BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should normalize relations with Cuba.

1. Per my opponents definitions, the resolution proposes that United States relations with Cuba ought to become "normal". Thus, my opponent supports whatever may be considered "normal", whether or not that necessitates action. The wording of the resolution, coupled with the definitions, is far more significant than the presence of a verb. Note that, if my opponent supports the status quo, your vote defaults to Con. 2. "True. Except of course, the fact that sometimes the U.S imposes no sanctions whatsoever when nations are human rights abusers. So, the policy is still inconsistent." This point is totally incoherent and unwarranted. It stands that the United States typically sanctions those nations which have policy similar to Cuba's. Thus, sanctions against Cuba fit a "normal" pattern. "My opponent gives no reason or explanation as to why the pattern we must look to is that of U.S foreign policy. While that is certainly a relevant pattern to look at, it is not exclusionary. When determining its foreign economic policy, the U.S must consider that of other nations. Otherwise, we get completely ineffective policies, like the embargo on Cuba. So, the foreign policies of other nations are just as valid for determining normal, as the foreign policies of the U.S." Foreign policy varies throughout the world, and the reasoning behind these policies varies as well. There is no established pattern. However, U.S. foreign policy forms a distinct pattern, which suggests that sanctions against Cuba are, in fact, "normal". 3. My opponent's stance reflects the current state of relations with Cuba. As he is Pro, and is supporting the status quo, the vote automatically defaults to Con, as the status quo is Con ground. Further, his two points support my side of the argument, that the U.S. ought to "abnormally" cease the embargo against Cuba. Therefore, vote Con on the grounds that the cessation of said embargo would economically benefit the U.S., as well as improving relations with Latin-American nations. Thanks for the debate, and thanks for reading.
The United States should normalize relations with Cuba.

"You are free to defend Con ground. However, if you choose to do so, as you have, the status quo is upheld, and the vote goes to Con." Except for the fact that you have yet to show that I am defending Con ground. "The Pro does not inherently advocate action, verb or no. The manner in which my opponent has phrased the resolution leads it to propose that U.S. relations with Cuba ought to achieve a normal state. As this is already the case, the resolution is grammatically confusing. However, its wording signifies that my opponent's stance is in support of the status quo." Why does it not inherently advocate action? Verbs indicate action is occurring. Normalize is a verb. As such, if action is occurring, and normalization is that action, then "normal" must be different than the status quo. Given that the Pro is arguing for normalization, and that what is normal is different than the status quo, Pro is not defending Con ground. So, I am still winning this point. My opponent has not provided a reason why the pro does not advocate action. He simply states it as fact. This is not an adequate rebuttal of my point. Pro wins off of this point alone, because it shows that "normal" must be different from the status quo. But, I will still rebut the remainder of the arguments. "The United States relaxes sanctions when nations improve their human rights policy. As Cuba has not done this to our satisfaction, continued sanctions are indeed "normal"." True. Except of course, the fact that sometimes the U.S imposes no sanctions whatsoever when nations are human rights abusers. So, the policy is still inconsistent. "Normal" means to follow a pattern, and the pattern in question is that of U.S. foreign policy. Thus, other nations are irrelevant." My opponent gives no reason or explanation as to why the pattern we must look to is that of U.S foreign policy. While that is certainly a relevant pattern to look at, it is not exclusionary. When determining its foreign economic policy, the U.S must consider that of other nations. Otherwise, we get completely ineffective policies, like the embargo on Cuba. So, the foreign policies of other nations are just as valid for determining normal, as the foreign policies of the U.S. In conclusion, my opponent has never adequate shown how I am supporting the status quo, nor has he shown that that "normal" is the status quo. He has provided no basis for his claims otherwise, simply stating that I am. There is only one possible choice in this round. Pro.
The United States should normalize relations with Cuba.

