BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The USA was founded upon Christianity.

"The Bible permits requiers stoning and burning. " Which are part of the verses I thought you would bring up but are not part of the Ten Commandments and I was referring specifically to the Ten Commandments. "Freedom of Religion" I have addressed this already "I have proved through the use of the bill of rights and some of the basic laws we have that it could not be based entierly off of the Bible as Christians claim. " Maybe not entirely, but there is a lot of influence from the Bible. "The resolution to this debate was that the US government was NOT founded entirely off of the Bible, as Christians claim. I have proved that through the use of how the US bill of rights contradict the Bible. " Actually the Resolution was more along the lines of Christianity having no influence if it had been said from the start that there was allowance for some Christian influence I wouldn't have had to go after it so hard. Here was your original premise. "Nowhere in the constitution does it appeal to any religion. It creates a secular government. The US government derives "From the people" not God. In fact, it separates the church from the state! The state has no business being in the church and the church has no business running our nation! " In response to a few of the quotes "Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion? " I agree with his sentiment, the Papacy is a theocratic dictatorship, with a bureaucratic hierarchy. I am not a Catholic. Your final quote by Waterhouse is mostly a mischaracterization of Christianity. In conclusion I don't see my opponent as sufficiently discrediting Christian influence on the Constitution and Law of the United States. I have shown how Christianity was an important part of life during the time the Constitution was written even if some of the signers did not agree with everything Christianity taught.
The USA was founded upon Christianity.

Good luck as we advance in the final 2 rounds. My opponent has shown tremendous conduct, which I thank him for. "There were numerous authors. Not just James Madison. " True but he was the primary one and I also brought up the fact that about half the signers were members of the clergy. true. But the other half were not. Furthermore, the other half were mostly Deists. "Why does the Constitution not mention God--not even 1 time? " There are several reasons for this, one is that it is a semantic style, inspired by the articles of Confederacy and it was implied that our rights came from God. Another reason is that the intent like everything in the Constitution is for the states to elaborate. Also, even though there is no direct reference to God in the national constitution, most state Constitutions have a reference to God in their preamble. Refutation of reason1: Which God? Remember, George Washington and Jefferson along with most of our founding fathers were Deists! Refutation of reason 2: The constitution still serves as the law of the FEDERAL governenment. Remember, this debate is referencing to the FEDERAL government. "The Constitution is the basis of our government. Why does it create a secular nation? " If it were creating a secular nation then the free exercise clause would not read "or prohibit the free exercise thereof". The Bill of rights take their cue from the ten commandments. The worship of God is not mandated but not forbidden either. In fact the supreme court of Florida in 1950 concluded, "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. ""[T]he prohibit of free exercise thereof. .. " is referring to the fact that the government cannot make laws that would prohibit or disable a certain religion to practice their beliefs. "The Bill of rights take their cue from the 10 commandments. " Huh? The 10 commandments in Exodus 34 CLEARLY states "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God (1) (YHWH). " Clearly this is not taken from the 10 commandments, otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to worship other gods! Christianity gives a good basis for what is acceptable or not. Have you even read the Bible? I highly doubt it if you are saying that. Of course, this is not that type of debate so if you want me to quote some evil bible verses, we can in another debate. Back to you, pro. Source1. . http://www.biblegateway.com...;(verse 14)
The USA was founded upon Christianity.

