BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus never claimed to be God.

I made this debate five rounds with the maximum word count and maximum time period for each round because it is not a light subject and we can easily spend each and every round debating the fact that there is no evidence in any of the Gospels of Jesus claiming to be God. You mentioned in the comments box that Jesus stated that he was God when he apparently said 'I am' and that when he was on trial he did not deny that he was God. Firstly these are two separate occasions that you are referring to. Let me explain the first point. What God said to Abraham in Exodus 3:14 was 'I am what I am'. What Jesus said to the scribes who sought to kill him in John 8:58 was 'before Abraham was I am' then he turned around and ran away because they were throwing stones at him in order to kill him. Clearly he was interrupted and did not finish his sentence to avoid being stoned to death. Now some say that it is a mistranslation and that a more honest one would be that Jesus said 'before Abraham was I was. In this case he is simply saying that he existed before Abraham. If however we are to assume that it is the correct translation and that when Jesus said 'I am' he meant 'God' then he is still not claiming to be God because the sentence reads, 'before Abraham was, God. If John 8:58 read that Jesus said 'before Abraham was, I am I am' then it could possibly read that he is actually claiming to be God but it does not and therefore he did not claim to be God. The trial that you confused Jesus' 'I am' statement with is that of Joseph Caiaphas trying to find something, anything that he could accuse Jesus of in order to kill him. He never accused Jesus of being God and Jesus did not state that he was. In the comments you also stated that you have recently become a Christian. It's wonderful to hear that you found Christ, I'm pleased for you. Hopefully this debate will give you the opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the Gospels and what Jesus taught. The more you read the Bible the more you'll discover that Jesus did not claim to be God and gave us strict instructions to only worship our heavenly Father. Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: (Mark 12:28-32)
You should be allowed to type the way that feels most comfortable to you

Typing classes generally teach hand positions and key strikes that are efficient for an average person. Of course, everyone has individual tendencies that differ from this "average," which they usually iron out on their own. For a class to identify and then address slight differences between many students in terms of natural positions and comfort would cost an extraordinary amount of time. If you create fast typists efficiently, they will modify their own technique to feel natural.
You should be allowed to type the way that feels most comfortable to you

Typing classes never individualize, that is, the teachers always teach according to the curriculum and never ask or teach the way that feels comfortable to the individual. For example, I was taught to type the letter c with my middle finger, which felt very uncomfortable. I now use my pointer finger and I can key it faster and more accurately then I could before. People with long fingers have trouble typing some characters and so do people with small hands, so I think that typing classes should be taught to help individuals and not to people in general.
It's okay for men to cheat but not women

Con has a completely opposite view, this debate should be interesting. In an ideal world a man meets a woman, they both fall in love and thus never need anyone else (other than friends and family). However we live in a world full of feminists and feminist supporters i.e. hate filled people who waste men's time seeking low goals. My argument is split into two parts 1. It is okay for men to cheat 2. It is not okay for women to cheat. 1. Women who cheat are scumbags, whores, or whatever name you want to call them. They certainly are not worthy of respect because they abuse their power - it doesn't matter if a woman is fat, shy, or horrible she can have sex with pretty much any guy she likes within 5 minutes, it requires her zero effort. So, when women cheat they want to hurt their boyfriend maybe not right away but at least when they are dumped, and they obviously do not care about having a relationship with the other guy otherwise they'd end the relationship first instead of cheating. Men who cheat might not have such opportunity again. There is pressure on men to be good at sex because they might not want to lose their girlfriend and they may just want to please her. Other guys can respect a man who cheats, and that's not because they hate women. 2. In an ideal world of course it would be best for men to end a relationship before starting a new one, and find a woman they love and want to spend their life with. Unfortunately, when a man does end a relationship because he doesn't feel it is working, women make that man feel socially low value, they say things like "all the good guys are taken, there is a reason why men are single and nobody wants them". Women actually believe a man who cheats is better than one who doesn't since a man who cheats must have something good going for them. Men feel degraded by being single, and not just by women either. When a man is in a failing relationship and a once in a lifetime opportunity exists, should he take it and potentially be happy forever? Or should he miss out, try but fail at breaking up gently, and then feel like rubbish for doing the right thing according to women. It is difficult for men to end a relationship for many reasons, one is that they are ending a friendship too. A lot of men feel they have to tell women they are gay or something similar as it tends to work out better if a woman loses interest in them opposed to themself losing interest. Ending a relationship by cheating on a woman is far less painful for a woman than ending it due to not seeing a future together as a result of lacking strength to cope with her depression etc. Cheating makes it much easier for a woman to move on, meaning she is likelier to be a friend, and creates a greater chance of being back together when things do change, because cheating is only a mistake. I look forward to Con's argument
It's okay for men to cheat but not women

