BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Adam is not God as proven by the bible.

However my opponent is speaking against the very text of the bible. He falsly asserted that Adam was not the son of God, but Luke begs to differ. Luk_3:38, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. My opponent deny's God's ability over life and death. Act_17:18, Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. I assert that if Jesus/Adam=The Alpha of the Bible could not die as Adam and return via virgin, then your religion is worthless. My opponent is wrong about the word 'ground' uses in God's figure of speech means Adam/David/Christ's bloodline=Genealogy. Not DIRT! My opponent deny's that Christ is a actual son of David in the flesh. 1Jo_4:3, And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 2Jo_1:7, For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. The Root of David is the first man in David's Bloodline record who had children=Adam. " 1Ch 1:1 Adam Sheth Enosh 1Ch 1:2 Kenan Mahalaleel Jered 1Ch 1:3 Henoch Methuselah Lamech "
Adam is not God as proven by the bible.

The root of David is Jesus not Adam. You might be wondering why. If we take a look at Genesis 5:5, It mentions very clearly that Adam died. "Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died." Genesis 5:5 Christ can not sin since because he is the son of God. But Adam sinned. For example, take a look at Genesis 3:17. "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life." Genesis 3:17 Jesus I wanted to point out is not the flesh and blood descendent of David. He was conceived by the holy spirit as told by the Gospel of Luke. Luke 1:35 "The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail." It is now your turn.
should clothing be mandatory

clothing should be a personal choice and left up to the individual. clothing might of been used as instinct but one should not be forced to cloth them self all the time even in summer. It should be a natural born right to remain the way we are born, naked !!!!! it is proves that nudity is healthy and lets our body breath and absorb More sunshine and vitamin D we don't normaly get with clothing on.. "Many naturists are convinced that increased exposure to the natural environment, made easier through nudity, can result in numerous health benefits. Sunlight has been shown to be beneficial in some skin conditions, and is required by the body to make vitamin D" (science america on nudity) and in other studies the best sleep is achived while naked! "Not only is sleeping naked more comfortable, but it's good for your health too. Increasing your level of comfort makes it easier for you to relax and sleep, so you get a better night's kip. The resulting deeper, longer sleep makes it easier for your body to regenerate and repair itself, and build up your energy for the day ahead"(sleepnaked.org) further proves that being naked is a benefactor to our health and should also be up to the discretion of the individual
should clothing be mandatory

Well, I guess I'm supposed to keep going. Clothing, aside from being used to protect the body from the cold or the sun, is used to hide parts of our body. Not purely out of shame, but because it may be necessary for society. One very simple example: Imagine if you will, primitive human beings in a society. The alpha male's mate is probably very attractive. This may make things very complicated when a beta male comes across the alpha and his mate and get an erection. Thus, one cannot simply say that clothing is unnecessary and we shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies. Simply speaking, clothing is quite natural for us.
should clothing be mandatory

I'm not quite sure what your position is, since the title is a question. But I shall argue the position that clothing is a necessity. Biologically speaking, humans have comparatively little fur. This is because we originated from areas of warm climate with the sun overhead. As bipedal organisms, the sun does not strike our bodies, but strikes our head. This is why he have hair on our heads, but not as much on our bodies. Body hair would cause heat stroke and do little to no protection from the sun's rays in exchange. However, as humans began to migrate out into colder climates, it is necessary for them to fashion their own methods of protection from the cold. Just as it is natural for us to migrate outwards, to be intelligent, and to abuse our environment for our own protection and means, so is it natural for us to construct and wear clothing.
should clothing be mandatory

as it is well known that all humans born are not natural in garments but born of naked flesh then immediately are cloth and covered ,shamed. why is this because we are afraid of our naked truth ... we as humans have obtained shame from our first mother and father Adam and Eve .. it was those two who sin in the garden of eden forcing us to see our self's as grotesque and naked. "We live in an atmosphere of shame. We are ashamed of everything that is real about us; ashamed of ourselves, of our relatives, of our incomes, of our accents, of our opinions, of our experience, just as we are ashamed of our naked skins. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Anglo-Irish playwright, critic. Tanner, in Man and Superman, act 1." and
Baseball is better than Football