"The DoI is NOT the government's law. The constitution is. " Agreed and I was considering mentioning that in the last round but it was my opponent who brought up Jefferson and his beliefs. "There were numerous authors. Not just James Madison. " True but he was the primary one and I also brought up the fact that about half the signers were members of the clergy. "The pilgrims first came to America more than 100 years before the Constitution became law. " This is true but my opponent never specified that the Constitution was the sole source we would be looking at; the pilgrims had an influence on setting up some of the colonies that became the states. Now that my opponent has made it clear that the Constitution is the only thing we are looking at I will focus primarily on that but although it is the document that establishes our current Government on the federal level, it is not the only element to the founding of the USA. "Why does the Constitution not mention God--not even 1 time? " There are several reasons for this, one is that it is a semantic style, inspired by the articles of Confederacy and it was implied that our rights came from God. Another reason is that the intent like everything in the Constitution is for the states to elaborate. Also, even though there is no direct reference to God in the national constitution, most state Constitutions have a reference to God in their preamble. [1] "The Constitution is the basis of our government. Why does it create a secular nation? " If it were creating a secular nation then the free exercise clause would not read "or prohibit the free exercise thereof". The Bill of rights take their cue from the ten commandments. The worship of God is not mandated but not forbidden either. In fact the supreme court of Florida in 1950 concluded, "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. " "Freedom of Religion means that we can worship God as we see fit as long as it does not contradict another law (i. e. murder) and violate rights. " Agreed, which means certain religious practices are to be opposed. Christianity gives a good basis for what is acceptable or not. I thank my opponent for his response and look forward to the next round. 1 . http://www.freerepublic.com...
The USA was founded upon Christianity.

Christianity was NOT founded upon Christianity In this debate, I will attempt to show that the USA was NOT founded upon Christianity. Many Christian activist claim that the US was founded on the truths of the Bible. I say, NOT TRUE! Rules1) both parties have BOP.2) Must show good conduct.3) Opponent must be knowledgeable about US History. Opening arguments Contention 1: The Constitution The constitution serves as the law for the government. Nowhere in the constitution does it appeal to any religion. It creates a secular government. The US government derives “From the people” not God. In fact, it separates the church from the state! The state has no business being in the church and the church has no business running our nation! (1) Contention 2: Treaty of Tripoli John Adams, our second president, wrote the Treaty of Tripoli. This is a quote from Article 11 “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussel men; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (Bold text added for emphasis.) (Same as source 1) This can’t get any clearer. The treaty was written by the second president, a founding father, and CLEARLY stated that the government of the USA is NOT founded on the Christian religion. Contention 3: Quotes from Thomas Jefferson—author of the constitution "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." - to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814 "On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." - to Carey, 1816 (2) Does this sound like a Christian, God-fearing person? If so, then why did he leave out God in the constitution? Also, why did he make some of those quotes that would astound Christians today? Furthermore, if he believed those quotes, why would he write the constitution based on Christianity? Source1) http://www.nobeliefs.com... 2) Thomas Jefferson quotes: http://freethought.mbdojo.com...
Same Sex Couple's Shouldn't Be Aloud to Adopt

Thank you con for your argument and please allow me to make a few statements. First off I am not homophobic or agiasn't gay rights but I don't think it should be so common place and acceptable as it has became to reach a point where gay adoption can be considered okay. I can't help but feel that it's population control (well actually a part of it) and I know this is absurd to say but think on it. So many things show case gay and lesbian and seem to push for it to be okay and acceptable. It's reached all forms of media and has even begun to reach a point to where gays can kiss in public but someone who is heterosexual could get in trouble for kissing the opposite sex at the wrong place or time and gay pride parades. So the point is they are promoting and allowing gay more then straight. Almost all movies and shows have a peice of it and it has only grown more and more common with time. sources on this matter. http://henrymakow.com... http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com... Also here is this on how some areas are pushing more towards gay with all the rights. Disclaimer I mean to bring attention to who holds the rights not the other controversial aspects of below article. http://www.independent.co.uk... I would also like to further inquiry on my claims that gay adoption is wrongful to children with this. http://www.wnd.com... We need to think of the adverse effects all this can and will have on society we have pushed to the point of reverse discrimination on the matter and its becoming worst and worst and now to drag children into the matter won't help either. A child is a delicate and influential being and placing them with in such environments is as I instated unethical. Now I will show a very graphic article on how a child can get a horrible short end of a stick by being aloud to people with obvious mental or hormonal problems to be gay in the first place. I will warn this article is rash and a little rude and it isn't these things I post it for rather I put it out there to show how in this case literal abuse has happened. So I ask please excuse the sensitivity of it all and stay on course with the core point in mind. http://floppingaces.net... I know I have taken a highly controversial route but then again this debates core point is highly controversial in itself. I hope con and all readers take nothing the wrong way. I know some of it is ruff but this rashness is needed to help people realize the seriousness of the matter.
Same Sex Couple's Shouldn't Be Aloud to Adopt

