BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus never states he is God.

Greetings. My argument is stated in the title: Jesus never claims to be God. Although this sentence might seem easy to debunk, the paragraphs my opponent chooses to quote as to prove me wrong can easily be understood in other ways. Let me demonstrate: (After being asked to show the face of God) (John 14:9) Jesus answered: "Don"t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, "Show us the Father"? Now, this might seem as Jesus referring to himself as God, but upon greater inspection, it seems more logical that Jesus means that God is happiness, and thus when one sees Jesus, God is also seen. I would like this statement to be debunked.
It is important for students K-12 to learn a foreign language

While you may be correct about some children not being able to learn or retain the language when they are learning it, I believe that learning it when you are younger could have a big benefit and would be a lot easier since I referenced that the child's mind is like a sponge. I'm going to give you an example: my Foundations of Education teacher taught one of his daughters where all of the states are located on the map, how to count, how to spell, how to use more difficult words and learn Spanish. He also told us that the child's mind is like a sponge, they absorb everything that they hear and they are better at memorizing things and retaining it. Now it might not be like this with every child, but the majority of them are as far as I know. Learning another language might also be difficult and take time, but like I said there are definitely benefits. You'll will learn a lot about the different cultures. Some children are very naive when it comes to things like this, they don't like to expand their horizons because they don't think they need to. People who know culture are people with great knowledge and know their way around life. If you learn another language, this will permit you to be able to travel more and you will know the world better. Not that you can't travel without learning a new language, it just gives you a little more insight about the world around you. You would discover so much if you learned a new language. Not only will you be open to more cultures, but you would be able to meet thousands and thousands of people thanks to the extra language you learned. It could change your life. Another reason is that it will develop your mind. By learning you are exercising your brain, and so that means you should be able to take in new information (whatever language you are learning) and memorize it by doing simple exercises. When you learn a new language, you are able to put verbs and words together. You said that forcing American children to learn another language to cater to another culture is absurd and you also said that if you come to live in America and you are from a Spanish speaking country you should know English. Well like you said in your first paragraph, not everyone is good at learning a foreign language. Citizens in Spanish speaking countries don't know English, it's considered for them a foreign language because they don't know it. If someone in a Spanish speaking country comes here to America, what happens if they can't learn English because it's too hard for them? It may take them a little while to learn it but that's ok because at least they are understanding how Americans speak to one another. Like I said before, it's good to know a second language because you get more job opportunities, and now a days that is what people of American are looking for, jobs to make money. We have so much unemployment in the U.S right now, it has rose to about 7.3 percent in the last year. People will do whatever they can to get a job, and some jibs require the knowledge of a second language.
It is important for students K-12 to learn a foreign language

Thank you for instigating this debate. Best of luck to you! Indeed, a child's brain is comparable to a sponge, but Sponge A may not function as well as Sponge B. Learning a foreign language requires a certain aptitude, and not all of us possess said aptitude. To draw from a personal example: I took two years of Spanish when I was in high school, but cannot form a coherent sentence. In the same way not everyone is good at writing essays or doing math, not everyone is good at learning a foreign language. Forcing American children to learn another language, specifically Spanish, to cater to another culture is absurd. If you go to live in France, you should speak French. If you go to live in Japan, you should speak Japanese. If you come to live in America, you should speak English. Period. Americans should not have to learn Spanish to make things easier on people who have yet to master the language. It encourages these people not to learn how to speak English. If you travel to another country, of course, you should have some basic idea of the language; this, however, can be achieved without formal classes. Another issue is dialects. A foreign language class may teach students the formal version of a language, but there are countless other variants of the exact same language. For instance, the Spanish spoken in Mexico is different from the Spanish spoken in Spain. A middle school foreign language class would be so incredibly watered-down, it would be almost useless. The children are too young to fully grasp any useful concept when learning a new language, a task that is very difficult. To draw from my personal example once again, taking classes in a language does not necessarily mean you will be fluent, or able to communicate with a native speaker even halfway decently. Two years of a language in high school is the maximum, you suggest. In my two years of Spanish, I learned to count to twenty, name the colors, and how to say 'I am thirsty'. Part of this is the fact that, in two years, we did not delve into all of the different tenses, ways to form sentences, words for every day things, et cetera, et cetera; the other part of this is the fact that I did not retain any of it. Even if this proposed standard was raised to four years, there is no guarantee one would be able to communicate in a remotely coherent fashion, or understand a native speaker when they are talking.
It is important for students K-12 to learn a foreign language

