BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
To circumcise or not

"I am not formally educated on debating, but will be glad to school anyone who challenges me." So much for that.Here's my other circumcision debate which was also F.F. http://debate.org...In it, I address some of the negative claims made about circumcision.Medical professionals, especially those engaged in setting policy such as bioethicists, must take as their starting point the fact that reasonable people will disagree about what is valuable and what is harmful. They have an obligation to construct institutional norms and policies that do not presuppose or enforce a particular moral or political doctrine. There is a need to differentiate between rituals and practices that are in fact grievously harmful and those which relate to the enhancement of a child’s religious and cultural identity.In summary, the case against allowing parents to choose whether circumcision is or is not in their son’s interest has not been conclusively made. In our pluralistic society, there will be marked diversity between reasonable conceptions of the good concerning what interventions are valuable or promote a child’s welfare. Even in contexts when such interventions are medical in nature, the potential benefits or risks associated with the child’s welfare concerns will often involve medical, social, and cultural factors. As it presently stands, there is an absence of sufficient evidence or persuasive argumentation to warrant changing the current policy—that parents should have the freedom to make an informed and well deliberated choice as to what's best for their child.Medical professionals, especially those engaged in setting policy such as bioethicists, must take as their starting point the fact that reasonable people will disagree about what is valuable and what is harmful. They have an obligation to construct institutional norms and policies that do not presuppose or enforce a particular moral or political doctrine. There is a need to differentiate between rituals and practices that are in fact grievously harmful and those which relate to the enhancement of a child’s religious and cultural identity.
Oral transmission in the Bible is reliable

Evidence does show that the Gospels were written from oral tradition (1). Paul clearly used oral traditions to transmit the Gospels (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 4:16-17, etc.) I will first begin by addressing Bart Ehrman's stance on oral traditions and the synoptic problem. The Synoptic problem is resolved simply by oral transmission (2). Bart Ehrman's problem: Bart Ehrman completely exaggerates the changes made in oral transmission. He obviously isn't aware of all the evidence presented for the reliability of oral transmission. Now you bring out supposed contradictions in the Gospels, but partial reports do not equal false reports. The Gospels are slightly different accounts of the same life of Jesus Christ (3). "Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" There are two solutions for this problem: 1) It was passed down orally - Not everything in the Gospels were written down (Joh 21:25). 2) It's paraphrasing Jesus' teachings (Luke 6:38). Lets not forget that other signs of oral transmission also exist in other books of the Bible. The creation account also has common elements in other myths around the world (4), probably making oral transmission even more accurate and easier to remember. Genesis in Hebrew uses alliteration and repeats similar sounds. More evidence for oral transmission: Western academics are increasingly accepting oral transmission as reliable (5). Albert Machaise says this about oral transmission: "The academic world and the oral history process both share an important common principle: They contribute to knowledge by building upon what is known and remembering that learning is a life-long quest." (6) Experts also list eye-witness testimony and oral tradition as reliable methods so long as they follow specific procedures to verify their authenticity (7) The book "mind of a mnemonist" is a study done by a psychologist on a person using mnemonic devices to accurately retain memories for years (8). Oral transmission is said to be even more reliable than written transmission (9). According to "The Jesus Legend", remembering the words of Jesus would be very easily committed to memory (10). As i have stated earlier, there is simply an overwhelming amount of evidence for the oral transmission of the Bible being reliable. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Myers, Allen C., ed. "Synoptic Problem." The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. 1997. Print. 976 3. "Contradictions Among the Synoptics? in Craig Blomberg book "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels." 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson, eds., The Oral History Reader (London: Routledge, 1998), ix"xiii. 6. Albert "Sonny" McHalsie (Naxaxalht"i), "We Have to Take Care of Everything That Belongs to Us," in Be of Good Mind: Essays on the Coast Salish, ed. Bruce Granville Miller (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007), 82. 7. http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. http://www.amazon.com... 9. Chars.JesJud - Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988. 19. 10. http://www.amazon.com...
Abortion is morally indefensible.

