BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Death Penalty

In this opening round I will simply answer my opponent's questions and clarify my point of view. < > Some benefits would be that it could help curb crime because of people fearing this punishment. Another benefit is to stop the overcrowding of jails (. http://justana-justana.blogspot.com...). The death penalty can also help prevent further travesties from occuring. < > Yes, I believe that Jesus would support the death penalty in certain situations. I believe this because Jesus is essentially God and God asks his people to kill the other evil nations and law-breakers throughout the old testament. < > The Bible promotes killing of people who've had more serious offences like adultery, rape, and murder. If my opponent wants me to source specific spots in The Bible in the next round, please say so. I would just like to clarify that I am NOT for the death penalty on everything. I am only for it in certain cases and think that the option should always be available. Good luck
The Death Penalty

Thanks to crackofdawn_Jr. for accepting. I hope everyone will enjoy it as much as I do. (NOTE: I will asses this frmoa Biblical perspective, seeing as we are both Christians.) Before I begin, I'd like to ask these questions to my opponent: What are some benefits of the death penalty? Unbeneficial effects? Do you think the Jesus would support the death penalty? Why or why not? What are the Bible's regards for killing? Once these are answered, I will go through with the debate. Thanks!
The Adam of the bible is the Alpha of the bible. 99.9% of Christianity is rooted on a lie.

Christianity is defined as 'the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ' (1) not of Adam and Eve, the first humans created by God. Neither do all Christians believe that Adam and Eve are a metaphor, there are Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is the 'word of God' and therefore literal truth, for example the world really was in their view created in six days. Whilst most Christians would agree that the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor for how turning away from the will of God brings suffering into the world, that does not mean all Christians hold the same beliefs, or that Adam is the root of Christianity. Here I believe all Christians would hold the same view - the true root of their faith is God. On this basis, I would be happy to argue whether the parable of Adam and Eve - or any of the Old Testament stories - disproves Christian faith. Looking forward to our next round!
We are in the 'days of Noah' with 'the blind leading the blind'.

. .. I've read your response time and time again, and, with the exception of the first paragraph, I can't find how it relates to your original argument at all. I understand how no one's perfect and that we all make mistakes. That actually kind of serves as the basis for my Round One argument. You didn't address anything you or I said about scripture, or about how your opinions are any more valid than any church that you deem unfit to teach scripture. I gotta ask, did you start this argument with the intent of having a debate, or merely sending a message that holds little ground? I have nothing else to say except I will forfeit the following round if you can't add anything more to the conversation. I don't want to waste my time doing so.
We are in the 'days of Noah' with 'the blind leading the blind'.

Thank you for your response. Yes, I do follow the scriptures. Do I 'fall off the wagon', at times?...Yes, of course. Even Paul did so. He states that his 'carnal thoughts/deeds' are in conflict with his spiritual desire to follow Christ's teachings. Everyone faces this. This is how Satan gets to us. Let us look at a very simple example. If you 'stub your toe', do you immediately thank God for letting Satan tempt you, or does the excruciating pain make you speak one or more 'expletives' (four letter words)? We are warned, that even the 'elect' have to be careful. We are told to not worry about the evil that will come tomorrow, as there is enough evil in the world today that we must face. Satan is the Prince 'of the world'. He wants to claim EVERYBODY as his follower. He has great powers, in order to tempt us. Our only defence, is our belief and trust in God and His Word. God will only let Satan tempt us, to the point where we 'break'. We ALWAYS have the power to 'turn the other cheek'. If we did not have this power, we would be doomed from the start.
We are in the 'days of Noah' with 'the blind leading the blind'.

I accept this challenge. I preface this by saying I am a Christian who has done a fair amount of reading on the subject of Christianity in general.I see that much of your argument hinges on the fact that most people don't follow scripture. This might be true. Can I assume that you do follow scripture? That is, literally? After all, in 2nd Peter 1:20 (KJV), it says "...that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." This says that no part of the Bible is up for interpretation. Nada. Zip. Zero. And if that's true, then you should agree with every law of the Bible: The Ten Commandments, and everything Leviticus says too. Like 19:27, "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." So, that's a nix on shaving. Or 19:19, "...neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Man, hope your shirts don't have mixed fabrics. Oh, and these aren't out of context either. But those are just minor things, we shouldn't focus on that. You're right (even though the Bible says you're wrong). How about a more serious subject... hm, what about rape? Lev. 19:20, "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free." Yeah, she was married and raped. Put her to death. But not the guy; it's not really his fault she's married. And you're a literalist, so you kind of have to put her to death, right?And, you know what, you don't really get to judge other people for what they believe, right? After all, Matthew 7:1- "Judge ye not, lest ye be judged." Everybody knows that one."He's slipped!" you think, "for I have an ace in the hole!" Lev. 19:15: "In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." Ah, you got me... but, if you are going with what Leviticus says, then you can't pick-and-choose verses. Wait, hold on a second... did the Bible contradict itself? No... well, maybe a little. Kind of. See, the Bible does contradict itself. Go ahead, check it out: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... Quite a few, huh?So, yeah, I might not be a Bible literalist. That's because I cannot, in good conscience, put to death a woman who was raped. I cannot obey one commandment while simultaneously breaking another law of the Bible. It's actually impossible. There is literally nothing to say to defend this. The Bible does err. By the Bible's logic, nobody can get to heaven because it's impossible. So, really, what's the point in trying? I just think being a good person while I'm here makes a difference. If I end up in Hell for that, I guess so be it. But I don't think God's that cruel.
We are in the 'days of Noah' with 'the blind leading the blind'.

