BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Alexander the great was more important in our history than Julius Caesar

Hola! I am going to keep this shorter as you have so here we go. Julius Caesar was a significant figure for several reasons: 1. He was the first Emperor of Rome and was made so by the people. 2. He started the Empire of Rome and paved the way for his nephew Augustus. 3. His military conquests expanded Rome to new sizes and was responsible for the conquering of most of Northern Europe which allowed for the great peace in Rome for many years after. 4. Without Julius, the Empire would have stayed as a Republic and events may not have happened as they did, for better or worse we do not know. As these are important points let me refute the Pro's view. Alexander the Great did create a large Empire that was the largest ever created to this day but he failed to do one thing that Julius Caesar was able to do. Keep the Empire together. The Roman Empire is famous for its long-lasting Empire that had large borders and peace. Alexander the Great took over most of the world but soon lost his Empire. It is worthless to take over if you cannot keep it. I hope for an interesting debate. Over to you Pro!
why debate is superior to sports

Good to see my opponent doesn't address any of my arguments. Let's just address his then."1. youre unatheitic (I believe he means 'unathletic')"Actually, I'm fairly athletic. I've played sports ever since I was four, and I've been fairly good at them. I'm very athletic."2. i play soccer you white boy"First, says the guy with the Baywatch mustache. Second, so do I. Big whoop."3. whats debate"Something you fail at and that you're currently participating at."4. i win because aethist r stupid"First, says the guy who's too lazy to add an 'a' and an 'e' to his 'r' to actually spell correctlySecond, doesn't mean you win.Third, I agree atheists are stupid. Too bad I'm not an atheist. Balls in your court David Hasselhoff.
why debate is superior to sports

TWO free win debates?! In ONE DAY?!? What is this I don't even. Anyway, since I don't mind boosting my record I'll take this. Since he argued in the first round I will as well. The BOP will be split between us to each prove why ours is better. Ill refute his claims then create my own. >> My opponent claims that sports increase health. Lol. You can turn this argument in my favor. Sports actually decrease overall health as they can cause injuries that lead to dehabilitation, paralysis, or eventual death. That definitely isn't helpful to one's health. >> My opponent claims that debate is not fun. Lol twice. 1. Subjective opinion is subjective. 2. Functions both ways. You say debate isn't fun. I say that sports aren't fun. We are at an impasse. >> My opponent claims that debate requires no skill. Lol thrice. 1. Subjective opinion is subjective. 2. Functions both ways since you think debating takes no skill as I say that sports take no skill (yeah I'm looking at you soccer. If I can master you by the age of four you take no skill). 3. So it takes no skill to completely destroy your arguments like I just did? ;) >> My opponent says he wins. Lol -- oh forget it. I've already proven why he hasn't and won't. Anyway, onto my arguments. 1. Sports lead to serious injuries. The worst injury you'll get in debate is a headache. This means that debate is less dangerous and less likely to kill me than sports. 2. Debating leads to more critical thinking skills, which increases to higher intelligence. Higher intelligence means a better degree from college. A better degree from college means a better job. Better job means more successful life. Boom. 3. Debate is a necessary component to the discussion of ideas to compare between two viewpoints and determine the right one. Sports does not provide this. 4. I win. Balls in your court.
God is %100 alive! Eye Opener

I am here to change the disbelievers and atheist view that there is no God out there. My argument to the atheist is God is alive and the proof is here 2017. Today I will open my challengers eye to see God through faith very easy. So? If you say that God doesn't exist. Please bring your pathetic proof to the table,because God is everywhere right now,and I'll open your eyes to see him by faith!
The Constitutionality of the Progressive Tax

I'm your huckleberry. The claim that the progressive tax is not supported by the Constitution is either preposterous or trivial, as the Constitution authorizes taxation and does not specify any preferred formula. The proposition that a progressive tax is bred out of class warfare is profoundly ignorant of the millenia-long history of the progressive tax. The assertion that the progressive tax is unconstitutional is absurd, and the position that a flat tax is the most fair tax either relies on a hopelessly ill-defined word ("fair") or is patently false.
Teachers Should Provide the Information About Why The Currriculum is Useful

