BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus loves science

Its okay. You can keep reposting the same thing over and over again in big huge letters as if it makes any difference, since you wanna talk some smack. And so far, Im proposing a theory. A theory is astoundingly logical. And thus, I was trying to help you imagine a theoretical jesus, since clearly your imagination is somewhat lacking along with your reading skills. When i say my jesus, im clearly talking about the one that i believe would exist if say he did. So, i call him jebus, because he is not the Jesus that christians believe him to be. And im surprised that you didnt catch that as part of the song, "Jesus Loves Me," a popular christianity song that has been sang by children in the religion for dang near a millenia. you can not say what i must prove and disprove because you can not order your opponent to use logic in a certain way, and that is your way. If you can not accept a theory of something, than you lack scientific courage, and scientific imagination. If you value evidence and logic? Id stop saying that since you are the one running out of that son.. I do not need to prove his existence if he is a theory, which still leaves it open to discussion. Hell, like i said, when you said that he didnt existed, and that there is no evidence for it, I AGREED WITH YOU... herp derp dude. Slow down and read... it might help you in the near future. Havent made an argument for your proposition? you havent started something for me to argue against yet except to get you to understand how to argue with something like this!!! Id have made this bigger knowing id have to bs with you just to understand the topic. Read the friggin comments. If you wish to continue to debate and not lose, assume his existence for the time being. You, as of right now, are being as stupidly stubborn and stuck-up as a general devoted christian.
Jesus loves science

Pro has conceded. I quote PRO. "Jesus loves science this I know" Pro has yet to provide any evidence for his fallacious assumption. This debate is about "Jesus". Not the other equally fictional charter that Pro just fabricated "jebus"Pro may use whatever imaginary friend he desires. However this debate is clearly about "Jesus" having a alleged passion for science. Pro cannot change the rules. Pro MUST first prove that "Jesus" existed. Pro has yet to make one argument for his proposition. Jesus never existed .
Affirmative action policies which give minorities preferential treatment should be eliminated.

Resolved: Affirmative action policies which give minorities preferential treatment should be eliminated. I affirm the resolution. Seeing as I already defined the key terms, I feel it unnecessary to define them again. I will also take my opponent's add – on to "minority into account throughout this debate. Contention A: Affirmative action leads to the defiling of actual minority achievement By using affirmative action, we show non – minority citizens that minorities "need" to be able to be productive in society. As a result, when certain people are seen as successful, citizens wonder if it is actual talent or just the results of being pushed through a system riddled with affirmative action. Contention B: Often time's students that have been admitted to schools/corporations under these circumstances are ill – equipped to handle the job as they were not selected on a merit basis. When affirmative action occurs, sometimes the people who benefit from it are not equipped for the treatment they receive. When chosen over an aptly qualified white person an African American male can be accepted to certain schools based on the color of his skin. Due to the fact that he may not be admitted on a merit basis, he may be under qualified for the program or school he was accepted to.
Affirmative action policies which give minorities preferential treatment should be eliminated.

The only definition I would like to clarify is the definition of minority. I would like to add that the group must be composed of less people. It seems obvious, but I still would like it noted that my opponents definition did not say that the different group must be a group with less population than the "majority". Moving on to the stances. The burden of my opponent is to prove that minorities should be given NO preference. So if a black student and a white student have everything exactly the same, and i mean everything, including life story, then the admissions should flip a coin to decide. That is what my opponent must prove. I must prove that in such a situation, giving preference to a minority student would benefit society greater and would be more just. One other stance burden to clarify is that preferential treatment does not need to be an extreme. Many affirmative action policies are not saying that if they are anywhere close, a minority should be taken over a majority. Most say that when in conflict and the two are very similar in ability and merit, a minority will be chosen SOME of the time. Not every time. I will accede to my opponents request and wait until next round to post arguments. I look forward to an exciting debate.
Affirmative action policies which give minorities preferential treatment should be eliminated.