I missed responding to others' responses on my previously posted debates, before the deadlines. I am a self-employed accountant, and must break away from here sporadically, as I receive client's information that I must process. This is how I make my living. I have read ALL responses, and they follow the responses I previously received on many Christian forums, in the past. No one, understands or follows the scriptures, properly. Let us look at what the KJV Bible teaches us (The new 'bibles' are not acceptable to God, and the Holy Spirit does NOT recognize them...they are based on human vanity, and have CHANGED the Word of God); 1) The road is very NARROW to heaven, and FEW will travel this road. 2) Many 'Christian' churches teach and practice false doctrines that are OPPOSITE to the scriptures. 3) You will be THROWN OUT OF THE CHURCH, when God gives you the truth, because no one will believe you ("If they threw the master out, they will surely throw you out.") 4) John 14:21-23 tells us that Jesus will MANIFEST himself to His chosen sheep. 5) We WILL RETURN to the days of Noah. 6) The list goes on......... There are 'millions' who believe in Christ, today. Unfortunately, FEW follow His scriptures properly, or FEAR God. The responses to my postings on the debates I started, prove this. The responses are filled with BLINDNESS to the truth. They are 'all over the map'. It is apparent, that no one CARES to read the Bible and ASK GOD for WISDOM in order to properly understand His Word. Even the Bible warns of 'ever learning but not coming to an understanding', and that God will take the 'wise' in their own 'wisdom' [vanity]. It is also written that 'talebearers' will face the same 'separation from God' as 'the wise'. If you wish to speak on behalf of God, I would advise you to seek/knock/ask God for WISDOM, before you open your mouth, or write on HIS behalf. The scriptures tell you to do this. If 'THE WORLD' loves you for what you teach [many will support you and your postings] then YOU KNOW YOU ARE IN TROUBLE. It is when the the world 'HATES YOU' [disagrees with you] when you teach the truth, that you know you are correct in what you teach. Pay attention to God's Word, and ask the Holy Spirit to differentiate between 'what you believe', and what the real truth is, no matter how many 'negative' responses from 'the world that you may receive. Make certain that you are, in fact, one of THE FEW who Christ has chosen as His sheep.
Apple is better than PC

I am going to argue that Macs are NOT better than PC's. Some definitions (from Merrian-Webster): A Mac is an abbreviated form for "computers with Mac as their OS," computer devices designed by the famed corporation "Apple. " A PC is an abbreviated form for "computers with an OS that is not Mac; including Windows, Ubuntu, and Linux," and are designed by companies other than Apple (i. e. Toshiba, Samsung, Asus). My sole contention: PCs are much cheaper in general, yet offers more functionality. True, Apple computers are superior in design. However, PCs do not carry as hefty a price tag compared to Macs. Yet, for less money, one can expect MORE in functionality. One primary argument: much, much more programs are compatible with PCs and not Macs than vice versa. Similarly, PCs offer unbridled performance, with their powerful, advanced chips (whereas Macs still rely on IBMs). For this reason, I urge a ballot on the strong negation. Thank you to voters, as well as PRO. It is unfortunate that I have nothing to rebut. .. I am still curious as to why one-round debates are even an option here at DDO.
The US should be more agressive dealing with Russia

