BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Joseph Smith is a false prohphet.

When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him," (Deut. 18:20-22). Being a Christian, this excerpt from the bible pretty much states my case in full. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism made MANY false prophecies. 1. Joseph Smith claimed that Jesus was to return 56 year's from the day of his prophecy. Yet, in 1891 the world was still very much not in the end of days. History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 408-409 2. Smith claimed a great temple, and the Mecca of Mormondom to be built in Missouri in his generation. It was instead built in Utah. Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31 3. Smith foretold of EVERY Nation, getting involved in the civil war. Obviously, this did not happen. Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3 4. Joseph Smith said that "in a few days" the earth would have no sun, the moon would be bathed in blood, and the stars would fall, and the earth would shake. That was in 1832, so what exactly does a few days mean? Doctrine and Covenants 88:87 5. Smith stated that Isaiah 11 6-9 was about to come to fruition. Isaiah states:"And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the kid, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. 7 Also the cow and the bear will graze; Their young will lie down together; And the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8 And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den. 9 They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea." These things are not happening. Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, History, verse 40 All of these quotations came from Mormon excepted doctrine. So if you are indeed a Christian, and follow the teaching of the Bible, how can you not see Joseph Smith is a false prophet? How can you excuse these so called visions from god not being true in the least? Not only will a Prophet of God not have false visions, they won't LIE about practicing them. Joseph Smith claimed to have had the "vision" of plural marriage as the only way to Godhood. This "revelation" is said to have been had by Smith in 1843 (as it says in Doctrine and Covenants, section 132.) Yet, why then did Joseph Smith ALREADY practice polygamy BEFORE this revelation? Also, why publicly in 1844 did Joseph Smith release a public statement in the Times and Seasons that a man preaching polygamy openly was being excommunicated from the church for preaching "false, and corrupt doctrine. Would a true profit of God hide a divine prophecy of God?
Addressing the atrocities against dalits

For the purpose of this debate, I am siding with caste system. The caste system was never intended to separate the people. The caste system originally came from Hinduism. In Hinduism, the caste system originated from Purusha, the first human. Purusha was divided into four parts. The Brahmin (priests) represent his/her mouth. The Kshatriyas (warriors) represent his/her arms. The Vaishyas (peasants) represent his/her legs. The shudras (laborers) his/her feet. Now, the original caste system only had four sections. But, as you know, there's a fifth section called the dalits. Now, in the olden times, the dalits were the conquered people. The prisoners of war. They were conquered, then forced to be slaves. The dalits were those slaves. In the caste system, in the religion itself actually, you rise through the castes when you get reincarnated (if you're lucky, in your own lifetime) by fulfilling your dharma (role). The dalits rarely rose through the ranks. In fact, if you're a child of a dalit, you often become a dalit yourself. The problem with abolishing the caste system is the fact that it's tied to one of the biggest religions in the world, Hinduism. Abolishing the caste system itself will mean breaking down one of the main pillars in Hinduism. The whole point of Hinduism is that eventually you'll be able to reach moksha. In order to achieve moksha, it'll take a couple of lifetimes. The caste system determines what role you have been given. Being a dalit also makes sense in the religion because remember, you just get reborn. It's highly unlikely you'll be created by Brahma as a dalit. You'll likely be either a shudra or a vaishya. If you're reborn as a dalit, that means you have not been fulfilling your dharma. Which makes total sense in Hinduism either way.
Addressing the atrocities against dalits

Please debate on the atrocities against dalits happening in India today. I strongly believe that the caste system are separating the people. The caste system doesn't make one united and the humans are not with humanity at all. Although caste system is a traditional and an old style..it only makes people worried and people get fight with each other based on their own castes. This only creates a big issue and it doesn't help us to lead our life. Why is this caste system necessary?? I don't know why people are so worried about this. For example..a person belong to a particular caste should marry only the same caste of them. Why is this...and if dalits are getting atrocities that's because they have got that caste..if there is no caste..everyone will be united and they would carry on their own work. It has put into the people's mind that every caste have some status of rich or poor..low or high and etc etc. But if there were no caste everyone can be happy.I don't say about religion..but caste is something different from religion. Caste can be there..but there shouldn't be any problem because of following different caste system. Why should we say dalits as dalits...why cant we say them as one among us.!! IF I SAID SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE...I AM SO SORRY..PLEASE!😇
The Central Principle of Christianity is IMMORAL