This debate concerns the popular conception that abortion is amoral. I will argue against this idea. Burden of proof is shared in this debate. Points of contension will include determining morality, when a fetus must morally be considered human, and the rights of the mother.Pro may take a lead in the first round.In each successive round, all opposing points must be refuted or conceded. New arguments may be introduced each round until the final round, which may only be used for refutation and concluding statements.No fallacious arguments are allowed. If one makes an argument by fallacy, and the fallacy is identified by the opponent, one must either restate the original argument in such a way as to avoid fallacy, demonstrate effectively why the argument is NOT fallacious, or concede the point. All arguments by fallacy, which are identified and not resolved, must be considered abandoned by voters.
Gasking's Objection to the Ontological Argument is Valid

Oh, I suppose I'll take this challenge. I suppose I'm not totally invested in Gasking's Objection. The reason I have previously used it in a debate was simply because I found it amusing and a parody of the ridiculous nature of the ontological argument, and indeed that was the original purpose for which it was conceived. I do, however consider the argument to be logically valid. My problems with the argument reside in the truth of the premises, not with the validity of the argument. So, here I am.As my opponent has already so graciously pointed out, the validty of an argument lies in whether the argument's conclusion follows from its premises. I contend that this is the case with Gasking's Objection.It is really quite easy to see (for me at least) that if the premises are true the conclusion follows logically. So, I will allow my opponent to launch his objections against the validity of the argument.
Gasking's Objection to the Ontological Argument is Valid

Ave! I have seen Magicr use Gasking's Objection to the Ontological Argument in his debates. I feel that this objection is extremely sophomoric and unsophisticated. So, I've decided to challenge him on it.Glasking's ObjectionP1: The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.P2: The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.P3: The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement.P4: The greatest handicap to a creator would be non-existenceP5: Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.C: Therefore, a maximally great creator does not exist.Logical ValidityA valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises. [1] http://www.unco.edu...Vale!
THBT change comes through molotov cocktails, not with a voting ballot.

I beleive that change comes through molotov cocktails, not with a voting ballot.Terms1. THBT: This House Beleives That.2. Change:Development of current state.3. Comes: Occurs.4. Molotov cocktails:Actually home-made grenades, (HERE) war.5. Voting ballot: (HERE) Peace.StructureR1. Rules for Pro, Acceptance.R2. Arguments.R3. Rebuttals+ defence.R4. Conclusion/ Why I won this debate.We cannot have arguments in the first round. We cannot have new arguments in the final round.Rules1. No forfeiting unless there are a same number of forfeits2. No trolling3. No plagiarism, or you have to quote it. 4. Cite sources in 'Sources' Category5. No new arguments in final and beginning round.8. BoP is shared in this debate.9. Not following rules is an automatic loss.I thank my opponent. Let's have a wonderful debate! I STRONGLY CALL UPON VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY OPINION.
Colored Girls Useless

Your logic really is all over the place. I'll just rebute your points. 1) So colored women are the cause of homosexuality and they're gay too? What is wrong with being gay? Why exactly do colored women scare men but not women? Why do colored women scare people in the first place? On a side note, while colored people rank more in rates of LGBT that isn't their fault. [1] This also implies that I'd anyone is gay then they're useless. 2) Colored women aren't automatically depressed. According to this study, older white men have higher rates of depression than any other race/age. [2] Rates of self harm show that young white women are the highest group. [3] And even if they had the highest rates of depression and self harm that isn't their fault. You don't click on and say you're depressed one day. 3) As far as I know, there are no scientific studies showing that black women attract snakes. And how are black women like rats? How does this work at all? Why? In conclusion, I would say you're a rather serious troll or a new brand of racism straight from Texas. That's all I have to say. Peace. Citations [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2]https://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com... [3]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Colored Girls Useless

Ok so I don't have much of an opening as this part will just close the debate , #1 they are the cause of homosexuality as they may make other race girls look as if they are not good enough for the men and thus the woman will look for better love within their gender and can scare men to a point men don't want to be associated with women thus homosexual, #2 they have depression issues , they cut themselves when depressed, #3 they are like rats they cause havoc on the earth then attract snakes, the men and this causes more havoc as snakes bit and harass humans so the rats would have cause damage then attract more damage this being colored girls
Only the educated should be allowed to vote.