I believe that it's is important for students K-12 to learn a foreign language. Now I don't mean necessarily as young as pre-school children, but maybe start as old as Middle school and then again in High school. Some parents teach their kids young, since the child's brain is like a sponge, it will absorb everything that they hear. Young children can learn, take in and remember a lot of information so that is why parents teach them at a young age. In Middle school, you should have to take minimum of 2 years of a language whether it's German, French, Spanish, etc. Also when they get to High school, they should have to take the maximum of 2 years a language, since you already have to take one year of language to graduate. Learning a language can be very important in many ways. You have many cultures in the U.S, many of which speak Spanish. Some Spanish people don't really know much English, so if you need to communicate with them, it would be good to know Spanish. Also if you're going to travel to another country, for example a Spanish speaking country, you should probably learn Spanish because there is no doubt in my mind that most of the people won't know proper English. Another reason why learning a language is important because if you are applying for a world wide job or just a job in general. Most of the time, they would like you to be able to speak another language besides English so that if a customer comes in, you would be able to talk with them and have no trouble with it.
It is important for students K-12 to learn a foreign language

*Some* students are good at learning foreign languages. Not *all* students. If *some* students were good at calculus, would we mandate calculus as a graduation requirement for *all* students? Bilingualism is not without its benefits, but these cognitive advantages are not exclusive to bilingualism. For instance, one can become better at multitasking by simply working on related tasks together, keeping a to-do list visible, and using downtime to review information.[1] Doing these things over time can train the brain to be better at multitasking. One argument is that it improves your memory. Playing an instrument improves memory,[2] and would be a different way to achieve the exact same benefit. While the benefits of learning bilingualism certainly exist, there are different ways to gain the same benefits, and these ways are arguably simpler and more enjoyable than the learning of a second language. One advantage you state is that you become "smarter". While, as I said, not without some benefits, bilingualism does not directly correlate to a higher IQ.[3] Foreign languages are also easily forgotten if not put into practice. I myself never once spoke Spanish after I finished my classes--I never had the opportunity to hone these skills. Such opportunities would be even harder to come by if a student learned a less common language, like French or German. It is also suggested that the quicker a language is learned, the quicker it can be forgotten.[4] Given the limited time in a school year and the break-neck pace at which classes are taught, we can presume it would be very easy for a student to forget the language they were learning. An issue that cannot be stressed enough is the simple fact that some children do not possess the aptitude or desire to learn a second language, and therefore, making it a requirement to take a foreign language class in school is unfair. It is extra work that not each student wants to put in. From personal experience, I can say mastering a second language is a very difficult and time-consuming task, and one that does not always pan out. It is best to allow students to decide for themselves if they would like to take a foreign language class. Sources [1] http://m.entrepreneur.com... [2] http://www.effectivemusicteaching.com... [3] http://wisciblog.com... [4] http://www.fluentin3months.com...
It is important for students K-12 to learn a foreign language

So what you're saying is that if children learn two different languages that they are going to be slower at learning vocabulary and could give them an accent which causes misunderstandings? I don't think that would always be the case though in my perspective. Honestly there are kids that are quite smart and learn even more than two languages and have the ability to keep up with tough vocabulary and vocabulary in general. There have been studies that have found that speaking two or more languages is a great asset to the cognitive process. Yes the brains of bilingual people operate differently than single language speakers, but they give mental benefits. If you don't study the language all the time, then your obviously not going to remember what you have learned. Some advantages are that you become smarter. Speaking another language improves the functionality of your brain by challenging it to recognize, negotiate the meanings, and communicate in different language systems. This skill boosts those abilities. Another advantage is that you build multitasking skills. Multilingual people, especially children, are skilled at switching between two systems of speech, writing and structure. There was a study done at the Pennsylvania State University, this "juggling" skill makes them good multitaskers, because they can easily switch different structures. In one of the studies, participants used a diving simulator while doing separate, distracting tasks at the same time. The research that was found was that people who spoke more than one language made fewer errors in the diving attempt. Another advantage is that your memory improves. Educators often liken the brain to a muscle, because it usually functions better with exercise. Studies show that people that speak more than one language are better at retaining shopping lists, names, and directions. Another advantage is that you become more perceptive. [1]There are many more advantages that I could go through but that would take a while. Sources[1] www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10126883/Why-learn-a-foreign-language-Benefits-of-bilingualism.html
Minecraft vs COD

