BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
KJV is Superior

I will let my original arguments stand then, as they have been unchallenged. Let me conclude with this poem: I heard the old-time preacher speak without one reference to the Greek, "This precious Book within my hand is God's own Word on which I stand." And then the scholars came along and said the preacher had it wrong: "Conflations here, rescissions there, and scribal errors everywhere." A book "essentially correct" but not in every last respect. Then in despair I bowed my head. "We have no Word of God," I said. If some of this old Book is wrong, pray tell, what else does not belong?" Will still more manuscripts be found to make us go another round? Correcting, changing,taking out; creating questions, fear and doubt? How will we ever know we're through-that we possess a sripture true? If man must find God's Word, my friend, when will the changes ever end? Then to the Book again I fled to find out what my Father said. "Forever settled... never fade" This promise God the Spirit made. A thousand generations hence that seems a pretty strong defense. A "perfect Book" Then it must be man can't improve what God gave me. -R.B. Ouellette
KJV is Superior

Now my opponent assumes that most people(even me) would not be able to read a 1611 KJV. Well, for starters, I have an original 1611 edition of the KJV. There are not many of them left. I can read it as well. What my opponent has failed to tell you is that the 1611 edition ONLY USED OLD SPELLING. For example, "James" is SPELLED as "Iames. " "Evening" is spelled as "Euening. " The "u's" became "v's. " "Israel" is spelled "Ifrael. " ANYONE WITH A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA CAN READ SUCH AN EDITION by reading the sentences. The spelling DOESN'T MAKE IT A FOREIGN LANGUAGE as my opponent would have you believe. Second, my opponent would have you believe that since the KJV was revised, the new versions can revise as well. There is a difference. The modern KJV editions UPDATED SPELLING. The new versions remove verses(see round 2), attack the deity of Christ(1 Timothy 3:16), attack the blood atonement(Colossians 1:14), attack the Trinity(1 John 5:7), change "sodomite" to "temple prostitute," and give Christ's Title(morning star) to Lucifer(Isaiah 14:12). Third, I mentioned a DIFFERENT TRANSLATION since 1881, NOT A DIFFERENT KJV edition. My opponent is skirting the issue. Now, I hope I didn't type 8,000 characters in round 2 for nothing. You have not presented A SINGLE REBUTTAL to my arguments. I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and assume he will answer my arguments soon.
KJV is Superior

It has always fascinated me that people believe the 1611 KJV is superior to all other translations. My opponent has asked that I show at least one translation that is superior to the 1611 KJV created since 1881. For starters, I will say that most people, and I assume my opponent, would not even be able to read a 1611 KJV translation as it is an older English. 2nd, in 1900 the KJV was updated[1]. This was a revised version of the KJV and is what most KJV enthusiasts use today. In fact, very few people use the actual 1611 original. It seems to me that a translation cannot be superior if most people cannot even read it. The 1900 edition that most people use today was after the 1881 mark so I would ask my opponent to explain which version he indeed uses and which one is most correct. Refrences: [1] . http://www.logos.com...
Hockey is better than soccer

Anyways, since you provided no arguments and no structure, I will just do a few arguments this round. On to debating! (ARGUMENTS) (1) Imagine that you were playing hockey, and you were skating up with the puck, when you get hit. Hard. You black out and wake up in the hospital, your career in Hockey over. The point I am making is that hockey is way too physical, which leads to many injuries. You are allowed to aggressively shove, slash and hit people in hockey with little to no penalty. You can get into a fight where you are only broken up after the fight occurs. Injuries come. A lot. I will post a few videos in this argument, so if you are squirmish, maybe don’t watch them. This first video shows a hit from Boston Bruins forward Zdeno Chara on Max Pacioretty of the Montreal Canadiens. Pacioretty goes down, In a lot of pain, with a concussion. This second one shows one of the all-time best hockey players get a concussion, which turned out to affect crosby for over half of a year {1} Last, but most likely the worst, was this: Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Now this is just concussions/injuries from hits/on ice not fight stuff, but what about from fights? . http://www.nhl.com... In this video you will see he gets into a Soccer is not nearly as brutal as Hockey, while yes, I will not deny that there are injuries in Soccer, the severity of injuries and the amount of injuries are much higher in Hockey. Thanks DDD (REFERENCES) {1} . http://www.nhl.com...
The Electoral College is outdated

On second thought, I won't forfeit my next two rounds. In Colorado, the largest population densities are near two major cities. Denver and Colorado Springs. If the majority of these people vote in favor of the same thing, the whole rest of the state can be against it and it will still pass with a majority vote. People of Colorado's west and south are concerned about farmland and water rights. Do you think the people of Denver give a hoot about watersheds? I don't.The founding fathers knew the meaning of a popularity vote and created the electoral college with the mind that the voters would give a more accurate representative vote of the entire land area of the state.
The Electoral College is outdated

