BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RESOLVED: Pointing out typos or mispronunciations should not be considered in Rating a Debate

My respects to funnybrad333 for raising the question that is doubtless weighing down the minds of many others, and his elegant use of the phrase "flair of haughtiness". My rebuttals: Note that my opponent states that "typos and mispronunciations should not be considered in rating a debate". I contend that they always should be considered, even if just a very little. They reflect the participant's care in debating. "It seems like debate has become who can structure more redundant, grammatically correct sentences in a row with a flair of haughtiness; this is exactly the opposite of what Debate was intended to do." Quite the contrary, my idealistic friend. Debate has always been about the presentation of arguments, not wholly the "logical substance" of said arguments. It is hard for people to be convinced when you are taipeeng lyke dis. As such, spelling and grammar are essential elements in a debate. They convey meaning more accurately then do long spiels reminiscent of 3rd gr
RESOLVED: Pointing out typos or mispronunciations should not be considered in Rating a Debate

Although proper grammar and speech is fundamental to life and debate, the whole purpose of debate is to weigh substance against substance, to see who you agree with or who provided more logical substance. It seems like debate has become who can structure more redundant, grammatically correct sentences in a row with a flair of haughtiness; this is exactly the opposite of what Debate was intended to do. On Debate.org, I have made typos (which you should be able to fix at a later time) such as "arguement (sic)". Is it necessary to point that out? Obviously I meant "argument", yet they point it out as if it was a disgusting tumor on my arguments face. The problem I have though is not with the actual act of pointing it out, as it is nice to correct my vocabulary. People should not be able to judge a debate based on mispronunciations or typos.
Children should not get an allowance no matter how little or how much the work.

I have 3 reasons why children should get an allowance for choresArguements:1. "It teaches children good work ethic." Allowances teach good work ethic by simulating a real job. If an employee works hard and does his/her work they are bound to get a raise. This is the same with allowances because if a child takes out the trash, washes the car, removes the graffiti that someone spray painted over night, mows the lawn, etc. and works hard to do a good job, they should get paid.2. "It saves the parent's money." Say if someone earns $200.00 every week for a job and gives their child a $20 weekly allowance, you don't have to worry about wasting your money on what your child wants. Like say the new Call of Duty game is coming out soon and your child really wants it and you have to pay most of your money. If your child spreads out a $20 allowance for 3 weeks, they could go to Gamestop and buy the game instead of the parent taking out $60 from their own paycheck in one week.3. "It teaches that good things are enjoyed better when you wait." If your child wants Call of Duty and you just go there and buy it for the child they will eventually get bored of it quicker and try harder to beat the game. While if your child saves an allowance, there is a better chance that they would do their homework and chores before they enjoy the game.Pro has not fulfiled his burden of proof yet!Conclusion: Allowances teach children responsibility.
Children should not get an allowance no matter how little or how much the work.

Yes all children want an allowance for money. I am 15 and I have an allowance, but I refuse to take it. Children should learn to take care of their chores. They should not get paid for taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, and doing the dishes. If a child wants money they should come up with their own way to make it. If a child works for 2 hours a day on chores during the weekend in the summer and asks for an allowance, then they are not learning anything. Yes they are learning that hard work comes with rewards but they are not learning responsibility. A child will soon grow up and have to do the exact same things they are doing now in the future. But they will be expecting a reward of some sort, and will be disappointed to know that the only reward they get is the reward of a clean house and yard. If taking out dogs is a responsibility and there is no allowance then they will always do it but as soon as the allowance stops coming. Is when the chores stop being done. Children should not get a reward for their responsibility.
Samson vs Job

Samson is accused of being inferior. Job is presented as superior. Pro's position, (mine) is that the above is Old Testament nonsense. As always the Bible will be my main source. But Con is welcome to use any source. Opening: 1 Samson had an evil encounter. Afterwards Samson did not turn back to his old life style. 2 Job had an evil encounter. Afterwards Job turned right back to his old life style. (Isn't there a saying about a dog turning again? To his what?)
Samson vs Job

I apologize for being misinformed on your religion. I've never heard of American Christianity, but it is apparently a pseudo-Christian cult that condones torture and murder while denying God's goodness. It most certainly does not abide by the bible, so there isn't really a point of bringing up verses. While you say slavery is a horrible thing, robbing people blind, exiling them, and torturing them to death is worse, which in the last paragraph of your argument in round three you condone. You also act as if the book of Job is all about slavery, while most people who actually have read the book are aware it is about faith even under persecution. As my final point, I will highlight to the audience that the debate resolution is still an invalid one. Good game, pivot. I hope you find Jesus and realize that He loves, and doesn't try to torture and kill with a pack of brutes. He endured torture to the point of being unrecognizable so you could live, not so you could destroy others.
Samson vs Job