I would appreciate it if my opponent did not post an argument for the second half of this round but instead used the second half to clarify definitions, stances, etc. Definitions: * Affirmative Action : a policy designed to redress past discrimination against women and minority groups through measures to improve their economic and educational opportunities [1] * Minorities : a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics *Preferential : showing preference *Eliminated : to put an end to or get rid of Sources: [1] - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"Once saved, always saved" vs. "You can lose your salvation"

Romans 1:27 The men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in themselves (being sodimized) the penalty of their error. If a believer rejects God his punishment (the penalty of their error) is being sodimized by a demon possessed man. Sometimes to the point of death, 1 John 5:16b. When a Christian loses their faith we're to pray as David did, "Appoint a wicked man over him, Psalm 109:6. Hebrews 6:4-6 warns of Christians who lose their faith, "it's impossible to renew them again". There is no hope for them. Psalm 94:23 He has brought back their wickedness upon them and will destroy them in their evil. They cannot be re-saved even if they seek God with tears like Esau did, Hebrews 12:17.
"Once saved, always saved" vs. "You can lose your salvation"

1. Consider this your warning on rule 3 2. round 1 "accepting" means you type something like "I accept and look forward to debating with you blah blah blah" 3. When debating with scriptures, giving a list of verses without an argument does nothing. I didn't think I had to include that in with rule 2 Now with that out of the way, my opening argument. First we need to examine salvation, If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. -Romans 10:9-10 I'm sure we all been to a church or event that stated something like "If you would like to ask Jesus into your life and be saved repeat after me.....[Some variation of the "sinners prayer"]". We forget about the believe in your heart part or don't put the proper emphasis on it. I've always noticed in churches that teach loss of salvation tend to treat the salvation prayer live "magical words." Just because some one says the prayer it doesn't get them saved unless it is in there heart. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. -Matthew 7:21 What is the will of the Father? For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." -John 6:40 From the looks of it you are going to debate what I like to call the Sin-O-Meter. It's where we sign arbitrary point values to sins and as long as you are under X number you are saved. Not to regress but this is also used for "I am a better Christian than you." Whoever keeps the whole Law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking ALL of it. -James 2:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; -Romans 3:10 With that all said: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law, but under grace? By no means! -Romans 6:15 and All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. -1Corinthians 10:23 Yes, if you carry on in sin, you step away from the blessing of God and reap what you have sown. But ... My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. -John 10:29 Now that we got the backbone of the argument I would like to put forth an argument of logic. If you have to truly believe to be saved, then for sure you would have to truly un-believe to be unsaved and how can one do that with the Holy Spirit in them?
"Once saved, always saved" vs. "You can lose your salvation"

You can lose your salvation if you commit a homosexual act, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:10-11. I'm sick and tired of them christians having gay sex and thinking they'll go to glory in heaven. Preachers need to stop being yellow bellied and start hollering about eternal damnation, 1 John 5:16,17. It's time to start, "acting like men", 1 Corinthians 16:13.
"Once saved, always saved" vs. "You can lose your salvation"

I would like to have a debate with a fellow Christian who view that salvation can be loss. I will argue for eternal salvation. Few rules, first to accept you must be a Christian (denomination not important as long as you believe in salvation through Jesus Christ alone). Second, scriptures are of top importance and must be used to back-up your argument. However, scriptural context is import. Third, EPH 4:29 "Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building up the one in need and bringing grace to those who listen. " Lets keep this civil and respectful.
Islam is not a religion of peace

Good luck to you as well. Many say that Islam is a religion of peace. This is not true. Their prophet Muhammad, said that they should attack infidels (surah 9:29) and he also assumes that the jews and christians are working as one against them (Al-Ma'idah Chapter 5:52), and that if they do befriend a jew or christian that you are no longer a muslim, and are now an infidel. Muhammad is also sexist, and believes in beating your wife when she does not obey you (surah an-nisa 4:34). Some say it means lightly, with a rag, but lightly with a rag doesn't make your skin greener than your own clothes (sahih al bukhari 5825).
The USFG should substantially reduce its military presence in Japan

I read your contentions, Pro, and I have tried to counter them as best I could with "Intelligence" (as you put it), since without sources and logical arguments we could just say yes and no to each other all day long. You say its hurting women that the US is in Japan, you cited some cases of rape, and called it a day. I'm making the contention that there are better ways to solve this than removing the entire military installation, as you suggest. I provide ideas, and then move to say that the US is in reality a force of good in the lives of the Japanese people, while providing EVIDENCE as well. Besides the several cases of rape you presented, you make no effort to explain the current situation of women's rights in Japan. If you don't understand the foolishness of this, let me give an example: I make a debate and claim that bananas are bad for soceity and must be banned and only then soceity may move forward. When questioned why they are bad I respond by saying several people choked on them. When questioned why I think that removing them will make soceity move forward, I only make the contention that it will. When given alternatives to banning bananas, which are healthy and provide many nutrients and would be foolish to ban, I say you are misunderstanding me and refuse to debate and instead talk about how bananas are being grown in too many places in the world. In addition, I keep insisting bananas are making the world a bad place, without reference as to why. This is what you sounded like when you just debated me. You make no sense. I ask that the voters put aside their personal feelings about bana--- er. .. this topic and base their decision on the facts presented, and not the whimsical assertions of Pro.
The USFG should substantially reduce its military presence in Japan

