simply true.There are thousands of unionized government workers so "there are always a few bad apples" meaning some of them are not working as hard as they should so therefore they are taking advantage of their high pay checks. Sometimes government transportation security officers (the people who are supposed to make sure your not carrying bombs onto the plane) don't correctly check people creating a safety hazard therefore having a negative impact on the US according to the Washington Post. 3. I don't really see how my opponents rebuttal against my distrust point proves unions don't cause distrust. Unions pit employees against employers causing distrust. 4. My opponent stated that unions causing strikes is "good thing for the U.S.", you see if you agree with that after not getting your pensions, welfare checks, or any sort of mail! Now I will rebuttal my opponent's blocks. My opponent has stated "yes but are we really concerned with a million dollar decrease" of course we are! We are already over 3 trillion dollars in debt! Unions steal jobs from private sectors to public sectors which supports communism since communism is things being run by the government. My opponent has stated "All unions do is prevent unreasonable and discriminatory actions against employees" this is oh so false. There are two things false about that. First, Unions make employers pay employees more than they should get. Second, they only help unionized workers, they don't care about you unless you're in the union. SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com... Unless you want high taxes, communism, more debt, distrust, and strikes VOTE CON! Government employee labor unions don't have a positive effect on the US since they support communism, cause high taxes, increase debt, cause distrust, and cause strikes, so I URGE A CON BALLOT!
On balance government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States

Now I will state my points. 1. Taxes increase – Many people are already having trouble paying taxes but if labor unions force the government to make wages higher, taxes will get raised even more, which lessens government budget so the government can't do what it needs to do 2. Workers will take advantage- Workers will abuse their ability to not get fired and slack off and do other bad things knowing they won't get fired: union teacher has do something like murder a student to get fired, unions make it so they have the power not employers 3. Causes distrust- unions make employees go against employers which is counterproductive to working together, unions give an "us versus them" mentality 4. Unions cause strikes- when unions don't get what they want they cause strikes, strikes are a great harm to the economy which is already in bad shape, the US postal strike of 1970 disrupted delivery of pension and welfare checks, tax refunds, census forms, and draft notices eventually the armed forces had to deliver mail that must not be repeated but if postal unions don't get what they want it might Now I will rebuttal my opponent. Although unions do help give people a bitter bigger pay checks that also means you get more trouble paying your taxes. "while these unions might cut down on profits they have no damaging effects" my opponent admits that unions cut down on profits and in reality unions cut down on on budgets a lot which has a negative impact on the united states. Unions are not good in a democratic way. First of all not everyone always has a say sometimes only the union leader has a say. Second union do political lobbying saying "do this and we won't strike" and political lobbying has a negative effect on the US. Third government employee labor unions leech jobs and competition and success from private corporations. Things being run by the government is communism and communism has a negative impact on the US. Unions made people work less hard since they will still have a good pay check no matter what. Also it is nearly impossible to fire unionized teachers that are doing a bad job and need to be fired. Public school teacher unions are some of the most corrupt unions out there. They actually decrease our quality education. Government employee labor unions don't have a positive effect on the US since they increase taxes,make workers take advantage, cause distrust, cause strikes, lower budgets, cause corruption, and decrease our quality education. This is why I urge a con ballot.
On balance government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States

I stand in affirmation of this resolution for some key reasons. First, Public sector unions benefit workers Unionization across the board is beneficial to workers that join them. Particularly in the Public sector, employees are given health insurance, pension plans, higher wages and job security. This in turn raises incentives for those in the labor force to get a job and work. Those workers who are unionized earn on average 30% more than workers who are not unionized. Also many studies have been conducted on the damages of unions to the economy or to companies in general, and the Economic Policy Institute finds that while these unions might cut down on profits they have no damaging effects. Considering the jobs that exist in the public sector, teachers, firemen, postal workers, and policemen to name a few, and the nature of their work the benefits they receive do not seem so outrageous. In fact we are rewarding these people for completing public services. Second, Unions facilitate the democratic process In the United States our core value is democracy and that every individual has a voice. When we look to the nature of unions one can see that they only further the democratic agenda of this nation. These unions allow for a collective voice of workers to be heard in large corporations, and in the public sector, our government. In an analysis done by the University of California Berkeley on the effectiveness of unions, the conclusion reached was unions close the gap between wage and profit. According to head professor of Education unions have pushed forth several key pieces of legislation that have bettered the labor situation of all Americans. Key examples include,OSHA, FMLA, and FLSA. They have added to the democracy and utilized that process to pass employee protections. Thus they are a positive impact. Third, Public sector unions benefit education. Considering that one of the largest government employee labor unions is the American Federation of Teachers it is only naturally that they would have an impact on education. This is duly noted by the CATO institute in a systematic study of teachers unions ad the effects on education. The study takes a look at the strength of each states teachers unions and the quality of education in those states. the interesting facts derived from this study were that in states such as New York ad Rhode Island where unionization rates were substantially larger the quality of education was also much better. This is directly linked to the incentives unionization provides for teachers, when wages are higher and there are more benefits obviously the job gets done better. When we compare unionization rates in New Jersey 66% to that of Georgia 10%, and then look at each states drop out rates we can see the effects of strong teacher unions. 10.8% drop out rate in New Jersey and 22.1% in Georgia. Thus these Unions have a positive impact.
third wave feminists have no point

I'm going to start with wage gap. I think you misunderstood what I said about the wage gap. You say "The reason why companies hire men is not because they make more as individuals, but as a gender." Now, I never said anything about men making more money for the company and being more fruitful. This isn't true. What I did say was this: ON AVERAGE, men tend to earn more than women. Earning: How much money you make in your lifetime. Wage: How much money you make per hour, month, or year. Did I make that clear? Men and women have the same wage, just that men tend to earn more because they retire later and work longer hours than women. The infamous "80 cents per dollar" is comparing earnings rather than wage. http://www.forbes.com... This has nothing to do with companies hiring men. In fact, women have a GREATER chance of being hired by companies, specifically 3 to 1, because companies get tax breaks if they have specific amounts of girl employees. In other words, a company may hire a woman less experienced than a man solely because of her gender. Gender equality, eh? Now, on to jobs, specifically political jobs. I would quickly like to point out that low-class jobs such as construction, janitorial, and services all have more men doing the hard work. But we can overlook that, can't we? Presidents in America have always been a touchy subject because we haven't had a good one in a while. It isn't that society thinks girls can't become president, it's that a hopeful female just hasn't come along. In fact, society would be glad to introduce a female president! Take Hillary Clinton. Whether or not she is going to be a good president is uncertain, but many of her die-hard followers do so only because she is a woman. Now voting and jobs are two totally different things. Comparing when women started voting to their jobs isn't correct; apples to oranges. Aaaaand no more characters.