Before I give out my opening statements I would first like to say I hope Pro and I both have fun participating in this debate. As for my opening statements: 1. Homosexuals are just like any other normal person in society, really. They go shopping, they work, etc. What families need are loving parents, and homosexuals can be loving parents. It is by no means necessary to deny the right to adopt. As a quick note to your last statement, almost all feedback from kids who have homosexual parents is in fact positive. Denying them the right to adopt a child or children because they're different is utterly pointless. Each person is their own person. Everybody is different. 2. I would also like to question your statement that homosexual couples with children influence the children to become gay, and your remark on an all homosexual world. The number of homosexuals in the world is significantly smaller than the amount of heterosexual people. I doubt that everyone in the world will become a homosexual because homosexual parents influence kids. (Or that it would affect births) I would like to challenge Pro to find any evidence of children that have been influenced to become a homosexual themselves in the first place. 3. Many children who are raised by homosexual couples fair the same in terms of self esteem and other development, but some in fact do better than those who are raised by heterosexual couples. (Take note these are not all of my arguments) Here are some sources to look at: http://www.bu.edu... http://www.aamft.org...
Same Sex Couple's Shouldn't Be Aloud to Adopt

Allow me to open by saying I hope my opponent can remain mature and rational on a debate that needs to be brought up. Now to my debate. I believe same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt for a three part reason. 1. In my opinion if nothing else it is unethical for in reason if children are influenced to be gay/lesbian as well it can hinder us. For the fact is if all the world was gay than who would have children and therefor who would continue us as a whole. 2. I continue by saying it can wrongfully influence a child. As I previously brought up it can influence a child and this is wrong. A child shouldn't be influenced into controversial things whatever they maybe. For the children shouldn't have to be drug into it in the first place. 3. Also allow me to be humored here, but what of the child's rights. What if the child him/herself doesn't want two mommies or daddies. All children deserve a father and mother not two of one or the other. Now I conclude my instigation with this I do have more reasons, but will for now hold them back to provide my opponent room.
Using 3xOsc is better than Sample-ing in audio production. (FL STUDIO)

Oh no, don't you die on me... I'm simply "attacking your experience" to show that your debating a topic in which you hold no knowledge of. If you had experience you would know how to use 3xOsc, or any oscillator, and would know that sampling is actually harder than using oscillators. As you put it in your words - "all you have to do is remove tabs, cut the sample, and add your own tabs." where as 3xOsc - All you have to do is be creative. And if you cant be creative, I'm sorry to say that your not a musician. A musician is called a musician only when they create music. Create Music. Create CREATE CREATIVITY !! See when you sample other artists tracks, your not being as creative as making your own. 3xOsc is more time efficient, more simple, and much better in general than sampling.
Using 3xOsc is better than Sample-ing in audio production. (FL STUDIO)

My opponent states that "If you knew how easily oscillators were when you learn what your doing, you'll see that sampling is pretty much useless in making your own original songs and tracks." Right here they easily prove that 3xOsc is a hard to learn feature. Beginners can't learn this add-on simply because it's so complicated where with Slicex, all you have to do is remove tabs, cut the sample, and add your own tabs. My opponent is attacking my experience instead of the debate. I will refuse to debate this topic.
Using 3xOsc is better than Sample-ing in audio production. (FL STUDIO)