Because of the name 'ThatChristianGuy' I take it at face value that Con is a Christian. Now Con you were asked to tell us how the LORD of the OT could declare Job righteous when our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ had not yet made His appearance. You failed to give us an answer to my question even though Job himself said that his Redeemer liveth. But to be sure, Job's Redeemer had not yet made the Sacrifice and this thread is not about credit, which is another form of slavery. We are talking about how the LORD of the OT was able to declare Job righteous back then- The LAW during Job's time made slavery LEGAL. And Job obeyed the letter and the spirit of the ancient law concerning slavery. More than this the slaves that Job owned also obeyed the ancient LAW of slavery. The way that Job obeyed the LAW of slavery was so good that Job was declared righteous concerning the ancient LAW of slavery. Now maybe Job lived before Moses and maybe Job lived after Moses but the ancient LAW of Moses made slavery LEGAL. So to repeat- Job was such a good LAW abiding slave owner that he was naturally declared a righteous slave owner by the LAW. I have a secret to tell you Con. Slave ownership is an immoral act no matter who or what declares it LEGAL. Even if the LORD of the OT says that it is LEGAL does not change the fact that it is IMMORAL. Therefore- Job was an IMMORAL slave owner. And the ancient LAW of slavery was/is corrupt, including the Mosaic LAW of slavery. That is why American Christian LAW says that slavery in any form including Mosaic LAW is now illegal. As for the Satanic position in the Book of Job- It is not immoral to persecute slave owners. It might be illegal to persecute slave owners but it is never going to be immoral to persecute slave owners. As for the American Christian position concerning persecution of slave owners- We are looking for you slave owners. And when we find you we will take all your possessions away from you so that you will be bankrupted. And while we don't have you in our sights we are praying that your physical bodies be stricken with corpuscles and that you find yourselves living on a dung hill with no friends. And don't worry because we have employed a bunch of blind strong men helping us make all this persecution possible.
Samson vs Job

What Pro neglects to provide is how Proverbs 26:11 remotely applies to Job. Pro is attempting to place the burden of proof on Con, which is uncalled for. The burden of proof shall rest on both Pro and Con, as we are each attempting to prove a different point. I will, however, respond to your demands, and show not only that God is perfectly able to declare who is or isn't righteous, but that the "Lord of the OT" as you put it is also The Lord of the New Testament, and The Lord of today. "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" Numbers 23:19 If God declares something is righteous, it must be, because he cannot lie. You might try to say that God isn't lying because he doesn't know, but 1 John 3:20 states: "for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything." God is the judge of all, so of course he judges who is righteous: but it is God who executes judgment, putting down one and lifting up another. (R37;PsalmR36; R37;75R36;:R37;7R36; ESV) Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. God is eternal, as shown in the above verse. He is the same God as he had been since the beginning of time and the same God he will be until the end of time. The Lord of the Old Tesament is the same God as he has been and will be, forever. As for your argument that attacks. Job for having servants; God says through the author of the book of Job that Job was "blameless", see Job 1:1. blame-less free from or not deserving blame; guiltless: a blameless child. Source: www.dictionary.com You will probably now say that the bible isn't perfect. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," (R37;2 TimothyR36; R37;3R36;:R37;16R36; ESV) You will probably try to say God isn't perfect now. Mtthew 5: 48 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." So the perfect omniscient unlying eternal God declared Job blameless and righteous through the words he breathed out. I now place the burden of proof on you.
Samson vs Job