Russian Agents in Eastern UkraineMy opponent cites an article in the Economist that says "Evidence of deeper Russian involvement is ever clearer: not just rising numbers of Chechen and other Russian mercenaries but also the supply of weapons, including missiles that may have been used to shoot down a Ukrainian military aircraft, and even tanks that have rumbled over the border." No evidence is given to support this in the article or in my opponents argument. Many allegations have been made but no actual conclusive evidence has been provided. Referring to the allegations, President Putin claimed "This is nonsense, there are no Russian troops in the east of Ukraine... All the people that are in the eastern Ukraine are local residents, and the main proof is that they've taken their masks off - literally. It's their home, and they have nowhere to leave to". (http://rt.com...) There is a disturbing lack of evidence to support this bold claim. If Russia was sending tanks into Ukraine this would be stated in more places than a single news article in the Economist.Crimean ReferendumMy opponent attempts to refute my argument in two ways:1) Voted down by 14 nations in the UN- This is an argument ad populum and a poorly formulated one. All countries who attempted to discredit the referendum had a vested interest/bias in making sure Ukraine as a whole chooses the EU over Russia. My opponent provides no actual evidence as to why the referendum was flawed, just claims that it was. He also failed to respond to the precedent (Kosovo) that I presented.2) Other countries like Nazi Germany and North Korea experience landslide elections, this must discredit all landslide votes!!- This is a hasty generalization because just since 2 bad countries had landslide elections that were flawed, does not mean other landslide elections are also flawed. In 1984 Ronald Reagan won with 525 electoral votes, or a 97% win. Does this mean his election was rigged? Of course not! My opponent must provide evidence that the vote was rigged, and he has not done this.Increased Aggressiveness Leads to... Less Chance of War??My opponent's argument is a slippery slope. He thinks that since Russia claimed back Crimea, which had a precedent (Kosovo), then Russia might try and "take back the Baltic states inside NATO". Of course there is zero evidence to support this. Russia would never willingly go into a war with the US, a war that would guarantee their destruction. They had justification for taking Crimea since it was the will of the people to secede from Ukraine as demonstrated by the referendum.ConclusionThe last thing the US needs is an escalation tensions right now. We do not need, or want, another cold war. Russia accepted Crimea, a place that was historically and undeniably Russian and the will of the people was to go back to Russia. The UN has declared that it is up to the people to secede from a nation, and the people of Crimea made a clear decision. My opponent has no serious evidence to support his position and the BoP is unfulfilled.
The US should be more agressive dealing with Russia

My opponent supports there argument for a weaker sustenance toward Russia on two false statements (1) Russia is not assisting rebels in Eastern Ukraine (2) the referendum that gave Crimea to Russia was legitimate. (1) This is from the Economist magazine: Evidence of deeper Russian involvement is ever clearer: not just rising numbers of Chechen and other Russian mercenaries but also the supply of weapons, including missiles that may have been used to shoot down a Ukrainian military aircraft, and even tanks that have rumbled over the border.[1] (2) In a vote in the Security Council about the legitimacy of the referendum fourteen nations said it was illegitimate with China abstaining and Russia voted down the resolution alone. If Russia did not have veto power the UN would have condemn the referendum. One last thing about the Crimean referendum when you get a 96% vote for something so controversial it's like winning poker with five aces something is obviously not right. Here are some other "elections" with similar results: Kim Jong Un wins 100% of votes in North Korea 1934 Hitler wins 90% of votes for referendum making him de facto dictator[2] The Russian taking of Crimea was land grab with an unconvincing referendum to back it up. Far from an stronger response to Russian aggression increasing the chance for wider conflict it can be argued in the long term it would decrease the risk of war. This is because Putin takes only what he thinks he can get away with without the west retaliating in series way. In the early 2000 he learned he could flatten a city in his own nation and have his army commit terrible massacre against Chechen civilians. In 2008 Putin leaned he could annex parts of Georgia and the world wouldn't respond. Now he has openly seized Crimea and supplied weapons to armed separatists without the world really responding. He shows a pattern of pushing the limits seeing how far back he can push the west, what if he believes later he can take the Baltic states inside NATO? The west needs to draw a line now before Putin becomes overconfident and plunges Europe into war. [1]http://www.economist.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...
The US should be more agressive dealing with Russia

Today the US is faced with more aggressive Russia destabilizing a large region around it's territory. Russian weapons are helping Assad's regime in Syria in it's war against the people of Syria and Russian troops have taken Crimea while Russian mercenaries fight with Russian weapons in eastern Ukraine. The US needs to confront Russia and end it's imperialist adventures by sending either weapons, soldiers or money to those that resist Russian power in Ukrainian ad Syria in a much moire major way then we are doing now. If we fail to do so Russia will see us as a weak nation which will encourage them to act more aggressively raising the stakes. Allowing Putin to increase his sphere of influence would be a mistake similar to what Nevile Chamberlain did with Hitler. In case you think it's overkill to compare Putin and Hitler I should remind you Putin has had his enemies locked in prison or killed, was in the KGB, and had an entire city shelled in to dust in the Chechen War. It's also important to point out that Putin's justification for taking Crimea is the same Hitler used to take the Sudetenland ethnicity of the inhabitants. And while it could be claimed we are already fighting Putin with sanctions, so far those sanctions used against Russia are half measures that have done little to shake Putin's regime . If we do not act with more boldly in the coming months US power and influence could be pushed back in the Middle East and Eastern Europe hurting prospects for democratic states and making the rise of authoritarian (nice way to say fascist) states increase in number. Due to the fact that whatever power dominates an area tends to push states to accept the system of government they use. I am not claiming challenging Russia will be easy or cost free in the short term this is the hardest course to go down. But the long term outlook of acting week seeing a strong Putin administration rebuilding the old Russian Empire and making NATO look powerless would be much more destabilizing in the long term.
Trump has done enough, Its time for a military coup