First of all, I am not a trump supporter, I think he is a incapable idiot, but he has nothing to do with this debate. The reason I think only the educated should vote is, so that demagogues, "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument", dosen't get power. One popular demagogue you probably know is Hitler. Because he was a very good at speech, he as you know, managed to convince a majority of the Germans that their problems we're caused by the Jews and he would fix them, he then gets elected. If only Germans who are educated voted, Hitler may have never gained power.
Michael Savage is a bigot

Personally, I would define bigot as a very strong hatred. But, as I believe that in a debate such as this one, the devil is in the details, as they say, and Pro's definition specified that the group be one's own. If Michael Savage is not actually what he is prejudiced towards, according to Pro's definition he is not a bigot, and that is the definition we are using for this argument.According to Pro's definition, bigotry can't be self-loathing, at least not due to membership in a group. If I'm prejudiced towards bisexual people, and I am bisexual, I cannot, according to Pro's definition, be bigoted towards them in favor of heterosexual, asexual, pansexual, or homosexual individuals, because I'm not being partial to my own group.
Michael Savage is a bigot

Perhaps it's in the nature of bigotry to be self loathing? Can we blur the line between of what constitutes a bigot and that of someone who is merely just person who hates himself? I must ask my opponent how he would define legititamate bigotry in specific. My contention is that bigots as my earliar definition stated : "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ", may possibly just be the product of in part of the very self hatred Con has suggested. References on the topic..1. http://jewishquarterly.org...2. http://www.psychologytoday.com...3. http://www.getesteem.com...
Michael Savage is a bigot

Ah, but note that he says 'Christianity'. He thinks that the only way to make Arabic individuals worth anything is by converting them to Christianity. And nears as I can tell, he's Jewish. So if he views Christians as superior, and he isn't a Christian, then he might better classified under 'self-hating Jew' than 'bigot'. And since he is most certainly not partial to Judaism to the exclusion of Christians, this is another reason to view him as not a bigot.[1]Similarly, Michael Savage's tone reveals what appears to be a nativist bias. But Michael Savage is a second-generation immigrant, with his parents from Russia--the land of 'dirty commies'.1. http://www.tabletmag.com...
Michael Savage is a bigot

I must admit I did NOT foresee this argument coming. My opponent's contention is that instead of Michael Savage being a legitimate bigot, he is in fact a repressed self-loathing homosexual. Indeed that would explain a lot about Savages clothing, tone and general attitude towards the gay community as a whole. But I must ask, while that may explain his disgusting views towards gay people, where does the hatred against other minority groups come from? Remember, the debate topic isn't just "Michael Savage is bigoted towards gay people." We're here to debate whether the man is simply a bigot or not. Surely you can't say the man is a repressed Arab from the middle east or a self loathing illegal immigrant can you?
Michael Savage is a bigot

A Note: I have taken this debate in the belief that such an individual as Michael Savage can have no real defense here, and thus must rely on people mocking him.I agree that Michael Savage is a sad little man.I agree that he hates.I do not agree that he is a bigot.My argument is simple. Michael Savage cannot be a bigot because he is what he hates. For instance:1. Michael Savage is gay. A repressed gay, perhaps, or perhaps he is actually bisexual, but he is attracted to men. He was photographed swimming naked with Allen Ginsberg and reportedly expressed a desire to take photographs of him in a provactive manner.[1]2. His name used to be Michael Weiner. Coincidence? I think not.[1]3. Michael Savage was originally an ethnobotanist working in Fuji and was married in the rainforest.[2]4. Michael Savage, while not Muslim, was born Jewish.I propose that rather than being an actual bigot, Michael Savage, who was abused by his homophobic father[1], suffered in part a mid-life crisis that caused him to become self-hating. Why, I do not know. But it seems like a valid alternative to the possibility of him being a bigot who flipped from being in love with Allen Ginsberg to calling him slime.1. http://www.sfweekly.com...2. Toxic Talk
Michael Savage is a bigot

I suppose I have the B. O. P. In this scenario Bigot: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ" . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I have the utmost confidence that the reactionary talk radio host Dr. Michael Savage is indeed what most rational people would consider a bigot. Here are my main reasons why I've drawn this conclusion. . 1. He wrote a book titled "Liberalism Is a mental disorder". Really? If writing an entire book to describe in detail how you not only disagree with an entire political ideology at its face value, but reduce said ideology as a "mental disorder", IS NOT an act of BIGOTRY, than I must say I'm at a loss. 2. The idea of a woman being married to another woman "makes him want to puke". He believes that gay parents by virtue of just being gay are conducting child abuse. He infers families that have gay parents are "fake families". Source:. http://www.youtube.com... 3. The frequent cut-offs of the people who call into his shows that disagree with him only amplify his intolerance of second opinions. In this clip, a caller states "I think you're bordering on racism on this issue. ." and is than immediately cut off by childish noises and insults. . http://www.youtube.com... 4. Michael Savage has once said that Arabs (referring to Arabs in nations in the Mideast) "need to be forcibly converted to Christianity. .. .. . It's the only thing can probably turn them into human beings. . http://mediamatters.org... 5. Due to his viciousness to those that disagree with him, he was banned from an entire country! That's right, the United Kingdom banned Michael Savage from entering their country. :) . http://www.wnd.com... ..
Gay Marriage should be legalized