1. I'm sorry that I didn't understand there was an acceptance speech, As it was just 1 word, But now seems the topic of the debate now :(. 2. Acceptance is a major point. Yes, It requires knowledge of upper classes to understand previous ones, Math isn't the only one. Take Science. Science requires a person to understand how the scientific method is used in upper classes (take Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science, Etc). You can't tell the person "You use it in Biology" alone. The person will understand the use of the scientific method through Experience. Yes, They understand that it is used in science, But where? WHEN? HOW? Not all these questions should be answered by teacher's, And not all should be answered until the student shows that they are willing to learn and are dedicated to the topic. Speaking of. . . Not all things used in everyday life can be explained easily, And not using them in life doesn't make it a point that they shouldn't learn it. Take Philosophy, For example. A person doesn't use philosophy for everyday life, And most teacher's can't readily explain philosophies to the person. However, They explain the principles behind it, And the student learns how to use it on their own, Further backing up my first point, About how student's should learn independence in knowledge. Also, You just agreed with my own points! You said that it requires an understanding of the subject to understand how it is useful. If they already understand the subject, Then you can prove that they could already use it in everyday life! For clarification, The 4 Core Classes are used because they take up the main aspects a job looks for. This is obviously not the Furthermore, If the student doesn't understand a Core Concept, Then it doesn't mean they should put no effort into it. The whole point of Core Classes is to teach people the basics most career jobs want. That is the most BASIC way to explain it, And any child with logic understands this, MEANING IT DOESN'T REQUIRE TEACHERS. However, If you want extra ways to understand a specific class, I agree. Learn it first, Then you will understand on your own how to apply the concept. Which further helps my first point. You have stuck with the example and refused to attack my other comment, Which is that children should learn on their own. Second, I have explained the belief of acceptance for a school. For those reasons, I believe that you, The voters, Should vote for me in the debate. Thank you. P. S. Sorry for not understanding acceptance speeches. I didn't know those are a thing \_(~. ~)_/ pls don't hate me. BUT, The problem seemed to be the center of the debate, Sooo at least I somewhat brought the debate to a standstill there!
Teachers Should Provide the Information About Why The Currriculum is Useful

Ok, First acceptance was for acceptance round not for an argument. Yeah, You need a deeper understanding, So. . . What? The teacher could at least tell students what it's used for instead of just not telling them at all. Not everything has to do with math, Like your saying. How do we use English, How do we use Geography? Your just encompassing Algebra as one exception for this new proposal. Algebra is complicated and does require more knowledge, But that's probably the only exception! Plus, You really don't need to learn Calculus to understand Algebra. And if something does not apply to everyday life, Why would the student even be willing to learn it. They need to know to have a motivation to learn, And how they should apply it, Without this, The entire lesson would be useless. I have witnessed this first hand. Back in my elementary school days, My friend kept on telling me how English was completely useless and it wouldn't help them in real life. He ended up failing a standardized test. You are pointing out that if you spend the entire time learning about how Algebra is good, You won't have enough time to learn about actual algebra. Not true. . . One must learn something first before learning how to use it, Using this fact, Once somebody has a decent understanding on a subject they will want to know why they even need this subject in the first place. You are missing the point that it doesn't take hours to explain the purpose, Often it takes minutes (1 or 2). In these minutes teachers can easily express how it's useful in life.
Teachers Should Provide the Information About Why The Currriculum is Useful

That's not what I meant Club, What I meant is that it sometimes requires deeper understanding of the curriculum to understand where it can be used. Say Algebra, Trigonometry, Algebra II, Etc. I use math because it is the easiest to explain. To understand how it is useful, Someone would need an understanding of the career, And further curriculum. I would need to know basic Calculus to understand how Algebra is useful in everyday life, As Algebra is used with Calc I and II in statistics, And economics. And sometimes it can be hard for a teacher to say, "You will learn how it is useful when you are 4 years older and understand basic Calculus. " How is a teacher bad for not wanting their student's to be confused? It is good to make sure that the student focuses on the curriculum, Not how the curriculum applies to everyday-life. If students spent their time accepting it is useful and finding out how it is useful, Instead of spending more time studying, And working on their actual curriculum, There would be less confusion, And students could stay ahead of their work, Rather than confusing themselves with something that they need for "Acceptance. . . " You didn't even attack the fact or even acknowledge that there should be people learning by themselves! A person, If they want to learn how it is useful, Should do that on their own free time, Not on the teacher's learning time. In our school, We get 45 minutes per-class to learn, And even that isn't always enough. There are still the problems with snow days, Unexpected problems, Assemblies, Etc. This keeps us behind, And doing what you push further advocates straying from knowledge, And more of the idea of why it is important. Do you see the problem of that? The problem is that people that look for the importance of knowledge and yet don't have that knowledge ultimately makes it useless! If I knew that Algebra was useful because it helps base other areas of math, What is the point of knowing that without knowing Algebra? ! NONE. You just wasted time you could have spent learning to learn the IDEA OF LEARNING! Slightly confusing, Right? Finally, What you did with the example is also wrong. You forgot how the teacher *explains how to use it* requires them to also understand other things, Things that require next year, Or year-after-that understanding
Teachers Should Provide the Information About Why The Currriculum is Useful