Conclusion I am very disappointed with my opponent from the beginning to the end. Not only has she been rude she has put no effort into this debate. I made it clear that Con should only accept if they have an argument. This is why I have not bothered to use sources or go into the amount of depth I initially wanted to. Let's examine what Con's main arguments are: 1. It is not okay for men to cheat because men can't love more than one person at the same time - I proved women who cheat can't love someone either. None of her comments challenged my reasons for why it is okay for men to cheat. Does she think a man is supposed to know who he loves and not try to find this out? A man should not care about the feelings of a woman he does not or no longer loves. When men cheat it is not because they intend to hurt a woman, they wanted the relationship to work, the reason he cheated is down to whether she is worthy of his loyalty! There is pressure on men to meet women's emotional needs i. e. make them happy (be good in bed), so men will practice with other women, thus relationships can work if men cheat. Men should not miss an opportunity to be happy, it may be the last time. Why should men try their best to break up softly and feel rubbish for doing so? It is different for women because they can form a relationship with anyone they choose in minutes. Con says I have said "cheating is a mistake" and claims I have not explained why it is still okay to cheat even though I have. I've said in the beginning that an ideal world does not involve cheating, and that we do not live in an ideal world. 2. Con believes it is okay for women to cheat if a man doesn't meet her emotional needs - I proved this to be a stupid excuse for cheating, why not just tell the man you chose to be in a relationship with how you feel? Afterall men want a relationship to work, obviously. If women do this then clearly they are not worthy of a man's loyalty. There is probably more points I made but these sum up everything well. I still have no clue how we are supposed to believe what a paid actress says on television to be true. Con accuses me of being sexist which I am not, and thinks she knows my genuine beliefs for some reason. Clearly she deserves to lose points for misconduct. It is clear she has attempted to simplify me, like feminists do to express hatred. I did not discuss BOP because it is just as easy for you as it is for me to prove whether something is acceptable, if you didn't know why not ask rather than try to create a new argument about BOP? Con tries to say at the very last moment that I have the burden of proof and that all she has to do is cast a tiny bit of doubt. This is complete nonsense. In order for Con to win she must put together a stronger argument. It is not a matter of whether I change voters minds like she says.
Do you agree with Venezuela offering deeply discounted heating oil for low income families in the US

I'm hung up on it because he CAN'T arbitrarily do anything about the oil companies. The POTUS doesn't have magical powers or unilateral authority over private enterprise no matter what the product is. What you seem to be wanting would require congressional sanctions in the form of new law that would never pass as it would almost certainly be unconstitutional. What Bush did with OPEC has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. Bush CAN pressure OPEC nations to increase production by various methods. Threat of withholding federal assistance to some of those nations is an option, threat of tariffs on their imports would be another. That's all he's doing, making it clear that if production is continued to be held down to keep oil prices high, the U.S. can and will impose sanctions on those countries wherever possible. It's little more than extortion, but he feels he has to do something to ease the burden on the people of this country and that's the only place he has any leverage to do so. There also isn't an issue of freezing poor people because they can't afford heating oil. At least not to the extent you seem to believe. Certainly not of emergency proportions. Every cold weather state has state government programs and restrictions on power companies to prevent that from happening. It's not a matter of grandma in Vermont sitting in the cold because her S.S. check isn't big enough to pay the heating bills, it's a matter of the populace having fewer disposable dollars because heating prices have risen affecting local economies. Grandma is taken care of by state programs with some federal assistance and laws preventing power companies from cutting service for non-payment in cold weather months. Chavez isn't doing this out of need for humanitarian reasons, he's doing it out of desire for positive P.R. Many communities have completely refused his assistance because of that. As for the strategic reserves, if you want to open the spigots every time we have a cold spell, or gas prices get to high for comfort, there won't BE a strategic reserve available for true emergencies.
Do you agree with Venezuela offering deeply discounted heating oil for low income families in the US