Yes more people play Football but that is because it does not require an attention span that is very long, you are on the field for just a few snaps and for no longer than 5 min. While in Baseball you are on the field for an average of 2:30 to 3:30 hours and you play everyday. Also looking at your profile you are probably not 30 so you don't play high level Baseball or Football. many NFL players do not want their sons to play Football due to all of the injuries surrounding the game, one even said in Sports Illustrated that they want them to play Baseball not Football. your third "fact" is not a fact is your assumption of my skill set and life experience.
Baseball is better than Football

First of all for football you get pads and i would know alot about it because i play but you never said tackle football. It could've been flag football or 2 hand touch. I play tackle football and baseball and tackle football is at least 20 times more fun. Fact1. much more people play football than baseball Fact2. much more people watch football than baseball Fact3. how would you know, have you ever played tackle football because if someone just told you that thats only their opinion
Legalized Abortion

First, I'd like to point out that my opponent ignored all of the attacks on her case, so I extend all of my arugments against it. She also ignored the point about rape victims. Since making abortion illegal would make it illegal for rape victims as well, you can negate this resolution based on that. I'll even expand the argument to include cases whre the mother's health and/or life is at risk. Making abortion illegal makes it illegal for these women, too. Now I'll refute my opponent's attacks on my case. 1.) She says that would-be parents should be willing to accept the consequences of their actions. I admit that they should be more careful, but this is a life-changing thing because of one mistake. Surely we can afford these girls a second chance. She also brings up alternatives to abortion. But we are debating abortion, not other options. The existene of alternatives does not change whether or not abortion is right or wrong. You can idnore this part of her argument, as it does not actually prove why abortion in and of itself should be illegal. 2.) On back-alley abortions, she says: "If this is the case, the mother should understand that this choice that she has just made can also cost her her life. The woman should be smart enough to be able to predict the outcome of her actions." Yeah. She should be aware. That doesn't change the fact that back-alley abortions will rise dramatically, and we simply don't want that to happen. You're avoiding the point here. You're basically arguing that it's fine for them to perform these back-alley abortions as long as they realize the health risks. These back-alley abortions are not something that we want, regardless of how aware the would-be mother is of health consequences. 3.) "Well then, isn't an unborn fetus a member of society also? The fetus has had unalienable rights ever since it was conceived. These children should not be denied the right of life. We werent denied the right to live. No one should." No. An unborn fetus is not a member of soceity. In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment reads: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." You aren't a citizen, and thus not a member of the US society unless you are BORN in the US. Being unborn makes it impossible for you to be a citzien. An unborn fetus is not a member of society. You have not given any proof for this claim at all.
Legalized Abortion

I would like to apologize for my absence and continue my argument. I would also like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and granting me his patience. Now, my opponent has stated that abortion should be legal because, "young people make mistakes. Yeah, it is irresponsible for a young woman to have unsafe sex.". He's also stated that he is not going to tell her that she has to make serious changes to her life plans just because she made a mistake and didn't use a condom. My argument is simple: If the young woman and her partner have decided to become sexually active, then they should be willing to bear the consequences of their actions. If the parents cannot support the child, there are different alternatives such as: a foster home, adoption, or the child could live with family members until the parents are able to financially, emotionally and physically support it. He has also argued that if abortion is made illegal that back-alley abortions will run rampant. If this is the case, the mother should understand that this choice that she has just made can also cost her her life. The woman should be smart enough to be able to predict the outcome of her actions. Next, my opponent argues, "we have more of an obligation to those who are already a member of our society than those who are not.". Well then, isn't an unborn fetus a member of society also? The fetus has had unalienable rights ever since it was conceived. These children should not be denied the right of life. We werent denied the right to live. No one should.
Legalized Abortion