May Reason and Logic Win the Day in the Face of Religious Ignorance!Greetings!Con, your 1st round acceptance comments are revealing!However, I appreciate your honesty - let's begin!"We are punished by our sins, not for them"Contention 1 : Vicarious Redemption - Through Human Sacrifice A. To put it bluntly, the idea that one can throw their sins onto someone else is immoral. In essence, Vicarious Redemption is a kind of scapegoating. For this reason the concept has a vulgarity and element of barbarism.B. Vicarious Redemption abolishes personal responsibility to live rightly.To alleviate or relieve someone of their torments for wrong doing creates a dichotomy in which the sinner need only ask for forgiveness to be fully restored. This obfuscates the responsibility to live rightly for the sake of others and themselves. A truly moral person is haunted by their transgressions and for wrong doings. An immoral person is not.C. As this is the central principle, Christianity is rendered as a kind of cult-religion predicated on human sacrifice. Human sacrifice is immoral.D. Vicarious Redemption (in the Christian narrative) also pollutes the notion of love by making love compulsory. A rejection of this vulgar and immoral "free gift" comes with the consequence of eternal punishment in Hell.This means that a person who recognizes the immorality of Vicarious Redemption must accept an immoral premise in order to secure their own personal salvation and avoid Hell. This is a kind of evil in and of itself.Philosurfer
The Central Principle of Christianity is IMMORAL

I'm presuming this is just for acceptance. I'm a non denominational Christian and some of my views may not be what you call 'mainstream'. I will just contest that in view of the history of man from creation down, that Jesus Christ was the Creator's plan for the salvation of whole human kind. I may introduce topics that may seem wild or fanciful, but I believe they are not. If anything is controversial I will include them without fear of retribution. I do not believe in the mainstream idea of religion, so Catholicism, Islam and Judaism will come under scrutiny at times. Also some aspects of Christianity may come under that same scrutiny also. If that's good for you then I will be happy to have a lively informative debate with you.
The Central Principle of Christianity is IMMORAL

The Central Principle of Christianity is IMMORALThe central principle of Christianity is predicated on believing that Jesus Christ died in order to redeem the sins of Man:I shall argue that this belief is IMMORAL.Con agrees that in order to be "saved" (according to the modern Evangelical standard) one must believe Jesus was sacrificed and died on the cross to save man kind. Stipulations1) 5 round debate2) 8,000 word max per round3) No forfeiture - Forfeiture of any round is automatic disqualification & loss4) PLEASE - Serious debate only. Do not accept this debate if you have no intention of finishing the debate.Debate Format1st Round - ACCEPTANCE ONLY2nd - 4th Round - Open Format - Arguments and rebuttals can occur at anytime - EXCEPT for 5th and final round. 5th Round - Closing statements and conclusions - No new arguments. Any Questions or IssuesAny question or issues regarding the debate - please place in comments before accepting!All comments welcome!Philosurfer
smoking

Because you have already repeated earlier arguments, I will not stress my points again. It seems as if you agree with my stances on the claims, and don't really have any hard evidence to back up your warrants. As stated by the opponent "I do agree with some of your stances" "Your points about smokers and their willingness to quit is very valid" "This idea is not relevant to my argument, but I wanted to point out that my opponents point on this topic is valid" "...but I do understand the point you are making" "...but I do know that is a hard task to achieve especially when people are given the right to do things they wish" Banning smoking should not be legalized. As proved in this argument. Thanks for the debate.
You choose the topic

Reason One to Negate: The topics aren’t bad, so theory debate is irrelevantA) Pro says the Contradiction example was to show that polarizing topics can be debated. This is a straw-man, because it was to show that this isn’t a polarizing topic or one which favors either side- Pro’s sole warrant for that is constitutionality, which I rejected via is/ought fallacy. Extend the is/ought argument, which means the constitutionality of abortion and gay marriage are irrelevant.B) Pro concedes that concision is important- Lannan’s concession is irrelevant because it was rejected, and voters still provided strong RFDs explaining how Envisage one on arguments. In fact, there are many more examples of this happening- for instance, FourTrouble’s debate with F-16 on the trolley problem. [4]C) Voting: vote moderation removes all bad votes. The votes that remain are ones with reasonably fair RFDs.D) The topics don’t divide solely into stark contrast (i.e. they are not polarizing)- because there’s nothing more in them. Nuances such as civil unions or time restrictions on abortions can still be presented by each side- which means there’s no nuance left to avoid. As such, there are only two positions to take on any of the topics, and there’s no harm to that explained. The topics are fair, have even ground [dropped] and are debatable. They can always be debated again, even if “beaten down.” Pro fails to explain how these topics aren’t debatable. Vote them down because their theory shell completely fails in interpretation/standard, so there’s no impact to violation- this completely acts as the antithesis to Pro’s original intent (to have a “choose the topic” debate) and infringes on my intent when I presented topics with even ground.[4] http://goo.gl...Reason Two to Negate: Private MessagesSocietal values dictate that private messages are kept private. The DDO community at large agrees that posting private messages publicly is wrong. [5] Giving entire PMs publicly without consent is a bannable offense if done repeatedly. It is considered a community standard for conduct. Moderation policy backs this up.Since there are no objective codes of conduct, the codes of conduct recognized by the community at large are enforced by moderation- and those codes of conducts must be upheld in-round. The impact of such a violation is setting a precedent, and allowing the infringing of privacy- which defines a “private” message- to continue. The role of the ballot is to enforce the values of debate- usually, that means voting for the side with more compelling arguments, but here, it is enforcing a basic code of conduct.I object to them posting the message publicly lacking consent. Don’t jeopardize the ability to object to non-consensual posting of private information, and vote them down.[5] http://goo.gl...
You choose the topic