I used to be what they call a liberal/ progressive socialist/social democrat whatever those words mean or don't mean. What are you now? You can't be nothing. Democratic system, The Republic is rotten the constituion is obsolete, If you mean rotten as in corrupted. I would like evidence. If you mean obsolete as in doesn't matter then why does the NRA have so much ground to give their opinion if they are basing their opinion on a worthless document? People are too fat apathetic and complacent and lazy to revolt properly the way the French areSo basically you want to revolt which will lead to a lot of injured and some dead for what? You still have not stated what you want instead. Socialism? Communism? Pick something that you want to replace apart from Trump since that is a given with the way you frame him. Thats why they have the energy to properly react to a stinking mess of a governmentI think it is the French's fault anyway. I haven't found allegations of the votes being fixed or something instead they voted him in charge and expected him not to enact bad policies that benefit the EU rather then France. The last honeorable branch of our society, The FBI AND THE CIA can run things, Mueller and Comey two of the lst honorable men left in the USA can run thingsReally? Mueller can't be honourable. Either he is wasting everyone's time because he has no evidence or he is being shut up by the Trump administration. Yes there are other scenarios but I think those are the most relevant. So basically even with the best scenarios I can think of Mueller does not look honourable. He either looks like a liar or is a coward. Cowardly and honour don't exactly mix. About Comey I will just copy what I said in the comment section: "Was it honourable to lie about what he had in his book. Mislead people on what his book said about Trump and at best he states that Trump is small. Which is true but did kind of imply he had evidence of some bad thing about Trump. " They can try the orange babboon and hitlery with treasonWith no evidence? Okay. Name me one source of evidence that states Trump has committed treason. Define treason as well. And then Maybe the ghost of Bernie Sanders may inspire a proper revolutionBernie has some good policies but he is a coward. This video is an example Youtube: Black Lives Matter protesters disrupt Bernie Sanders rally (CBS News). Coward:a person who is contemptibly lacking in the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things. (Google: Coward define)Thiat is all i have to sayWould like clarification and evidence to support your claim. If you can't find it explain it to me.
Trump has done enough, Its time for a military coup

I used to be what they call a liberal/ progressive socialist/social democrat whatever those words mean or don't mean. No more, I 've had it with this so called Democratic system, The Republic is rotten the constituion is obsolete, , People are too fat apathetic and complacent and lazy to revolt properly the way the French are, Notic how this the French are, Thats why they have the energy to properly react to a stinking mess of a government, We need a coup by the Military, The last honeorable branch of our society, The FBI AND THE CIA can run things, Mueller and Comey two of the lst honorable men left in the USA can run things, They can try the orange babboon and hitlery with treason, And then Maybe the ghost of Bernie Sanders may inspire a proper revolution. Thiat is all i have to say
Trump has done enough, Its time for a military coup

What evidence do you have he isa coward? I don't. It was showing the conclusion of each of the most likely conclusions that can occur. He is incredibly brave and honest man, And he has evidence, You will rue the day you asked to see it, If he did he would have presented it and something would have happened yet Mueller is still investigating. You are definitely blinded since from the looks of what you typed you didn't even read what I said. You did not give another likely scenario instead double down on your claim without evidence or explanation. You sir are a pathetic coward, Not mueller, Hide behind a computer and say that, Say it to his face, Say it to my face, And face the consequences like a man, Or hide like a mouseConduct would go to me right? This is a debate. If you feel offended maybe you should not have debated this topic and expected an opposing viewpoint. I do not need to be right to say it to your or Mueller's face so you asking for it does not help your side in winning the debate or getting your point across.
Trump has done enough, Its time for a military coup

Society is rotten from left to right, It no longer can or deserves to govern itself, Mueller is an honest man. Look at his record, He is an honest law enforcement officer doing his sworn duty, I bit of research will show that true, Let honest honorable men rule now and end this messFor all I rebutted is that all you could say? Mueller is an honest manMy argument in Round 1 still stands. He might be honest but for sure he is either a coward or a liar. I am just going to copy what I said earlier which I don't see why I need to rephrase due to lack thereof rebuttals to my argument. What I said: Really? Mueller can't be honourable. Either he is wasting everyone's time because he has no evidence or he is being shut up by the Trump administration. Yes there are other scenarios but I think those are the most relevant. So basically even with the best scenarios I can think of Mueller does not look honourable. He either looks like a liar or is a coward. Cowardly and honour don't exactly mix.