May the best debater win. Since Pro did not specify the form of the debate, I will repute his statement. Debate: Minecraft (Pro) vs. Call of Duty (COD) (Con) Pro claims that Minecraft has has mods and Call of Duty doesn't. This is clearly wrong as if one just puts in a simple Google search, they will immediately find a website with mods for COD. I look forward to Pros rebuttal.
Minecraft vs COD

I think minecraft is better than call of duty.COD is not what i like. lol lol Minecraft has mods. COD does not have mods. DanTDM and a lot of people play Minecraft. It is the best. call of duty is so LOL lol lo lo l l lo l l o. Black and Yellow. lol lol lolol lo lo l o lo l o l l l lo l l l l l l ol l l o lo l o l l o l l l ll ll l l o l ol o l o l o l ol o l l lo l l l l.Minecraft yay. lol o l ol o l o lo l o l ol o l o l l l o l l o l o lo l olol l l o lo l l o l o l o l o l lo l minecraft yay
Gun Control

First I must ask if you are going to forfeit every round because if so I will just exit the debate. But if it was just this once I will continue so now I shall begin my argument. Gun control is not exactly the thing to do to stop criminals and gun violence. Because of criminals and illegal markets and gun smuggling criminals have al kinds of illegal weapons. When will the government start thinking about these things? Firearms for law abiding private citizens should be completely legal. Although is gun control even in the question in the first place? According to the amendments and the bill or rights, it is not. Keeping our firearms is an entitled right. Also why do people blame the guns? why it is said "guns kill people" which is completely impossible unless a gun formed a mind of its own and the ability to load and fire itself It is the misuse of firearms by people that kills people. So I propose cracking down on criminal violence and illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun markets would solve the problem much better than a gun control law.
Ebola is a rising crisis.

Unlike the Black Death, Ebola can only spread through fluids. Even then, patients are not contagious until symptoms appear. This makes its spread incredibly slow when compared to other diseases, and is typically only spread when a doctor comes in direct contact with a patient. True, it poses more of a threat in the less developed West Africa. But still, Ebola's death rate in Africa is much less than other diseases- malaria has killed 70 times more in this year [1]. With enough external aid and education, it is even possible to destroy it- 3 nations globally have eradicated it, and only 3 nations currently have outbreaks. Thus, Ebola may be dangerous, but it is not infectious enough to be considered a rising crisis. [1]tinyurl.com/mzvk3uu
Ebola is a rising crisis.

Ebola is described as an 'often fatal illness' by WHO, or the 'World Health Organisation'. The case fatality rate of this particular outbreak is believed to be approximately 50%. Originally, Ebola struck as a outbreak in, or near remote villages located inside of Africa. However, during the past few months, the more recent outbreak has spread to more developed urban areas, including the United Stares Of America, as well as many rural areas. Ebola is most definitely a rising crisis, and may even become as severe as 'The Black Death', which took the lives of an estimated 75 to 200 million people in the years 1346-1353, mainly in Europe, and which was also described by Wikipedia as "...one of the most devastating pandemics in human history".
Abortion is not a woman's right

I accept and I agree to all my opponent's terms. I believe abortion is a woman's right, and that a woman has the choice to make when it comes to her own child/fetus/embryo. I would like to introduce a term autonomy. This is considered a human right. Bodily autonomy has control over what or who uses their body or body parts for as long as that being decides to do so without the person's continuous consent to do so, which, although a fetus does not choose to terminate the use of the mother's body, similar principles apply, as it is still using the mother's body/body parts to remain alive. No living being has right to someone else's body. They can only use it with permission. A right is when someone deserves what they are using/doing. Permission is when someone allows you to do so. A right is being violated when a mother does not grant the fetus permission to use her body. Autonomy is why no one is allowed to touch, have sex, or use your body without that person's continuous consent. This is why necrophilia is illegal, and why no one can take your organs without your permission after you die. Even if you are dead, and your organs and blood can save or improve 20 other people's lives, no one can take anything from your body without your consent prior to your death, even if a family member says it's okay. A fetus is equal in this concept, because if you or I needed someone else's body to live, they can deny us, and we would have to live with that. If a fetus is equal to us in terms of natural born rights, and the mother of that fetus is equal to us in terms of natural born rights, then that means a mother can deny a fetus a right to it's body. If you deny a woman abortion, thus denying a human right of denying someone the use of your body, you are granting a dead person more rights than a pregnant mother because, as previously mentioned, a dead person can deny someone the permission to use their body parts. Now, this is sometimes the point in a debate (I don't expect this argument from my opponent) is when someone says 'well because the mother agreed to have unprotected sex (which isn't always true), then she should be responsible for her actions. That's saying that it is not okay for me to sign up for a blood drive, then change my mind about it. It is perfectly okay for me to sign up for the blood drive, and then change my mind about it, regardless of the reason. I have not argued any of my opponent's points, as I am saving rebuttals for a later round because this is a five round debate
Abortion is not a woman's right