1) Brevity is the essence of wit, but showcasing other instances of short debates that hit a high mark don't answer the arguments I make up top about being unable to break ground on bad topics. Con drops the Contradiction debate to instead focus on a debate between Envisage and Lannan13. In that debate Lannan13 forfeits because he broke a rule, this is hardly an exemplar for good debate. Further, the argument is non-responsive to the issue of polarization. We could have had the best debate in the history of this website, but these are still bad topics because they're polarizing. 2) A) Bias, bad voting, and voting blocs will always exist. If they can exist on national collegiate circuits, they can exist on an anonymous website. B1) The issue here isn't controversy, it's polarization. I use this word time and time again, but Con consistently recharacterizes it as an issue of conflict. Polarization is an issue of creating false dichotomies when there could really be some middle ground. The problem isn't in exploring controversy, it's in our failings to recognize the nuance of controversy. B2) This is a pretty blatant moving target. The RFD argument was a response to Con's argument that good debates can still happen on polarizing topics. I note that even on what was a pretty decent debate, people still failed to check their own biases because the topic itself was already polarizing. Also I find Con's attempt to delegitimize the importance of voting and RFDs funny when he later tries to get me voted down for posting a PM we had. 3) Being on the big issue list means jack. That list is basically a snapshot of a 2003 Fox Newscast. It hasn't been updated in years, and it lacks any level of nuance. It's dichotomous, and incomplete. Extend the conflict v. polarization analysis here, it is never responded to. The topics are bad because they're polarizing, not because they're contentious. 4) Voting on theory is valid when topics are polarizing and lack depth. Con never responds to the answers I make towards Contradiction's debate being different from ours. I already call him out on his moving target up top, but I want to do it again here because it's unfair and further justifies voting Pro on theory. When topical debates are polarizing, we ought to call out the framing of the issues themselves for the health of the activity. 5) There is no rule being broken here. If Con didn't want me to post that message then he shouldn't have sent it to me. That kind of private politicking is bad for debate and reifies the notion that rhetoric outside the debate space is different from rhetoric inside of it. Voters 1) Polarization is bad - when topics are polizing to the point that they make all ground false dichotomies, then they don't contribute to good debate. these topics lack nuance and ignore personal autonomy.
You choose the topic

1) Any topic can be argued in 3,000 characters in a quality way. Concision is critical to the act of persuasion. There have been multiple good debates that have been done that way. For instance, Envisage defeated lannan13 using 2000-character arguments on the issue of God’s existence- one that is a subject much more in-depth than gay marriage. It was a good debate anyway. [http://bit.ly...]2) The argument from voting standards fails for two reasons:A: RFD standards currently prevent bias in voting. Contradiction’s debate came up before vote moderation became sufficiently strict to remove bias.B1: Furthermore, Pro fails to explain the link between poor RFDs and these topics. If the reason is these topics are controversial, turn. The purpose of the round is to resolve controversial issues- if Pro’s world is one where controversial issues are not debated due to bad voting, then Pro’s world is one that negates the round itself. This is a debate site and controversial issues are going to be debated. If Pro has a problem with the round, then they are perpetuating the same harm by starting a debate.B2: Pro doesn’t explain why bad RFDs are a detriment as long as there are good RFDs too. Bad RFDs just don’t offer good things and influence the win record- but Pro needs to explain how the win record is important, when biased RFDs can be rejected in the minds of the debaters anyway.\3) Pro talks about how the topics are one-sided ones. Pro fails to prove that this is the case. They are controversial issues- there’s a reason they are on the DDO “big issues” list. The only reason they are bad topics that I am able to gauge is the voting, which severely lacks explanation and completely strips out the concept of debate, in which case you vote Pro down anyway for perpetuating the harm they are trying to solve. Pro also talks about me “hijacking” their position- but that was merely a harmless misinterpretation.4) Theory debates aren’t fine when there are topics with ground on both sides- which I’ve proven with the example of Contradiction’s debate. After that, there’s no reason for theory because there’s no abuse- in which case all Pro is doing is securing the ability to not debate a topic they don’t want to debate.5) Pro links an image to the PM between Pro and I. Two things. First, that’s irrelevant to the theory debate. Second, it’s a violation of basic conduct to publicly showcase PMs without obtaining consent- the definition of a PM is a “private message”. That’s why it isn’t on a comment on the wall. Vote them down on conduct. The violation is also sufficient for a vote on abuse since Pro is utilizing material from me which was intended to be private for their gain- clear showcase of abuse in round.
You choose the topic