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Declaration of Indepandance.Although in some ways I believe the Electoral College is not perfect. I do believe it is designed for the purpose of over turning a popular vote. Founders believed that mass populations acted with a mob mentality. I think it is true. Take John Kerry for example. He wasn't elected president, but now he's the Secretary of State.I believe the burdon of proof should be on you to not only present sound reasons of it being out of date, but to also to present new ideas that will bring it up to date rather than abolish it.
The Electoral College is outdated

The Electoral College is outdated because say if somebody running for president, Al Gore for example, won by say 500,000 votes, it wouldn't even matter because the Electoral College could just switch it around. Like the election of 2000. We all know that the E.C. does the real voting, so when do we get a chance to elect our leader? In the constitution, it says we have freedom to elect who we want as our leader. When will the constitution come true in that statement?
god doesn't want you to be happy!

Seasoned beatings! Oh whoopps. Sorry. A deliberate miss-steak on my part. I meant to say greetings, yeah that's it. I'm really not a person of "acceptance" rounds because after all that is a waste of a round when there could be some fine debating going on. And looking at your scrumptious death defying dildo desire killer p**sy (great band of the the past) profile I must say that I've never come across one as in your face, but Mikey likes it, as yours. Now I am a true music lover and some of the bands you list are not available on youtube for my ears to hear, so I must ask how I can find them? And yeah I get that its not part of the debate, but so what? its not everyday, well actually never until this very day, that I've come across someone as unique as you. And if you take a look-see-do at my profile there may be a lot of surprises that you may like as well. No all of it isn't grindcore nor death metal, but some of what I listen to does pulverize it such as what I think does as Melt Banana and granted they are not for everybody... http://www.youtube.com... - T for Tone http://www.youtube.com... - Chain Shot to Have Some Fun http://www.youtube.com... - Einsturzende Neubauten ZNS http://www.youtube.com... - Einsturzende Neubauten Headcleaner (the heaviest song I've ever heard and I saw this) http://www.youtube.com... - Igorrr is the band I'm really into now. This is a crazy live performance, Some of the very best drumming there is, screams from nowhere, soprano vocals, weird electronics = genius to me that cannot be categorized into any genre. http://www.youtube.com... - he Pigpen (Igorrr's perspective) = genius animation and composition of electronics Well I hope you like that selection of songs if you have not heard of the bands. And it isn't every day I get to come across someone as unique and as profound and as upfront and as bold and as daring as you and I most certainly appreciate that!!! So let's get this debate started if you wish, or we can debate something else, Please always tc and have fun -Michael
Abortion

Hello Con, I'd like to first point out that there is no actual scientific definition of the terms "life" and/or "living". While all "living" species on Earth have the same characteristics (made of cells, adapt to their environment. reproduce offspring, require energy, and provide immediate or near immediate responses to stimuli), it is impossible to say that extraterrestrial life would, if in existence, abide by the same rules. This is one of what I'm sure are several reasons scientists cannot "define" life. So you're saying that abortion (the intentional termination of a developing fetus) is violating a right to life, when life cannot be defined. In the womb of the mother, the fetus receives nutrients necessary to its survival through its mother via the blood in the umbilical cord. Should the fetus not be considered part of the mother, even though it shares a blood supply? The mother's body even goes so far as to break down and renew muscle, fat, and bones. This process, called "turnover", releases fat, calcium, and protein into the mother's bloodstream. At this point, it is clear to see that the fetus and the mother are one. Innocence is subjective. What is innocent by one person's standards may be guilty by another's. One would share a blood supply with a tumor as well, but it is that person's option to either live with the tumor, or have it removed. The tumor, by your argument, would be innocent (as innocence is subjective, as i afore mentioned), and only be allowed to be removed if a biopsy showed it to be malignant. A benign tumor however, could not be removed, as it poses no threat t the host's well being. Therefore, if the mother of a fetus would like to legally abort it, it is within her bounds to do so.
Abortion

Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, the right to life is an inalienable right given to every innocent human being, therefore, abortion, as the direct result of the killing of an innocent human child, violates the inalienable right to life. Thus, abortion is wrong. I would like to argue against abortion. There is no layout other than that my opponent should first provide a retort to the paragraph stated above in round one. This is just a free discussion in a relaxed manner. Also, I would like to mention there is one case where abortion is permissible, and that is under the circumstance that both the mother and child will die. I could argue why it is permissible in the debate, if my opponent so chooses me to do so. Thank you, and remember, let us remain respectful and courteous.
Gay marriage should be allowed in the United States