The Pro opening argument did cite the Bible, Con just did not sight the citing. The verbatim was avoided so as not to be vulgar. But Con seems to be insisting so concerning Job the Bible verse that applies is- As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly. (Proverbs 26:11) If you would care for even more vulgarity it can come forth. (Here is an example-Job was not just any old dog. The devil put a lot of heat on Job. So wouldn't that make Job a dog in heat? I don't know. Maybe.) Yeah this here verse in Proverbs was written after Job. And even after Samson. But that does not matter because the truth is the truth no matter when mankind discovers it. Job was a fool because there was no change in his life of sin. Job's sin was so great that America fought its bloodiest war over just such a sin. Pretty sure the OT in Isaiah 64:6 says all our righteousness is filthy rags, (another citing by me). So yeah I will agree that Job was naked. His sin stands naked before our sight. Slavery is illegal and immoral. Exploiting cheap, (in the case of Job that would be free) labor is illegal and immoral. We just are not going to put up with that vomit any more. Not for Job. Not for Job want-ta-be's and not for christian-want-ta-be's either. Con seems to be saying that the LORD declares Job righteous. Ah, not so fast their ...Guy. The LORD of the Old Testament had neither the power nor the authority to declare anyone righteous. If the LORD of the OT had the power and/or the authority to declare anyone righteous then it is you Con who needs to cite some Bible. Please list a verse or two that shows that the LORD of the OT had the ability to declare anyone righteous. Just because someone says something, that actually means very little. Show us Con how great the LORD of the OT is. Show us how he could declare Job or anyone for that matter to be righteous. As for Samson being the better man. Ha. What a joke that is. No one is good. No not one. We are all sinners. We have all of us turned away. If we are saved it has nothing to do with us what-so-ever. (More Bible citations by me. And much more to follow.)
Samson vs Job

First of all, your debate resolution ("Samson vs Job") is not a statement which can be viewed as pro or con, or correct or incorrect. Your resolution is invalid. A better resolution would be "Samson was a better man than Job.". Secondly, you did not once in your argument cite the Bible, even after claiming that it is your main source. Bad form, if you ask me. I shall debate by actually using the Bible, which is the only historical document that talks about these two characters. As the Con side of this debate, I will argue that Job was a far better man than Samson. Opening: Job: "There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil." Job 1:1 Job did "return to his old ways" as you put it. But his old ways were "blameless and upright", so what was wrong with his returning to his old ways? The fact that he remained "blameless and upright" is beneficial to my side of the argument; thank you for providing that point. "Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong." Job 1:20-22 Even after the tragic events of Job 1, Job did not turn away from God or sin. Samson couldn't even look at a beautiful woman without planning to sin. "Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord God." Ezekiel 14:14 Even God says that Job is righteous. Samson: Samson's old ways were not as upright as Job's. Judges 16:1 Judges 14:9 Judges 14:2, 14:8, and Deuteronomy 7:3 and more. Judges 14-16 has so many examples of how Samson couldn't stop sinning. Judges 16:28 says "Then Samson called to the Lord and said, 'O Lord God, please remember me and please strengthen me only this once, O God, that I may be avenged on the Philistines for my two eyes.'" When Samson finally did something right, he did it not because it was right, not because God called him to, but for revenge. "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." Leviticus 19:18. In conclusion of this round: Job was a righteous man, "blameless and upright", but Samson disobeyed God at every possible opportunity.
Should the School's of Older Children have Recess

For my conclusion I will reassert my main points. 1. Recess does not guarantee physical exertion (exercise)2. Recess leaves the older children a time where they are not receiving any form of instruction and would waste valuable school time.3. Physical education, or physical fitness classes, already provides these children the exercise that they require while also providing the children some form of instruction or structure. These three points are more than enough reason in my opinion to not require recess for ages 11 and up.
Should the School's of Older Children have Recess

I have accepted your debate, and have chosen to be on the side of Con. I don't believe that children ages 11 and up need recess as I recognize recess. I would like to start by saying that I do agree that they need physical fitness of some sort, but don't believe that should be in the form of recess. My main points against recess for older children are these:1. Recess does not guarantee physical exertion (exercise)2. Recess leaves the older children a time where they are not receiving any form of instruction and would waste valuable school time.3. Physical education, or physical fitness classes, already provides these children the exercise that they require while also providing the children some form of instruction or structure. I will leave my points at that while you further elaborate on your end.
The real reason "illegal drugs" are illegal