First off, my opponent admits that he is defending the current sanctions on Cuba. 'as the status quo is Con ground'" You are free to defend Con ground. However, if you choose to do so, as you have, the status quo is upheld, and the vote goes to Con. "My opponent has completely ignored my analysis of the fact that normalize is a verb. The impact of that, is of course, that the Pro is advocating action, and cannot be advocating the status quo." The Pro does not inherently advocate action, verb or no. The manner in which my opponent has phrased the resolution leads it to propose that U.S. relations with Cuba ought to achieve a normal state. As this is already the case, the resolution is grammatically confusing. However, its wording signifies that my opponent's stance is in support of the status quo. "He argues that there are restrictions on trade with China, specifically with military trade. However, I would not be surprised if there were not limits on all military trade. After all, us exporting weapons might not be the best thing for our security." True, the U.S. has some blanket restrictions on military trade. However, we have further restricted military trade with China through the use of sanctions. http://www.cfr.org... "Next he argues that we have historically had sanctions based on human rights issues. But this is irrelevant. Our current sanctions on countries do not cover all nations which have major human rights abuses. So this policy is inconsistent, and cannot be used as a basis for normal." The United States relaxes sanctions when nations improve their human rights policy. As Cuba has not done this to our satisfaction, continued sanctions are indeed "normal". "And finally, my point about other nations trading with Cuba has been ignored. If the entirety of Europe considers Cuba an acceptable trading partner, then there is no reason for the U.S not to do so." "Normal" means to follow a pattern, and the pattern in question is that of U.S. foreign policy. Thus, other nations are irrelevant. My opponent is still in defense of the status quo, and yet has presented only arguments which support Con.
The United States should normalize relations with Cuba.

First off, my opponent admits that he is defending the current sanctions on Cuba. "as the status quo is Con ground" My opponent has completely ignored my analysis of the fact that normalize is a verb. The impact of that, is of course, that the Pro is advocating action, and cannot be advocating the status quo. This means I am winning the debate off of this point alone, as it has gone uncontested, and means an analysis of U.S foreign policy is irrelevant. The analysis is irrelevant because making the analysis assumes that it is possible for the Pro to be advocating inaction. It is not. However, I will go on to refute the foreign policy analysis anyways. He argues that there are restrictions on trade with China, specifically with military trade. However, I would not be surprised if there were not limits on all military trade. After all, us exporting weapons might not be the best thing for our security. Next he argues that we have historically had sanctions based on human rights issues. But this is irrelevant. Our current sanctions on countries do not cover all nations which have major human rights abuses. So this policy is inconsistent, and cannot be used as a basis for normal. And finally, my point about other nations trading with Cuba has been ignored. If the entirety of Europe considers Cuba an acceptable trading partner, then there is no reason for the U.S not to do so. In conclusion, the Pro is clearly winning this debate. My opponent has conceded that the Pro side is inherently advocating some form of actions, which means in cannot stand in support of the status quo. As such, he has no arguments left standing. But even ignoring that, I have shown that the U.S does not have a consistent enough foreign policy to label sanctions on countries with human rights abuses "normal", and the point that the rest of the world is fine trading with Cuba has been ignored. There is only one possible choice here.
Christianity is false

I would conclude by pointing out that it is not good to destroy a system that provides objective moral without first replacing them. Christians have a system, while not perfect by any means it is still better than no objective morals. Jesus can be used as a teacher of these objective morals and that is important in the current world. So while the bible has many flaws that can not be reconciled, Jesus really lived and taught people to be free from the rulers of the day, and to be be objectively moral people, and these teaching are what it is to be Christians. The finer unprovable details can be endlessly debated. The fact the bible being 100% accurate and the word of God is not a necessity to following Jesus, and those that interpret it this way are still CHRISTIAN aka Followers of Jesus Christ. Thanks again Pro, it was fun and you did very well considering you didn't get the debate you expected :)
Christianity is false

But, that does not make my argument it any less true or compelling. I think a lot of Christians that are not the hard core bible thumping type, take a more rational approach to the bible, and this is the case I am putting forward even if they are a minority, the still are Christians, and their interpretation is not false, as Pro argues. I am sure there are millions of anecdotal stories of how Jesus must be divine. But like I said this is merely an argumentum ad populum (argument from popularity). If the debate was most Christians believe Jesus is divine, absolutely correct. Lucky for the Con it is not :) If you believe in Jesus and his teachings then you can call yourself a Christian if you so choose, and still be agnostic towards the bible, and use it as a guide rather than dogma. I do not think this would make the person less of a Christian rather it would make them a more honest one, which I would argue is closer to the teachings that Jesus was actually teaching based on what historical evidence we can actually rationally interpret of the character of Jesus. So I would say don't be so quick to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. There are good moral lessons that can be easily understood, and rather than trying to deny Christianity deny the irrational destructive parts of the bible and encourage people to take a logical moral and ethical view of the Christian faith and keep the positive aspects as for a lot of people they need such a crutch to help them live moral ethical lives, and encourage them to be critical thinkers and evaluate the bible along with the rest of the world from a skeptics point of view so they are not so easily lead astray by those trying to manipulate them past, present and future.
Christianity is false