Well, thank you for the challenge. I wasn't expecting it. I will be arguing this from the standpoint that abortion should be legal. By the resolution, there are no other burdens that I have to prove. Now, my opponent first claims that the average female decides to abort around three months, and around this time the fetus has developed fingernails, has a heartbeat and can feel pain. Well, if this is a problem, then abortion can still be legal. Let's just make the cut off date for where you can get an abortion earlier than three months. But even if you don't accept that, my opponent's argument is not enough to vote PRO. Having fingernails is not enough to grant you a right to life. And as for feeling pain from the abortion, while I admit it seems bad that a fetus is undergoing this pain during an abortion, they'd feel more pain if they were actually born. There is nothing more painful than life. Saying that we should make abortion illegal because a fetus can feel pain is illogical, because it is inevitable for every living human to feel pain. My opponent's other argument is, "Children are the leaders of our future and we should appreciate them by allowing them to live." Well, most people who have abortions are from demographics that tend not to produce world leaders. Of course, there are exceptions; this I do not deny. But since we can make no perfect prediction as top whether a fetus could eventually be an asset to society or a burden on society, neither side can really use what the fetus could eventually be as an argument. As for the appreciation for allowing them to live argument, my opponent has not given any reason why the fetus is more important than a woman. Shouldn't we be appreciating the people who are already members of our society first? Now I'll give you some reasons why abortion should remain legal: 1.) Rape victims. If abortion is illegal, then a rape victim who becomes pregnant has no option but to carry a fetus in a situation that she has no control over. 2.) Young people make mistakes. Yeah, it is irresponsible for a young woman to have unsafe sex. But I'm not willing to tell her that she has to make serious changes to her life plans just because she made a mistake and didn't use a condom. 3.) If abortion is made illegal, then back-alley abortions will run rampant. You can't stop people from getting an abortion. If it's illegal, they'll do it themselves, and it will be done in extremely unsafe ways. Keeping abortion legal keeps abortion safe. 4.) We have more of an obligation to those who are already a member of our society than those who are not. Since a woman is a member of the social contract whereas a fetus is not, we have an obligation to uphold her right to autonomy over a fetus' supposed right to life.
Against the needle yawns a hundred transformation.

Rain raps the window in measured timbre, as fingers rap the keyboard in measured response. Not dissolute in this rapture or desolate in this isolation. But resolute in this wonderment. Momentarily in ecstasy, met by this barrage of love moulded conjecture. Neither baffled or deluded by this conquering necessity. Onward I march into time honoured obscurity. Against the needle yawns a hundred transformation. Against time and infinity, everything rallies against an all transforming end.
Evolution is a "false" word because nothing ever evolves

I will only continue this debate if my opponent agrees to NO use of profanity, plagiarism or any other type of deviance. Now to explain my reasons/logic for making the statement that "evolution is a "false" word because neither ever evolves. " This includes the earth, animals, bacteria or anything. POINT 1: Nothing has ever evolved including the earth I believe the earth was created by God and nobody can positively prove otherwise. So the "creation" (or whatever you want to call it) of this earth or universe is indeed a faith of some type and my faith is that God created it therefore we are left to debate with the earth that we have. POINT 2: Now that we are debating over our present earth we do have fossils and other artefact's that tell us about our earth and they all conclude in the fact that evolution never took place to make them. For example, and to head this argument off, one might say that dinosaurs are proof of evolution. However, they prove the exact opposite they have become "extinct" because they couldn't cope with their atmosphere (weather it was a "flood" or "big bang", "world earthquake" it doesn't matter) and so they perished not evolved. POINT 3: Nothing on the earth right now is evolving including us (humans) or any other mammal. So if at one point "things" were evolving why did they stop all of a sudden? So these are just a few points to get us started. Again I thank you for this debate and wait for your response.
Christians are not closed minded

Consider the huge number of Cristian denominations that currently exist and their wide array of interpretations concerning the Word of God. It's sad and unfortunate that their fabricated interpretations create heavy debates even within the Cristian community, about what certain sections in the Bible could mean. I ask you if all the Bibles in the world were thrown into the ocean, who would produce the Bible again? Nobody. Because they don't even agree about what the Bible is now. Cristians are so closeminded amongst themselves that this negative practice is being implemented outwardly on the Non-Christian community. With all this confusion around the concept of "true Christianity", it's difficult for Non-Christians NOT to label Cristians as closeminded. This all boils down to one thing, Spiritual Maturity. Romans 12:2 "And be not conformed to this world but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good and what is acceptable, perfect and will of God :)
Christians are not closed minded

It's hard not to agree in a way with what you're saying since sure there are Christians that can probably come across as annoying with their messages to others but I do think that in todays society it's not a bad thing to hear more messages of faith and about the life and works of Christ. A lot of our country is turning into the "anything goes" mentality and putting feelings above morals in my opinion. Not saying anything should be forced or that it should be overbearing but the messages coming from those that would oppose a Christian message is just as annoying and often times stronger right now.
Christians are not closed minded