A concession? not hardly. Everything I have said is 100% truthful. Why are you hung up on saying Bush can't do anything regarding the oil companies? I never posed that point. My point is that it is to our SHAME that a government that this administration has labeled as a rogue government steps up to the plate and offers Americans deeply discounted heating oil. My only point? We weren't doing the same. To quote you:"Absolutely I put forth that the administration can NOT exert pressure on ANY industry, particularly the oil industry (which is MOSTLY foreign owned), to make them "do the right thing". It is not the place of the administration to dictate how private companies operate and never should be if we actually value free enterprise." Are you naive? The administration can put pressure on any one and/or any corporation it chooses to. How do you think business gets done in Washington? Yesterday proves my argument. President Bush spoke to OPEC pressuring them to release more oil. And yes despite your argument- He also mentioned the strategic oil reserves-(as poor people without heat IS an emergency) stating it isn't necessary yet to go down that road due to his talks with OPEC. I applaud this As this was my whole argument. So actually Bush himself has concluded this debate I started by addressing my argument directly-therefore proving my argument. He has addressed this issue and is working towards a resolution. My argument was for that. To have OUR COUNTRY respond to the needs of it's own citizens. I never said Bush should kick Venezuela out or interfere with free enterprise. "This isn't a matter of President Bush saying "we don't want or need your stinkin' oil, we'll help our own"- Those are your words, not mine.
Do you agree with Venezuela offering deeply discounted heating oil for low income families in the US

I'm glad you know who Citgo is. At least that way you can voice your concerns the way it SHOULD be, by not using their services. Most people have no clue that Citgo, Inc. is owned by Venezuela and worse, don't care. No, when I say there is nothing our Government can do about Chavez offering cut price or, in some cases, free heating oil I am spot on. The Government CAN'T stop such from happening when it is companies legally operating in the U.S. that are extending this. You keep talking about the strategic oil reserves as if this has ANYTHING to do with Chavez making a political PR move. It doesn't. The purpose of the reserves isn't to fight off jokers like Chavez, it's to support American needs in times of crisis such as depression or war. High heating oil prices in Vermont doesn't fit the crisis model. Absolutely I put forth that the administration can NOT exert pressure on ANY industry, particularly the oil industry (which is MOSTLY foreign owned), to make them "do the right thing". It is not the place of the administration to dictate how private companies operate and never should be if we actually value free enterprise. OUR oil companies? The majority of oil companies are foreign owned. Even the ones with majority American ownership have a large contingent of foreign ownership. Corporations don't operate at the whim of any political force. You also have to understand that the majority of the oil being imported by "our" oil companies ALSO comes from Venezuela. This isn't a matter of President Bush saying "we don't want or need your stinkin' oil, we'll help our own". Even opening the strategic reserves doesn't counteract what Chavez is doing, it's simply responding to it. Bad idea. No way we want to let some dictator determine energy policy in this country. "You have not made a cogent argument for your position." This baffled me. My initial argument was extremely cogent and provided many revelations your original statement didn't seem to address "The defense of any argument is proportional to the truth contained therein." Was this a concession? I mean everything I wrote was 100% truthful.
Do you agree with Venezuela offering deeply discounted heating oil for low income families in the US

Of course I know who Citgo is. When watching TV notice how often Citgo appears on the screen;product placement anyone?. You say there is nothing our government can do about it. That statement is patently false. President Bush just mentioned the oil reserves today;of course something can be done about it. The Administration can make oil available to it's own families in need at deeply discounted prices. Lets remember the elephant in the room. We have Oil. Our government can determine what we do with the oil reserves. Do you mean to put forth that no pressure from our administration would move the oil companies to accept a little less in profits from the many billions they earn? What a PR campaign OUR oil companies and their gas stations such as Mobile and Exxon are missing out on. Our Presidential Candidates do not address this issue at all because as you put forth we dare not insult them while they are supplying oil to our citizenry. That is my point. We can't publicly label them horrible dictators/tyrants while our most vulnerable populations go without heat within the US and the resource available to those with low income?-Venezuela. You have not made a cogent argument for your position. The defense of any argument is proportional to the truth contained therein.
Do you agree with Venezuela offering deeply discounted heating oil for low income families in the US