INTRODUCTIONIn my post for round two of this debate, I intend to present my case against gay marriage.“Critical you actually have not answered the question about why Gay [sic] marriage should not be legal [sic] you have just shot down my arguments.” I know. That’s because you didn’t give me enough room to! I do not have enough characters to present both rebuttals to your arguments as well as my own case. In this round I will post as much as I can fit of my own case, then leave the rest of it as well as my rebuttals in the comments section. ARGUMENTSPositive Arguments There are simple and obvious reasons why gay marriage should be legalized: A marriage is not understood as being simply a really good friendship, but something more special and intimate. Part of marriage involves the bringing of children into the world. This ensures the survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are able to create offspring, but homosexuals couples cannot. There is a discrepancy here, an inequality between heterosexual and homosexual unions. Another aspect of marriage is the relationship itself between the two people involved. The relationship is one of deep sexual intimacy. The bodies of two men or the bodies of two women do not fit the purpose of the sexual organs. I hate to become graphic, but this is what the debate calls for. The penis is fit for the vagina. The two fit together like a hand and glove, or a lock and key. They compliment each other. Two penises do not compliment each other, nor do two vaginas. The man’s body as a whole compliments the woman’s body, while two male bodies or two female bodies do not compliment each other. I’m not saying that two gay people cannot be really great friends. I’m not saying that two gay people cannot be intimate in some way, as I am intimate with my friends. I’m not saying that two gay people cannot love each other very much. No one in the world is trying to deny that there is some kind of relationship between two people of the same sex. It’s only a certain kind of relationship that is being opposed, the sexually complimentary union between two people. That can only be achieve by a man and a woman. Pro says that she is interested to know why the legalization of gay marriage would be bad for society. I assume that by “bad” she means “negative practical consequences.” But it is not my burden to show that legalizing gay marriage is “bad” for society in the sense that I believe Pro means. My burden is to provide reason for why gay marriage should not be legalized. That reason is that it is not meet the standards of marriage. The push for gay marriage is reliant upon a confusion between different kinds of relationships. <SEE COMMENTS FOR CONTINUATION>
Gay Marriage should be legalized

CriticalT thank you for accepting the challenge. Sorry about the issue with word count as this is my first debate on this website I wanted to make this a smaller debate to get a feel for how the site works. First I will discuss what Critical said in his first argument: (1) No gay people do not have the same rights as a straight person! Gay people can not turn straight and so can never fall in love with the opposite sex. Yes a straight man can not marry another man but he doesn't want to it is not in his interest. However he does have the right to fall in love with the sex he is interested in and marry them were a gay person can't! (2) I understand what you are saying I just wanted to dispel any 'God says it is wrong type arguments' (3) You are basically saying that Gay people do not need to marry to have a loving family however the rights and security that marriage gives is needed when raising children such as being allowed to visit your partner when critically ill in hospital. Also saying you are married in our society and culture is a status symbol to your relationship it means you are committed gay people want to declare there love. Not allowing gay marriage is basically saying there relationship is inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them.Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, (5) The definition of marriage has been constantly changing since it was first written in biblical times. It used to be prohibited for blacks to marry whites. As well as a marriage contract back in the Elizabeth period being contracts of wealth and not love. Also the definition was written under religious guidance so surely in a society that is not ruled on religious law we should not be covering the old dated version of marriage and is it really much of a negative change to say marriage is between 2 people who love each other instead of marriage is between a man and a woman who love each other. It is not such a change! (6/7) I was also just wanting to shoot down some arguments. These points were merely a basic outline of some very basic facts that I wanted to state when starting this debate. Critical you actually have not answered the question about why Gay marriage should not be legal you have just shot down my arguments. I am interested to know why the legalization of Gay marriage would be bad for the society? In the 10 countries that gay marriage is legal in the legalization has not caused much issue if any at all.