My first reason for curriculum value being self-taught in children is that: Children learning why it is useful at the beginning of the curriculum somewhat depletes the value of the curriculum itself. By learning the curriculum, They learn later on in the semesters why it is useful. Them learning by themselves is one of the few morals that a school can teach. Schools don't teach mannerisms (most school's don't) anymore, And many schools don't teach philosophy and morals at an elementary and middle school level. I'm in high school now, And I can tell you philosophy and morals requires a very special debate program (ironic, Right? ), So learning the use of something now lets them learn for themselves. Learning to be independent in knowledge is not only useful to a person's growing up, But to everyday life. Without it, We would be dependent on the knowledge teacher's give us and wouldn't have the reasoning to understand why something is useful, Or have the willingness to learn without independence. Second, Most schools can't exactly teach the subject. Some topics are very hard to understand. Imaging this: Student: Why will I ever use Algebra 1; when is it useful? Teacher: It will be useful in careers such as marketing, Science, And teaching Student: How would I use it? Most teacher's might not be able to tell you this, As it requires a knowledge of deeper math, Such as calculus, Geometry, And Trigonometry to truly understand. This links in with the first. Over the years, Learning deeper knowledge teaches a person why they should learn by themselves, And will as they continue schooling. With a teacher telling the reasoning behind its usefulness, It might create more confusion among students, And might create dependency on other's telling you information, Which would absolutely ruin the value of school, To inform students and give them knowledge dependency, Learning logic and reasoning by themselves.
There is no scriptural basis for requiring Christians to tithe

I apologize to my opponent, I was busy for the whole week therefore I really couldn't. Tithing, what's tithing, there are an ample churches that tell people that they're under a curse or something like that if they don't tithe, but that's the wrong churches with a bunch of pastors and priests who maybe just want to improve the church or actually trying to pry the money out of their church's members for their own benefit. But that does not mean that tithe is not what God wants us to do, the Bible said in Leviticus 27:30 "And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S: it is holy unto the LORD.", just because the people in the Old Testament time use different materials to tithe does no mean or tell us to relinquish tithing. Let's us take another look at the Bible: "There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales" (Acts 4:34) The salvation is free, but tithing is not a way to bribe, to buy the salvation, it's the way we show our obedient to the Lord, give Him back a part of our possessions, like the Good Book said: "And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.""(1 Samuel 15:22). Conclusion: We're not under any compulsion, that's our choice, our free choice to give to God what He gave us, do not be like Ananias and Sapphira, do not lie to God, do not test the Spirit of God, we do this under free choice, a free choice that can lead us to obedient, faith and the power of our God, amen.
There is no scriptural basis for requiring Christians to tithe

Although he did fail to respond to the 4th round, I do invite him to conclude his arguments in this round. To conclude, tithing was never meant for Christians. The tithe, as taught today, was part of the Law of Moses given to the Jews to support the Levitical priesthood, the one tribe in Israel that was not allowed to accumulate possessions. They were to be supported by the people and be devoted full time to performing the many rituals, sacrifices, festivals, and instruction of the people. That priesthood ended in 70 AD, when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, which Jesus prophecied. Before then, He distributed the priesthood to all believers and even called us the temple. He became every sacrifice in order to fulfill the laws regarding sin atonement. There are no more sacrifices necessary, and certainly no tithes due. This is evident by the fact that even Jews do not tithe today. For those that would argue that the tithe predates Moses, consider a few facts. 1. Tithing was not a Jewish invention. It was customary for tithes to be paid to a local King or Lord of the land 2. When Israel wanted a king, one of the prophets first warnings was that the king would require 10% from them 3. Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek was a voluntary tithe given to him most likely for safe passage through his land. Also remember, that the tithe was from PLUNDER - what Abraham had just finished STEALING, not what he grew himself. 4. Jacob's tithe was a conditional tithe. He gave it only as the result of an oath he made to God. God instructs him later to use the offering to have a feast with his family. 5. The tithe was never money. It was always food, in spite of the fact that money existed early in Genesis. 6. Conversion of food tithes to money was only done when the family lived too far from the temple, and it was then used to provide for the poor. 7. Gentiles were NEVER commanded to tithe. Which is why you will not see Jesus condemning the tithe when referring to Jewish people during His time. But, the command is never issued to non-Jews. 8. Jesus said, regarding the temple tax, that the Children of the King were free. He only gave "so that will not be offended. " 9. All examples of NT giving are concerning the poor and to provide for those in need within the Church. Jesus only casually mentions the tithe, again in connection to Jewish people. 10. We are clearly freed from the law when Paul tells us to give "not under compulsion". The tithe would be compulsory. The list goes on. But, as to the point my opponent made of Christians being free to give voluntarily, I completely agree. If someone is doing something great that you wish to support, whether it be a local church or a nonprofit organization, you are free to give to these things "as purposed in each mans heart. " You set the amount as you can afford. If you are not giving the false tithe, you will have more than enough money to do this. I welcome anyone who would like to take this debate on at any time. It was fun.
There is no scriptural basis for requiring Christians to tithe