Hi! First, I would like to say that just because my name appears in the con section, doesn't mean that I believe Christians are close minded. Let me explain. Cristianity itself is not closeminded but most Christians are. Christians are taught at a young age an art that I would like to dub the "auto-preaching method" where the preacher shoots out a steady flow of specific words that contain no personal view of the individual but rather a criteria that was previously created by someone else to serve the single purpose of getting a point across. The fact is most Christians have expectations from the individuals who hear the Word, that they should accept it regardless their belief. I appreciate the actions of Christians who share the Message of Christ with people, but the pace at which they jump from person to person creates annoyance rather than appreciation. James 3:1Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be jugded with greater strictness
Scientology is dumb

Scientology started as a struggling science fiction writer turned one of his sci-fi novels into a religion, teaching that what happened in the novel is real in everyday life. The author was told if he wanted to succeed, his books were not making it and if he started a religion then he could make some real money from it and he did.......so people really believe that space aliens are taking over their bodies and they give away their money in hope of getting delivered from the aliens and to spread the messge of this silliness which they actually fell for and it's dumb.
Scientology is dumb

You are Con, you are supposed to be telling me why Scientology is not dumb. Please explain to me how Scientology is not dumb. I say it is dumb. That is my opening arguement. I guess I lose since burden of proof is on me to show Scientology is dumb, if you don't pose any argument as to why it is not dumb so I can show how dumb your assertion of Scientology not being dumb is. If Scientology is not dumb, please tell me how it is not dumb. If you will not tell me how it is not dumb, and I say it is dumb, then at least I said somehing about it when you are saying nothing. It seems to me that you could expllain how Scientology is not dumb and you would be happy to do so if you really believe it's not dumb.........but maybe you really think it's dumb and I just can't prove it. Dumb means silent....no speaking. If you say nothing, you are being dumb. I say scientology is dumb and that is why you are saying nothing trying to show how it is not dumb.
Lets Rap Battle

looks like i found my match, to bad you trash, like that burnt batch, your rhymes put me to sleep, haha, man im bout to go deepppp, your pretty talented with this Sh**, but hey, your so loose, 5 black men can fit, im not hating on girls, but looking at you..makes me wnna hurl.. Ten pound weights? Hoe just wait, but yo a** stank like fish bait, you aint worth this skill, just go back to taking your period pillss ohhhhhh, man want some ice with that burn, haha, really hope you learn, man im on fire with this sh**, makin you fall deep, like micheal jackson after his #1 hit...have a good day, btw, you dont have to go to the corner to get payed
Lets Rap Battle

awwww lil girl knows how to bake, to bad shes fake, now go and do a retake My fame? dont question it, cuz you know your lame waitttttt did you say your to cool? aha what a fool, chick, you just a tool, watch me ill teach you how to pull ima god, your a minion, as if i give a F*** about your opinion, your words are wack, so just bend over nd dont look back make you moan my name, now you wont doubt this fame? This IS my game, and ive already won, so just go off and run, but please dont get offended hun(:
Any extraterrestrial life is likely to be very similar to life here on earth

While that may be true, you cannot ignore the fact that it's quite possible that certain parameters could exist that we aren't aware of yet. None can say they know everything about the universe and there's always more than one way to skin a cat. Earth might very well be one exception to the norm of what average life in the universe looks like. Suppose on a different planet, only the body plan was different and one of those creatures came to Earth. The being would hardly be deemed "very similar".
Any extraterrestrial life is likely to be very similar to life here on earth

Chemical behaviour is proven and predictable. Atoms adopt/lose electrons according to the wavelength of energy absorbed. Chemical bonds, e.g. DNA, break down under certain conditions. Evolutionary pressures select for the most successful features. If any terrestrial planet must lie within certain parameters in order for life-requiring reactions to occur, life arising on that planet to be similar to life on Earth, have similar drives that result in the evolution of similarly adaptive features
Any extraterrestrial life is likely to be very similar to life here on earth

Although there are "various constraints on life" there are also unlimited variables to how an organism can be constructed. The real debate here is what's considered "very similar". Many different environs can be produced on different planets and just the slightest change can alter an alien drastically. You said "any life" which would mean every planet in the universe would need to have earth-like beings and, therefore, the same variable conditions to Earth. The probability is nearly impossible.
Any extraterrestrial life is likely to be very similar to life here on earth

The various constraints on life (i.e. must derive energy from its surroundings, must compete, and coexist with other organisms through evolution, must self replicate, must hold details for its own self replication, must arise from the same 'primary' interstellar gases [hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen] from which all solar bodies are sprung) suggest it is likely to be limited to a set of ergonomic mechanisms/patterns that can only function within a limited range of terrestrial conditions