"Do you have to believe in Jesus's divinity to be Christian. I would say no, but you rightly point out 99% of Christians would say yes." Well that concludes a lot then doesn't it, if that is the Christian way of thinking then that's how it should be labeled as. Christians believe in the ascension of Jesus as a God, believing in his teachings wouldn't make you a Christian, accepting him as a God and making the assumption that he resurrected into heaven is a huge basis of Christianity. " "Their is very good evidence that Jesus was human." Yes, no matter what way you view it as Jesus was a man, divine or not he is considered to be a historical figure. "This bring me to my next point, what does it change if Jesus is or is not divine?" It changes a lot, accepting Jesus Christ as a God is what brings and ascends you into heaven, at my old church when I was a Christian the pastors would constantly tell us to accept Jesus as your master and as a god. The holy trinity is a gigantic part of Christianity, the father, the son and the holy spirit. Failure to accept one of these divine figures is considered to be failure of acceptance. " I think they would realize that it would be ok and that they could continue to follow his teachings as a moral and political leader." I think that it would shift the view points of the bible by a drastic amount, and could even possibly make people become "unfaithful." Christians use the bible as a way of hope, and they also use it as a way to feel good about an after life, this will disrupt the Christians and cause them to question there beliefs. "I argue that you can not invalidate Christianity because of the bible being false, and that is the only real source for Jesus's divinity." However most Christians will argue that the bible is true, creationist and premillennialism is also a key view point. The teaching if Jesus is a small fraction though it is the main view. Don't forget these key views. adoptionism Afterlife amillennialism angels Creation divinity of Jesus Christ Doctrine of Scripture End Times ex nihilo Faith and Works Hell Holy Spirit Human Nature Imago Dei Jesus New Perspective on Paul Other Religions postmillennialism premillennialism Purgatory saint Salvation Trinitarian monotheism Trinity Those twenty things are all related to Christianity, the teachings of Jesus is not the only thing that makes one Christian. Sorry for the lack of a counter, however its greater to write smaller amount of things that are more meaningful, most of my points would have just been dragged on if I responded to the whole thing you wrote, as most of it can be responded with the same counters.
Christianity is false

You made the argument that Christianity is about Jesus, and that is fair. However though Jesus was a huge teacher that doesn't necessarily mean he was a cosmic man that could be resurrected. Your quote in Matthew 21:12 does portray him as good man, and he is certainly a great person based on documents. I cannot argue against that nor will I try to, I entirely agree that Jesus was a fantastic person historically. So yes, the "elites" then decided to execute him, but the well constructed Bible was not so well constructed. You mentioned that a well organized scripture was put together by the priests, but the Bible was only available to the priests. When Christianity became main stream, people didn't use it as a source of love, rather to use it as a way of greed. Priests who assembled the bible used it to manipulate others into doing what they wanted. This made lower class accept there fate rather than trying to improve. Christianity itself is the reason why so many peasants say "this is our fate and we will die poor." It made them believe that they will never improve. The old testament was added to establish rules and mindsets that were heavily utilized by the common people. Genesis and Exodus has some fairly terrible quotes in it, expressing hatred to women, the weak and a negative reference to slavery. The old testament was not added to give antiquity, it was added so people could utilize it to manipulate individuals further. It is better to say you are changing the name you believe in, but if you're christian you are taking from the Bible. The Bible is the single source of Christianity, sure the Morales of it say you follow Jesus and his teachings, but every chapter in the "holy book" plays a significant part. Under your statement of the Roman Catholic church being born and Jesus being a real person, what you said was entirely true, I am not denying the existence of Jesus. But his teachings are not what makes someone Christian, what defines a Christian is his sacrifice on the cross, he is an influential figure whether he was divine or not. But according to most Christians, if you think he isn't divine, then you are not christian. Jesus would clearly not agree with people based on the historical context, however that is not what I am arguing against. In conclusion the heart of Christianity is not on the basis of Jesus being real or not, its under the basis that you believe he has made a sacrifice and ascended into heaven 3 days later. Though his teachings is the heart of Christianity, you will be shunned down if you don't think that he was divine. Christians believe that Jesus is a God.
Monkeys should be considered persons

my final argument is as follows... 1. pain is pain wherever it occurs. 2. There are different forms of pain like physical and emotional but pain is an emotion that a subject feels when something out of their control affect their feelings. 3.We cannot rationally ignore or dismiss the moral relevance of the pain that a person or an animal feels. 4. what is ethical is moral. 5.Ethics asks us to take care for the basic need and legitimate expectation of others as well as our own. 6. To be moral means that there are several considerations or rules that must be followed in order to make considered an object to be moral. 7. Non-human mammals (any animal) have essentially the same right not to feel pain or be harmed. 8. Animals have the same rights as people, especially in terms of not feeling pain and being harmed. 9. We have the same duties directly to animals, just as we have some duties directly to each other. 10. This direct duty is to be kind to animals (or each other) and also a duty to not be cruel to animals (or one another). 11. For either of us to treat the other in ways that fail to show respect for the other"s independent value is to act immorally, to violate the individual's rights. 12. Since there are rights that prevent us from harming animals, including monkeys, they are considered moral object. 13. All of us who have inherited value have it equally, whether they are humans, animals, and monkeys or not. 14. Animals- as monkeys- fail to act immorally, have inherited values, and have rights like all human beings. 15. Therefore, monkeys should be considered persons.
Monkeys should be considered persons