I affirm the resolution. United states presence in japan promotes violence agianst women. thus the plan: the usfg should completely withdraw from japan. contention one is patriarchy. us presence in japan condones patriarchal policies and violence against women. leaving japan would end this violence. we must first end gender violence before we can solve other socail problems. vote aff on gender equality, saving lives, and saving money.
Veganism is a morally superior choice than being a non vegetarian.

Veganism is a morally superior choice than being a non vegetarian. Definitions Veganism: a strict vegetarian; someone who eats no animal or dairy products at all. Morals: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character. Non vegetarian: Someone who eats animals/ part of animals- cooked or otherwise as a part of their diet. One underlying assumption in the debate is that we are keeping ‘all things constant’. That is, keeping all other habits of two people constant and similar to each other, judged solely on the basis of their eating preference, a vegan is morally superior to a non vegan. I thank my opponent in advance for agreeing to debate this topic, and I am sure this would be an enriching debate. With this, I start off the debate. I would start off by making two basic premises and then we’ll work on them 1. By being a non- vegetarian, one supports the meat industry: Since by being a non vegetarian (A), the people are increasing the demand of the meat, they support the meat industry. In order to keep this industry thriving, animals have to be killed(B). Thus, tracing the source of your meals, eating meat translates to animals being killed. 2. Killing any sentient living being is wrong: Sentient here can be defined as ‘conscious, having sense or perception of feeling, a thinking creature’. Killing any living being, a being capable of conscious thought is wrong. More on this later rounds. Now logically, since by being a non vegetarian, one supports the meat industry. Which causes killing of animals, which is morally wrong, this logically implies that being a non vegetarian is morally wrong. Summarising, A-> B B-> 2 2 is morally wrong, hence, A is morally wrong. Since a vegan does not support meat- eating, or eating of animal products, a vegan contributes to that part of population that does not support the meat industry, which thrives on killed animals. Thus logically, being a vegan is a morally superior position than being a non vegetarian. This is the most basic of my argument; I understand that my opponent may have a problem with the second premise. I await my opponent’s argument.
Working as a decent doctor is better than working as a decent lawyer

I will refute Con's argument (or rather a question).I have never said that working as a lawyer is bad, but that working as a doctor is better than working as a lawyer. I agree with Con that lawyers are helpful in getting people out of jail. However, a criminal is a criminal for the rest of his/her life. Getting out of jail, this person's life might not get any better, and the individual might even do harm to the society again. For example, employers would not accept that person's applications once they found out what that person is, and therefore he would not get any decent jobs (or even no job). This individual may even create more problems for the society, such as stealing things or joining gangs. If the convict completely understands his mistakes, (which is unlikely because he/she lives in jail, a world of lawbreakers and addiction) then the lawyer is truly helpful for the society.
Working as a decent doctor is better than working as a decent lawyer

Sorry I do not understand what you mean by "layers." However, I will continue my arguments.2. Many people appreciate the service that doctors give them, but only some appreciate lawyers' serviceOur lives are more important than our social issues and laws, which would mean nothing after we die. As a life saver, doctors are more appreciated than lawyers for several reasons. Of course, doctors save many lives, if not all, but lawyers could not save any. Also, there are a few times when lawyers fail to solve the social problems and laws, or fail to persuade the judge. Indeed, we human are not all perfect, so both doctors and lawyers made some mistakes. However, doctors will hardly ever fail in an medical operation; lawyers, on the other hand, have to argue against someone, maybe even another lawyer, and one side has to win. Therefore, in every debate, there will be a winning side and a losing side, so there will be failure. The failing side will have distrust between both the lawyer and the person who hires that lawyer, and that losing lawyer will not like the winning one. As a result, a lawyer, in a debate, will have half of the people who appreciate his service, and the other half, or the opposite side, who will not appreciate it. With almost all people appreciate doctors and only half, or even less, appreciate lawyers, who would be more appreciated?
Working as a decent doctor is better than working as a decent lawyer