Illegal drugs have many detrimental effects that you have whisked over in your effort to convince everybody that "the government doesn't really exist" and "We are taught our whole lives to follow orders to be productive people not to learn to grow to think and revolutionize the world. " In a study released in 2014 (https://www. Livescience. Com/48171-marijuana-research-health-effects-review. Html) that had been going on for 20 years. Let me read you some quotes. "People who drive under the influence of marijuana double their risk of being in a car crash, And about one in 10 daily marijuana users becomes dependent on the drug, According to a new review. " "He found that adolescents who use cannabis regularly are about twice as likely as their nonuser peers to drop out of school, As well as experience cognitive impairment and psychoses as adults. Moreover, Studies have also linked regular cannabis use in adolescence with the use of other illicit drugs, According to the review, Published today (Oct. 6) in the journal Addiction. Researchers in the studies still debated whether regular marijuana use might actually lead to the use of other drugs, Hall wrote in the study. However, He pointed to longer-term studies and studies of twins in which one used marijuana and the other did not as particularly strong evidence that regular cannabis use may lead to the use of other illicit drugs. " ""The perception that cannabis is a safe drug is a mistaken reaction to a past history of exaggeration of its health risks, " Hall told Live Science. " And marijuana isn't even the worst one. Humor me by reading this article. (https://www. Verywellmind. Com/the-health-effects-of-cocaine-abuse-66706) For conciseness, I won't include many more studies because they are so abundant. Say what you want, But the reason illegal drugs are illegal is because they are bad for you.
Sola Scriptura Does Not Suffice

Forfeit. I was not aware this was going to turn into a need to defend the fact that in the beginning Christianity meant what Catholic means today. I do not intend to participate in lowering this debate to my being forced to prove historical fact to the satisfaction of those who do not wish to admit the historical facts. The early Christians were the early Catholics. That is fact. We are faithful to Christ and His Apostles. The sideways accusation that Catholicism is responsible for murdering protestants is also an unrelated topic of debate. Since the new debate topics do not interest me, I forfeit to the instigator of these new topics.
Sola Scriptura Does Not Suffice

The concept of Sola Scriptura is insufficient for Christianity to be properly observed. It leads to self determination on matters of religion, which runs contrary to Scripture itself. Debate Rules (to be considered during voting): I will be restricted when referring to Scripture to the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible with Challoner notes, which can be referenced at drbo.org . This has traditionally been considered for centuries the best Catholic translation of the Latin Vulgate into English. Con may refer to this or the King James Version, or another recognized translation of Scripture. This debate is not open to acceptance for the sake of dismissal of Scripture as irrelevant or fraudulent of itself. 1st Round is acceptance only. 2nd and 3rd rounds are for argument and rebuttal. 4th round for summation of arguments made for your own case. Best wishes to my opponent. Let's have a clean fight with no low blows!
Christianity has been more beneficial than detrimental to mankind.

Well, my main reason for the delayed response is the fact that as PRO, you have not stated anything debatable. You do after all have the burden of proof, and until you indeed provide evidence to your claim, I am successful in the debate. I'll adhere the the Twain quote that it's "better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." So, in the next round, argue why exactly Christianity has been more beneficial than detrimental to mankind, and as for now, I have nothing to contend.
Christianity has been more beneficial than detrimental to mankind.

Well, this will be the second challenge for this debate, as my first opponenet failed to post a first argument, unfortunately. Oh well. Anyway, here I would like to argue exactly what it says in the title: Christianity has overall been more of a benefit to mankind than it has been a detriment. No partisan arguments may be used here, e.g. abortion, gay marriage, etc. Those are partisan issues that require their own debate. In this debate, I would ask my opponent to stick to concrete examples, such as lives saved or lost or something like that. Nothing about people "being saved" will be said on my part, for example. So I can't use the whole "Christianity has saved everyone from Hell so it wins" argument. Christianity has surely had some missteps over the years, but overall, it has benefited mankind more than it has harmed it. I will allow my opponent the first real argument and will make my response detailed and comprehensive. Thank you to whomever takes me up on this.
Intelligent Design is not a good alternative theory to evolution

Good luck to my opponent, lets get started! First off, you must realize that my opponent is affirmative. As such, the burden of proof falls on her. As negative, I need only prove why her case is incorrect. So far, I have won the debate, since my opponent makes no argument. I leave my opponent with the fact that where evolution fails to explain the origin of the Earth, the intelligent design theory is complete and whole. Even if some of its other aspects were plausible, evolution, supposedly, would take billions upon billions of years. I am sure my opponent will bring this up in her constructive, and we can debate that then. Given, evolution cannot accurately say how old the Earth is. (The main reason being that radiometric dating is flawed in many ways. Besides, that isn't even part of evolution. ) Since evolution cannot provide for one basic that it needs in order to even be plausible, it is a flawed theory. Intelligent design is whole. Until my opponent states otherwise, I have already won the debate. Opponent, in your next speech please: 1- Make a constructive case 2- Attack my own Until you do both of these, I can only assume that you agree with me. Good luck!