We both agree on premises 1, 3, 7, and 8 and there were declared non-controversial. However to clear some misunderstanding i will be answering your questions: In premise 2, i agree with what you had to say toward having different kinds of pain; however, it does not matter what kind of a pain a person is experiencing because even if it were physical or emotional it is still pain and it is still an emotion a person would feel (that is what i was trying to say). On the other hand, i will change premise 2 to be: there are different forms of pain like physical and emotional but pain is just an emotion that a subject feels when something out of one's control effect their feelings. **In premise 4, i agree with what you had to say towards it. So i am going to add extra premise before premise 4 to clarify the definition of morality: So after premise there i will have... What is ethical is moral. Ethics asks us to take care for the basic need and legitimate expectation of others as well as our own. To be moral means that there are several considerations or rules that must be followed in order to make considered an object to be moral. Morality consists of set of rules that individuals voluntary agree to abide by, such as signing a contrast. ** The changes that are between (**) make the definition of morality more clean. In premises 5 and 6 what i meant was, that humans and animals do have the same rights. For example, there are rights against harming animals just like how we have rights/ laws against harming humans or having them experience pain, no matter what form it is in (physical or emotional). Premise 6 says that if animals AND humans (or persons) have the same rights in terms of not feeling pain and being harmed. Also, to clarify my example further, we have laws against harming/ abusing animals that cause subjects to go to punished for it, just like humans. harming or abusing another human being also have the same consequences as any subject harming an animal. In premise 9, by independent value means their own value or what they are worth. This independent value could be violated be causing harm which is considered immoral. In premise 10, just like killing/harming a person is considered immoral, harming an animal, or a monkey, is also considered immoral; which explains why humans and animals are moral objects. Also, to answer your question we are permitted to harm animals but we choose not to, just like humans. We have rights to expect each other and not cause harm to one another but also we have laws that respect those rights, which is what i meant by we have rights that prevent us from harming animals. In premise 11, this premise only shows that there are more examples that show how similar humans/ persons are how just like humans have inherited values so do animals and monkeys as well; which supports my conclusion that Monkeys are should be considered persons. Finally, to answer one of you last questions... when i refer to humans that also means persons as well, because humans are considered persons.
Monkeys should be considered persons

1.Pain is pain wherever it occurs. 2.Pain is an emotion that a subject feels when something out of their control affects their feelings. 3.We cannot rationally ignore or dismiss the moral relevance of the pain that a person or an animal feels. 4.Morality consists of a set of rules that individuals voluntarily agree to abide by. Just as signing a contrast. 5.Non-human mammals (any animal) have essentially the same right not to feel pain or be harmed. 6.Animals have the same rights as human in terms of not feeling pain and being harmed. 7.We have the same duties directly to animals, just as we have some duties directly to each other. 8.This direct duty is to be kind to animals (or each other) and also a duty to not be cruel to animals (or one another). 9.For either of us to treat the other in ways that fail to show respect for the other"s independent value is to act immorally, to violate the individual"s rights. 10.Since there are rights that prevent us from harming animals, including monkeys, they are considered moral object. 11.All of us who have inherited value have it equally, whether they are humans, animals, and monkeys or not. 12.Animals- as monkeys- fail to act immorally, have inherited values, and have rights like all human beings. 13.Therefore, monkeys should be considered persons. Controversial premises: Premises 4,7 and 8 could be controversial. Premise 4 can be controversial because some people might argue that those are not voluntarily rules and not everyone is willing to abide them. Premise 7, is controversial because people might believe that we have no duties toward anyone but ourselves. And finally premise 8 is also controversial because we do not necessarily have to be nice to animals even though there are laws against it. Non-controversial premises: Premises 1,2,3,5,6,9,10,11, and 12 are non-controversial. Premise 1, 2 and 6 are so because they basically talk about give definitions about certain aspects like pain. The rest talk about how animals like monkeys are considered people and how they all have the same rights and values.