My case for Gay Marriage will rest on two main points. I. Definition of Marriage and II. Rights enjoyed by married couples I. Definition of Marriage According to dictionary.com the definition of a marriage is: A. The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. b. A similar institution involving partners of the same gender (otherwise known as Gay Marriage). Now, if one disregards the mentioning of gender in the first definition one will see that in a marriage two individuals establish their decision to live together as husband and wife, husband and husband, or wife and wife by legal commitments and religious ceremonies. If a gay couples religion permits gay couples to be married why should the be banned by the states? Also why should legal commitments to same sex couples be banned by the states? What is going on is almost sex discrimination. It is unreasonable for the states to ban the right to be legally married because it deprives same sex couples of their rights as people. II. Rights enjoyed by married couples Just to name a few, some of the rights of married couples are: a widow or widower can inherit their deceased spouse's possessions, one spouse can transfer possessions to another spouse tax free in any circumstance, joint tax filing, and funeral leave from work when a spouse dies. These rights are denied to same sex couples and I am sure that a lot of us would ask a one word question. Why? There is one answer, because the two parties are the same gender. The first amendment states that: congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words this provides the grounds to the idea of separation of church and state. And in many U.S states, the decision to disallow same sex couples is a religiously influenced decision. If the United States government wants to separate church and state, these decisions are extremely hypocritical of the government. In order to get rid of that hypocrisy, the government must allow same sex marriages. Another reason that gay couples should enjoy these rights is that gay people are born gay and that is how they will remain for the remainder of their lives so, why make gay people go into an unhappy marriage to receive these rights. Some people would say that this is a violation of the rights of gay people, and I do believe it is. The debate over gay marriage is a complicated one. However, I maintain that gay marriage is not something that states should do to appease gay people, I maintain that gay people have a right to enter a marriage with someone who is the same sex as them.
Batman Should Kill The Joker

Thanks for the quick acceptance sir! Batman debates are my favorite and I'm glad (currently) that someone disagrees with me. My argument has nothing to do with the fact that the Joker 'deserves death'. I don't believe Batman should pass judgement on the Joker in that way. So Why?My position is that Batman should kill the Joker because if he doesn't, it's almost assured that more than one person will die, and these people are almost always more morally upright than the Joker. Batman became a vigilante to unleash his inner demons and prevent situations such as what happened to his family (murder)[1], and he is failing to achieve that purpose by letting Joker live and continue to kill. If Batman were to kill the Joker, he'd save many, many more lives than he took. There is always of course the extremely slim chance that a prison will actually hold the Joker, but so far his criminal genius makes that a very small possibility, and those kind of odds are not acceptable to gamble on with the lives of hundreds. There are no statistics for how many people the Joker has killed in canon, so I'm just going to use a clip from a Batman movie to illustrate Joker's killing abilities[2]. http://www.youtube.com... Here we learn the Joker has killed 600 people. If during the time that these killings were taking place the Batman had killed Joker, he could have saved people. Instead, through Batman's inaction, even after the deaths of 600, Batman didn't kill him, and he went on to kill everyone in the audience and then more later on in the movie.Simply put, Batman is almost 100% guaranteed to be saving people if he kills the Joker. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Joker Video
Batman Should Kill The Joker

I believe Batman should kill the Joker after he realizes Joker will simply continue to escape from prison every time Batman puts him there. Also arguments such as "Batman shouldn't kill the Joker because that wouldn't be in his character and wouldn't make sense. " do not count. We're talking about what Batman should do according to logic and morals. Also another loophole to close up, you can't provide the method Batman used to deal with Joker in The Dark Knight Returns Pt 2 as an alternative, sorry! I just feel this would take the spirit out of the debate.
Batman Should Kill The Joker