Good thoughts. Let's zoom in a little for this next round. I feel like the conversation is deviating. But, I will answer your points. This depate is about whether or not the Bible commands Christians to tithe, not about whether it is GOOD to tithe, or necessary to support the church. I think you might be minimizing how much this teaching is taught based on your lack of exposure to a variety of churches. I agree, there are some churches that do not make tithing a big deal. But, from having interacted with as many churches and ministries as I have, I can tell you that it is the prominent teaching when it comes to a Christian's fiscal obligation to their churches. On to the debate... DEFINITION OF THE TITHE Agreed to the English definition of the word TITHE. But, the Biblical concept of the tithe is a different issue. It is a compulsory offering. This debate is to establish the basis for extending that OT law to the NT Church REQUIRED AMOUNT You have stated: "God really doesn't care how many and how you give Him your offering or tithe." Therefore you agree that the Bible does not support the mandate for Christians. THE CURSE I did not say that Jesus' sacrifice was a curse, but, "they are told that they are under the CURSE - one that Jesus freed us from on the cross." Jesus FREED us from the CURSE of the law. That was my statement. THE ROLE OF THE APOSTLES Paul, was indeed a key player in the establishment of the Gentile church. He was "Paul, the apostle to the gentiles." But, there is no indication that he was ever supported by the church. Paul established fellowships in different cities, staying with them for only a while, then writing letters to provide further guidance. He was very much a "big brother" to the churches. But, he had no say in their governance. Each church had elders, older men of integrity and reputation, to help guide the community of faith, much like a natural village (that is a term borrowed from a good friend of mine). ARE ALL CHRISTIANS PRESSURED TO GIVE? The debate was not about that issue at all. I agree that not all Christians give BECAUSE of the law. But, churches that DEMAND it for that reason have no basis for doing so. THE CHURCH I actually do not worship "at a church". I AM the Church, and worship together with other believers who ARE the Church. We don't have a building, nor pastoral salaries, nor costs to preach the Gospel. We just try to reach people through relationship, and we explore faith together. That's the Biblical model for being the Church. I don't actually see one for "going to church." But, let's keep to the issue. Does the Bible COMMAND Christians to TITHE to their church?
There is no scriptural basis for requiring Christians to tithe

I first want to thank my opponent for this lovely argument, therefore before I begin this argument, I think I should first post a verse of the Bible: "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver"(1 Corinthian 9:7) First of all my opponent stated that the tithe suppose to be food, not money, that's why Jacob commanded to eat his tithe, but there are also no laws in the Bible against about giving money to the church, I agree, 10% would be some how ridiculous because sometimes I gave my church twice more than 10%, sometimes less, if we according on 1 Corinthian 9:7, you'll see that the Bible actually said give what you decided, if you have no money, you can write a prayer in a scratch of paper and put it in the box, it's find, it's depend on your heart, I don't find that the priest or the pastor will snatch your and punch you just because you didn't tithe. "The tithe of Israel was designed to sustain the Levite priests, who ceased to operate in 70 AD when the temple was destroyed. Jews have not tithed since" Also according in the Bible, we got 1 Corinthian 16:1-2 " 1Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made." I think it's still reasonable to tithe your church with money, I don't think anybody will have time to bring food to he table, if so, I think when I go to church, I'll bring Pringles to church, it will be enough, right? Hope you'll be satisfied with my argument, this is my first argument, thanks.