We won't break ground The argument I make up top is that we're not going to break any kind of ground on subjects as polarizing as this one in a debate this short. Con responds by arguing that the opinion of legal scholars, and the constitutionality of a subject do not disqualify them for an equitable debate. The heart of the argument, which Con doesn't respond to, is that these are inherently polarizing issues. The Contradiction's debate is a turn because it actually prove my point pretty well when you read through the RFDs. With the sole exception of RoyLatham everyone votes in line with their prior opinion, no-one's opinion is changed over the course of the debate, and all but two RFDs are about two sentences long. Aside from that, the debate is five rounds at 8,000 characters. That debate and ours are not comparable. These topics are skewed because they're not ones we can have a meaningful debate on under this round's parameters, and even if we did break any ground on the topics voters are likely to just vote on their own biases anyway. Ignoring such a glaring lack of fairness reifies bad debate practices and reduces the standards of out activity. Framework debates are valid If we want to continue to have debates that make us excited about this activity, then it is important for us to occasionally interrogate the ways we debate. Whether this happens explicitly as a function of the resolution, or arises as a response to what is perceived as bad conduct in-round is irrelevant, one ought to have the right to have theory and meta-debates as is necessarily required by the content of specific debates. I am all for having debates where the topic is explicitly geared towards unpacking framework issues, but if we only allow framework discussions to happen when the topic is meta then we do a disservice to the activity. I forego a topical debate in favor of a framework debate because of how Con presents his topics, not because of the topics themselves. The first two are just plain bad, but for the third he hijacks my position leaving me with nothing to do other than debate bad topics are accept abuse. Sure Con gives me a different topic in round two, but the entire point of that is to avoid the framework debate. Con even PMs me about wanting to delete the debate entirely because he doesn't want to debate framework.[1] [1] http://imgur.com... The topics are bad But that isn't my reason for abandoning them in favor of a framework discussion. I do the work up top to explain why we're not going to break any ground on these subjects, and below that on why rejecting topical debate in favor of framework debates is valid. Here I want to drive-home why these topics being bad is important. I would be willing to argue against a topic that I simply disagreed with, but these topics are polarizing and have been beaten to death. Even a well-written debate such as the one Con linked don't get voted on fairly - why should we replicte that?
You choose the topic

Topics: Pro's sole reasons for these topics being "skewed" is that legal scholars have decided them. But that's about *constitutionality* of those, not whether they "should" be legal. That's an is/ought fallacy. There are actual arguments against same-sex marriage and abortion; those two might be constitutional, but that's irrelevant. I was actually looking for a framework debate on that. There's no inherent advantage in either of the first two topics--I don't see why that's the case at all. Morality isn't the only ground to oppose abortion -- there's actually other ground [e.g. psychological damage from having abortions, reduced potentiality]. There have been multiple debates on abortion. Similarly, there are actually arguments against gay marriage. There's no "skew," because arguments on constitutionality are is/ought fallacies. There's a reason I debate - it's fun. I can convince readers of positions. Animal rights, gay marriage and abortion are issues I'm passionate about, and I'm looking for persuasion. The fact that they've been done before changes absolutely nothing. What Pro is doing is essentially saying these are topics Pro doesn't want to talk about. In that case, Pro shouldn't have made this debate. There are topics that are truisms [e.g. "evolution is true" or "sea lions are seals"]. This isn't a truism because it's an opinion topic. Debate is an exercise in persuasion. I'm able to achieve that. I'm also able to achieve a rigorous intellectual discussion. There are people who oppose gay marriage and abortion, and good debates on them. For example, the user Contradiction has produced multiple good debates on the subject of same-sex marriage; this is one[1]. Philocat has produced good debates on abortion[2]. As for animal rights, I didn't realize that the side allotted was the only side; I apologize for that. I offer the following topic in place: "United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations." Role of the Ballot: The role of the ballot isn't "better debate shaping." Vote Con on abuse, if anything, because Pro abuses the resolution completely to shift the focus of discussion from any topic to one on what debate is about. Instead of allowing one to choose a topic - especially when the topics aren't truisms - Pro is picking topics that *they* want to debate. That defeats the purpose of this debate. Pro is deliberately abusing this to gain a victory. Vote them down on that and teach them that that's not the correct thing to do--because if a person is just going to say "you've done that many times, nothing can be achieved and I don't like it, so vote for me," contenders will start running arguments against instigators like that and the purpose of debate is destroyed. Sources: 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://www.debate.org...