I believe I have successfully refuted my opponents points, but there's a little more I'd like to add, for the voters who are still on the fence. What is Batman's Function?Batman is a unique 'superhero', which is probably a reason for his strong fan base and commercial success. Many heroes do what they do, simply out of the goodness of their heart, but for Batman, that is not the only motivation. Think, if Bruce Wayne's parents hadn't been killed, would there be a Batman? I'm beginning to digress however, so I'll get to the point. Batman is many things to the people of Gotham. Objectively he is of course a criminal, and for some that's all they see him as. Others see him as a hero, somebody who is finally taking Gotham back from the criminals. There's a division amongst the normal people as to what Batman is. But there is one group of people who has a unanimous agreement as to what Batman is, and those people are the criminals of Gotham. The criminals of Gotham see Batman as fear. Is Batman a hero? To some, yes. To others he's a criminal. To the criminals he is fear. It is for that reason that I submit that Batman's primary function is to be a symbol of fear, because the only uniform consensus among any group of people is that he is fear. Batman agrees with me I believe. I mean, why did he choose to be the 'Bat' man? Because for him, due to his life experiences, bats symbolize fear. Example of Batman talking about his role in terms of fear:"When the mugger or the thief thinks twice--that is fear. That is what I am."[1] http://www.youtube.com...Now I am aware that Batman does inspire people, and he is a hero to some. The reason I bring up the fact that Batman is also a symbol of fear is to show people that even if Joker was killed by the Batman, and suddenly less people revered him as a hero, and less people had a positive opinion of him, his function as a symbol of fear to the people who harm Gotham would not be degraded, in fact it would probably be enhanced. Since one of his more secondary functions is being slightly degraded, and his more primary function is being enhanced, and hundreds of lives are being saved, how is this a bad move for Batman?And at the end of the Dark Knight, Batman says, "Because I'm not a hero, not like Dent. I killed those people. That's what I can be."[2] Batman is willing to be seen as the villain if it's for the good of Gotham. So shouldn't Batman be willing to kill the Joker, since it's for the good of Gotham, and possibly suffer being seen as a villain by more people? http://www.youtube.com...
Batman Should Kill The Joker

I will begin by refuting my opponent's arguments, then continue on with mine. Contention 1Here my opponent sources a blog that claims that Batman loses if he kills the Joker. As a long-time Batman fan, I definitely agree with that statement, however that is only half of what I agree with. The other half to this is that the Joker wins if Batman doesn't kill him, because Joker knows he's pulling Batman's strings and there's nothing he'll do about it. And even if my opponent and I can't agree on who loses and wins with Batman and Joker, certainly we can agree the 600 people the Joker has slain are the biggest losers in the 'game'. The kill/don't kill decision is a no win situation for Batman no matter what, the proper thing to do is take the loss that allows for the most people to win (survive).Contention 2Next my opponent makes it clear we have a disagreement on morality. I believe my rebuttal to contention one explains why this is the best choice morally. It's hundreds of lives vs one, and the life of a sadistic murderer at that. Anybody who believes it'd be wrong to kill the Joker is in self-denial of the fact that Batman is also a responsible party to the Joker's killings. Contention 3Lastly my opponent takes the debate into types of morality. He defines Utilitarianism and goes on to compare Batman killing Joker to a situation which doesn't match his definition of Utilitarianism. If Utilitarianism is having good be greater than the bad actions taken, pushing a guy of a cliff for your family may not fit that. Sure, more people are positively affected than there are people negatively affected, but the single person who is negatively affected receives a much stronger effect-much stronger than those who had a positive effect, even when combined. Perhaps if there were more details as to the people themselves and the circumstance, a determination could be made to see if the action was appropriate in the eyes of Utilitarianism.Batman's Opinion After 29 YearsAfter 29 years[1][2] in the Frank Miller, DC sanctioned Batman storyline, Batman has this to say to the Joker."No more!""All the people I've murdered by letting you live!"[3]http://www.youtube.com...Even Batman knows what he has done is wrong. If the man himself, at the end of his career, provides no defense and claims the guilt, we can more assuredly rest the case that Batman should kill the Joker. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(soundtrack)#Part_1 (warning: spoilers)[2] http://www.therealbatmanchronologyproject.com...[3] Joker vs Batman Video (don't watch past 1:40 in order to avoid spoilers)
Batman Should Kill The Joker

Ok, there is great speculation on this topic and ill be glad to end it. .. 1st. I'd like to point out that batman is trying to prove things by not killing the joker, and also he is winning this way as illustrated in this info I will drag from: . http://www.neatorama.com... "Because the Joker wins if Batman kills him. That's what the Joker wants. Everything he does is to taunt Batman into killing him. In fact, the interesting part of their relationship, the real conflict of each story, is not to see if Batman will stop him (he will), but to watch Batman struggle with not killing him, because anyone other than Batman would of course kill him. This self-control is Batman's superpower. " 2nd I'd just like to point out that you yourself stated in the rules that this debate is about what batman would do according to logic and morals, but its completely immoral to kill someone no matter the crime. This is a big issue, and I would look to this as a very important detail in this debate. Batman shouldn't kill for this very reason and you can cross apply my argument from point one, that states batman is winning by not killing the joker, by not giving him what he wants. 3rd You look at this debate from a completely Utilitarianism point of view, this however is not a good idea. Util is based of the principle that as long as more good than bad come from the situation then its OK, but what you said is equivalent to saying that you can push somebody off a cliff for their life insurance because your going to use the money for your family and less people are hurt. Overall this isn't a very "Moral" point of view and that's a huge deal in a debate. . http://theophilogue.com... These are overall some of the most important things for this debate so I strongly urge a con vote.