I will start out by defining my terms. Abortion: Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion Right: a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral. http://dictionary.reference.com... Next I'll state my contentions: 1. A fetus/embryo is a life. Life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. Abortion is not a right. It's an infringement upon rights. An abortion should not be considered the right of a woman because it infringes upon the rights of that fetus. All humans have rights. A fetus/embryo is a baby human. Where one person's rights end another begins. 3. Our definitions of life tend to vary to make us not feel bad about our bad decisions. Humans use this thing called excuses. We skew definitions, we bend the truth, we reason out our mistakes to bring peace to our minds and hearts. On this certain topic we vary the definition of life. 4. If we were to find the tiniest cell on another planet we would be jumping at calling it "life on another planet". If we finally were able to come in contact with it no one would be allowed to kill it because it would be considered "precious life". Same with the scientists who are working so hard to "recreate life" or "clone life". If they were to succeed at making a living organism they wouldn't want someone to come in and crush that life or kill it. It's precious. It's alive. These are my main 4 points. I am not bringing in religion, morals, or any other element that could change the pace of this debate. I'm using scientific meanings and definitions.
Abortion is not a woman's right

I respect your response. It is well thought out and reasonable. You are correct. An embryo/fetus has to have a host body to be able to survive. You did a simple pre-assumption that I would argue back with the unprotected sex point. In a sense I would. When it comes to blindly or ignorantly participating in sex that is permission being given. Although, not every case is consented. Instances with rape victims would defy this completely. Does this give them the right to abort/kill a baby? No. Your example of the blood drive is actually a very inaccurate comparison. If you sign up for a blood drive and then change your mind no life has been taken away. In fact nothing has changed. When you become pregnant and then decide you don't want the baby anymore you must take a life. Your comparison to a dead organ donor is also inaccurate. In this sense, the donor has no obligation whatsoever to remove their own body parts in attempt to replace another's. With a fetus, they are not taking any parts away from a mother/host body. There is nothing being removed from them. i.e. heart, lung, liver, etc. They are a completely new being. To say that a woman has a right to an abortion is justifying her right to take a life. It is justifying murder.
Resolved: The United States federal government shall substantially increase it's funding for astriod

The full resolution is the fallowing: Resolved: The United States federal government shall substantially increase it's funding for astriod mining.RulesNo trolling.No Forfeiture.Try to keep swearing to a minimum.The BOP is shared.No Sentiments1st round is acceptance and definitions as seen fit by the debators.DefinitionsAstriod- small body from 480 miles to .5 miles in diameter. http://dictionary.reference.com...Substantially- an ample or conciderable amount. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Resolved: The United States federal government shall substantially increase it's funding for astriod

Technonolgy.NASA actually does things like this all the time! They repare their own machines in space with other machines. http://www.smh.com.au... as I stated last round NASA will be doing this by machine which takes out the air factor. Secondly NASA takes on missions like this all the time when they go out and they do things like the Mars Rover, the Hubble telescope and even all the other satelite mission in place like the New Horizons mission. All of these are currently going on and are ran by who I might ask? NASA!US EconomyMy friend this is an advantage in the debate round which means that this is one of the reasons that Astriod mining is a good thing. Secondly, the US does not and will not take out China physically because China and the US are to close together economicly and if one goes down then so does the world economy, so by doing this you can see that the US could ultamately boost the world economy!ArmaggedonAs I stated in Round 2 that it's simply the lack of resources will lead to a thermo nuclear war, thus leading to armaggedon.Thank you for the debate and please vote Pro!FuelFor fuel we do not have to use focil fuels because we couldn't get too far but we will use like NASA has always used and that is solar sails and that gets us to were we need to go. http://www.nasa.gov...