Well, this should be fun. By saying "I say sample-ing is better, the user must have a musicians ear to understand where to cut and modify the sounds that are being sampled. Sample-ing requires a significant amount of musical talent" you are implying that cutting a sound that someone else has made using oscillators requires more talent and more musician skills than actually creating a sound and a rhythmic pattern. How does this make any sense at all? You also mention your experience on being a DJ for 3 years. Tell me, if this is so, why do you spell sampling as "sample-ing"? See, this is how you can spot out "musicians". When ever I need to work with a DJ, I always ask them to spell sampling just to see if they take what they do seriously. If they are serious about DJ'ing than they must do research on music to further knowledge than selves and get better. I can see that you do not do research because you can't even spell sampling correctly. (Need I to remind you that all a DJ does is sampling, if they can't even spell what they do, how accurate are they with their information?) I highly doubt that you are a DJ at all. Just because you mess around on a torrent version of Fruity Loops, does NOT make you a musician. Also, just because you don't know how to use 3xOsc to get the sound you want make sampling more efficient. If you knew how easily oscillators were when you learn what your doing, you'll see that sampling is pretty much useless in making your own original songs and tracks. Here's a thought, Why don't we do some research on the topic up for debate before we jump into it.
Using 3xOsc is better than Sample-ing in audio production. (FL STUDIO)

My opponent states his experience in the music industry. I am not as experianced as they are, however I am also a musician and my experience is DJ'ing for 3 years. I agree with my opponent on the fact that 3xOsc is more efficient than sample-ing. However an experienced sampler can easily get the sound they want within seconds. All they have to do is chop the part out and use it, and this process can be sped up by using Slicex. The user can easily see where the sound is by looking at the provided sound graph and single out that sound. My opponent also states, that cloning can be used on the 3xOsc, However they make it seem as if cloning is only available for the oscillators. You can clone pretty much any sound, plugin, effect, or even entire patterns. I say sample-ing is better, the user must have a musicians ear to understand where to cut and modify the sounds that are being sampled. Sample-ing requires a significant amount of musical talent.
Using 3xOsc is better than Sample-ing in audio production. (FL STUDIO)

I say using 3xOsc (3 oscillators) is much more efficient in music production. It is much faster than sample-ing. As a producer having 7 years of experience and 5 years of universal music production experience, i will gladly say that time is money. The more tracks you push, the more money you make. A producer only makes money if he/she is able to sell their tracks or make tracks to sell to artists, and every experienced producer knows that you make money only when you sell a certain high amount of tracks to artists before you can sell your own tracks. The faster you knock this process out, the faster you can make more money. When Sample-ing, the producer wastes a lot more time trying to get a sound that they could have made simply by using oscillators. Also, you can easily copy and paste 3xOsc's by cloning and use the cloned ones to change keys, effects, or even oscillators. As you can clearly see, 3xOsc is much more efficient than sample-ing, which is why it is better to use.
The no child left behind act of 2001 is flawed and should be removed

Your last statement. .. Then in your closing you say if we remove it, schools will receive the aid they need. Now, OBVIOUSLY, if these schools have to lower their standards in order to receive the aid [. .. ] THEY WON'T RECIEVE IT OTHERWISE! This is wrong what I was trying to say was,If the act/law/what ever was removed then all school's would receive aid because they wouldn't have to lower the standards so yes they would receive aid. Ok lets move on Now lets say that your analogy was put into motion and they did lower the standards. Then wouldn't lazy students who didn't care about their grades pass the test and move on to the next grade? Which in turn would make trouble once they got out into the working world and didn't have the required skills to do the job that they had? Also if we lower the standards time and time and time again to fit each year that goes by eventually no child would learn anything because all they would have to do is make like a 8 out of 36 or lower. Now also from personal experience I am a 10th grader at Smithfield Selma high school of Johnston county in North Carolina. I have seen first hand how stupid this makes our school look I make good grades yes. But when the kids that don't try in school and have no motivation or what ever you want to call it get in a class that I am in and talk goof off and hinder me to learn I think yes it does hurt me and other students like me. Now you could say that I should take honors classes but not every class has a honors course like Spanish, computer apps, Physical sience, etc what about those classes? I do take some honors classes and they are not as bad for interruption I will give you that. Finally I will state that it lowers our entire nations standards and makes the country look bad.