Thank you for joining... I would like to post my arguments. 1. Everyone needs doctors; not many people need lawyers. Therefore, doctor is a more stable job than lawyer. Doctors are more stable than lawyers. Take 1 million people for example. How many of them would need a doctor for their whole lives? How many would need a lawyer? The answer is unmistakable: all 1 million people would need doctors to take care for their health, but only some would need a lawyer. Nobody, even Con and Pro, would never get sick their whole lives. Therefore, everyone need a doctor. Also, many doctors work for insurance companies or the government and get paid by them. For example, in Canada, every doctor is paid by the government. Unless the government is not stable, the doctors' salary should not be suddenly cut by some unexpected circumstances. As a result, doctor is a stable job. On the other hand, a lawyer only works for client who have some major disputes or need a notary. Of course, people who have major disputes are plentiful these days, but not as plentiful as people being sick. When we think of ourselves, we could hardly find any major problem, whether it is in our family or from our activities, that must be put on court. In fact, many people want to avoid the court because they have to pay for the expensive lawyer fees and probably pay some more if they lose the argument. The court, however, is an important part in a lawyer career. But if people want to avoid it as much as possible, (especially because of the lawyer fees) lawyers would have a harder time to get customers than doctors. Lawyers can also work for the government to legislate laws, but out of 10000 lawyers, only some could get that legislative seat. They have to be a specialist to be accepted in that position.
Neither the chicken nor the egg came first; they are dependently arisen.

This is what I understand of the argument. There is a continuum whose leftmost endpoint is labeled "Ancestral bird" and whose rightmost endpoint is labeled "Chicken". This continuum is a continuum of "Chicken Hybrids." The farther left you are on the continuum, the more Ancestral birds you can breed with, or the more likely you are to breed with an ancestral bird in nature, and the less Chickens you can breed with, or the less likely you are to breed with a Chicken in nature. This makes the assumption that any Chicken can breed with all Chickens and no Ancestral birds, and vice versa. If this is not the case, we have no reason to formally make either category. The problem with the model arises when we consider the first Chicken. If there is only one Chicken in the world that hatched from the first Chicken egg, who does the Chicken breed with? Obviously not other Chickens, but far-right Chicken Hybrids. Would the offspring of the first Chicken and aforementioned Chicken Hybrid be in between its parents on the Chicken spectrum? Would the son be more like the ancestors than the father? I'm trying to point out that the point at which evolving Chickens can no longer breed with Ancestral birds has some degree of inderminacy. A process as macroscopic as evolution does not "turn over" in terms of speciation all at once, but gradually, until the population on the far right of the spectrum is sufficiently large and stable that everyone in the population is virtually certain to breed with a genetic neighbor.
Neither the chicken nor the egg came first; they are dependently arisen.

the DNA point is really moot at this point, cause i admit i don't need it. the standard is whether the ancesteral chickens can breed with modern chickens or not. we have to set a limit on what constitutes a chicken. and the only way to not arbitrarily do it, is by that method. there was one chicken that first came that can breed with modern chickens. in reality, there might be a first chicken that can breed with "some' of today's chickens. we could make the rule that they are considered chicken if they can breed with all our modern chickens, or we can make the rule that they can breed with at least some, or one, modern chicken. the issue isn't what exactly the standard is, it's that we have a standard at all. and if we have that standard, there will be one chicken that come first as an egg, that can breed with some or all our modern chickens. it is significant that that chickens parents cannot breed with modern chickens. that first chicken's parents would be chicken hybrids. that is, they can breed with their offrpring and animals like their offspring, but they can't breed with modern chickens. those hybrids can also breed with their sufficinetly close ancesters. that is what makes them hybrids. it doesn't make them chickens proper. the first chicken can breed with modern chickens, or its sufficiently close ancesters, but given they can breed with modern hickens is sufficient to say they are chickens. bottomline is that we have to have a rule, a cut off point, for what constitutes a chicken. con is trying to say chickens and eggs are dependant on each other. perhaps, it's not a terrible argument. but where do you draw the line at chickens? surely there will be things in a chicken proper and chicken hybrids ancestery that is not even remotely like chickens. so where do we draw the line, then? again, how does con suggest we define a chicken? wtih his approach, we have no real method of attack. my approach is not arbitrary and sets what are clear, necessary, limits, on what onsittutes a chicken.