I will start by disclosing that I am as anti-Hugo Chavez as anyone you will find. He is a repressive dictator who treats his own countrymen as subjects to his will by military force. That said, your argument is that the U.S. Government shouldn't "accept charity" or "handouts" from a rogue nation. And that the Government has "egg on it's face" for accepting such. This is completely false on its face. For starters, the U.S. Government has no say in the matter. Hugo didn't call Bush and ask permission, nor did the Gov't grant permission or accept anything as no permission is necessary. Perhaps you are familiar with Citgo gas stations? If so, you might be surprised to find out the company is owned by the Venezuelan Government. Just like any other company in this country, they are free to do whatever they like as long as it conforms to the corporate laws of this nation. Just as it's perfectly legal for Dell manufacturing to donate thousands of computers to school systems every year, it's equally legal for Citgo Inc. to provide discounted or free products to people in need. You hit the nail on the head when you called it a P.R. campaign as that is clearly the intention, however, the practice itself is not prohibited by any law and the company is fully licensed to operate in the United States. There is absolutely nothing the Bush administration can do to stop it. And before you suggest it, we can't simply start kicking companies out of the country because we don't agree with their nations politics. That would be as anti-American as you could get. As for do I agree with them doing it? Well, I don't support their motives to be sure, but I have no problem with any program that benefits needy Americans regardless of the reasons behind it. Those who choose to will see the obvious motivation behind the act and quickly recognize it's not charity driven.
Do you agree with Venezuela offering deeply discounted heating oil for low income families in the US

While I am glad at least someone is providing low cost heating oil for low income families, I am appalled that our own government stands by and allows this to happen. The United States accepting charity from a 'rogue'(labeled as such by President Bush) government such as Venezuela for OUR poor? It is to our great shame that we have not done the same. This administration has egg on it's face. We are told we have oil reserves, well,how much is left? How deeply has this war on two fronts eaten into that reserve? So deeply that we cannot help our own? How can we condemn another government with one hand while accepting hand outs from that same government with the other hand? I would like all the presidential candidates to address this issue. Bush's position as regards Venezuela is unsustainable the moment 'we'-He- accepted their charity. I don't begrudge these families the heating oil at all, I am glad an oil producing nation stepped up to help us out even if it is a PR campaign on their part. Aren't we an oil producing nation also? where are we for our own people? Don't we too think that no one should be left out in the cold? I feel this situation has tarnished what little was left of our country's reputation in the world view.
Mac vs PC

Buying a PC is a better decision than buying a MacDefinitions:PC(Pro) - A computer running Microsoft WindowsMac(Con) - A computer running Mac OSX whose hardware was created by Apple.Only desktops and laptops will be debated even though phones, tablets, etc also are computers.Only current computer models can be discussed. Past models and future models cannot be used.If you accept please make your first arguments in Round 1.Thanks!
Mac vs PC

My opponent finally presented a debate strategy in the final round, which I will refute here. “PCs can do everything that Macs can do, for less money” Unfortunately, this is not the case, nor is this the resolution we are debating. As you can see in the videos above, driving a Mac is a much different experience than driving a PC. The interface is different in many ways, some subtle, some very apparent. Unlike in a PC, where the parts have to be modular and standardized to work together, Mac computers are designed in a holistic approach that results in an overall better experience. Customer satisfaction surveys, mentioned above, serve as empirical evidence that Mac users are generally happier with their PCs. Within these same surveys, two of the largest PC manufacturers, Dell and HP, receive low marks. They are putting short term profits over long term customer loyalty by saddling their computers with junk, and using cheaper parts. Laptop hinges break (this I know from experience), cd-rom faceplates come off, etc. Mac owners contact tech support less often, they don’t get viruses, their files are synced across their mobile devices, and their computers are simple to use. When their needs inevitably rise, the Mac meets these needs with a plethora of apps, desktop widgets, scripting languages, and server applications. Not only do they have access to the App Store, the easiest way to learn about and get new applications, they have access to powerful Linux Applications, as well as Windows Applications using bootcamp. My opponent seeks to post the best and most expensive products from across the whole spectrum of PC parts suppliers and resellers, and somehow equate them to buying a PC, but the fact is that most people buy computers from Dell and HP. Pro then goes on to imply that these expensive and seldom used parts offer evidence that a PC is faster, and then pointing to cheaper computers and say that buying a PC is cheaper. Obviously, you can’t have both. My evidence points to an easily deductible fact: Consumers like Macs better. It’s easier to use, it’s more versatile, it’s more secure, it’s made of a higher quality, it’s more environmentally friendly, and it’s more productive. As an investment, it carries a lower TCO. For these reasons and the reasons mentioned above, I thank my opponent for a meaningful and enlightening debate, but I must urge readers to vote CON. . http://www.youtube.com...