BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no such thing as trying, you either do it or you don't

I am sorry for not posting a reasonable debate this round because I am in a rush with very little time so I apologize to the viewers and voters and my opponent. First We are talking about something in real life and Yoda is a fictional character no matter how famous he cane be. as my opponent states "Do or do not, there is no try". If Yoda said it, it has to be correct. ", That is like saying if Yoda tells everyone to jump off a bridge or become evil then it must be correct. Second My opponent is basically saying that you either succeed or you fail. I am against that statement and I say that an attempt must be made before you can succeed or fail. You have to learn and try to succeed or end up failing while trying. Third I must say that everyone must have said "I'll try" "Ill try to do it" or some form of "trying". From being able to first speak to this very moment, it's impossible to deny that you haven't said i'll try in any variation. Conclusion I again am very sorry to all that I could not post my fourth reason as I am rushed at this moment.
There is no such thing as trying, you either do it or you don't

For the purposes of this debate I will be using the Merriam-Webster online dictionary to define all words [1]. Although I will attempt not to abuse semantics, semantics play a significant part in this statement. It is my contention that, for any possible action that can be committed, there are only two possible outcomes. Either an individual will “do it”, namely take the action to its completion, or they will fail to do so (“don’t”). Simply put, an individual continues their course of action until they succeed or fail. My opponent has said that the first round is for stating my position clearly, so I will not attempt to expand on this or rebut his argument. I will only add the following: "Do or do not, there is no try". If Yoda said it, it has to be correct.
Senior commmunity service projects should be optional.

I apologize that round is short, but my computer crashed and I don't have the energy this round to type 5000 characters. Anyways... Rebuttals "Seniors in high schools may seem like they have the easy life, but it's the complete opposite." Cue senoiritis. "They still have to continue to maintain they're grade point average to get into their college of their dreams." Rarely do colleges reject them if they were already accepted. If I got accepted with a 4.0 GPA, and I drop to a 3.0 or 3.5, they don't care as long as I don't fail. Not failing is very hard... https://en.wikipedia.org... "but they cannot fail that grade." It's school, obviously you can't fail... If they did get into college, I doubt high school projects are challenging enough that despite all your efforts, you fail. "Picking out the college they go to and planning their future shouldn't be ruined by one community project." If you failed a high school assignment, than you have no place in a college; In the US, at least, college is a privilege and if you aren't up to the standards you can't go. The standards are basically not to fail! I don't see why a graduating senior would have a problem with doing school projects. They've been doing it for 3 or 4 years already. Pro is basically angry that failing this one project can mess up your future. What Con is saying is that it shouldn't matter at all, and if it does, you clearly messed up something. I apologize again for the shortness, so back to you Pro.
Senior commmunity service projects should be optional.

Seniors in high schools may seem like they have the easy life, but it's the complete opposite. They still have to continue to maintain they're grade point average to get into their college of their dreams. They have their senior project at the end of the school year, which is the majority of their grade, but they cannot fail that grade. The first three years of high school is based around senior year of high school. Picking out the college they go to and planning their future shouldn't be ruined by one community project.
Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family

If the government has the power to regulate the number of children a family can have... how is it going to possible to police such a law? The number of children a family can have, must and should remain in the hands of the husband and wife, government should only step in when the parents fail to provide upkeep for their kids.. Its naive to force couples to have children, because again this is not the prerogative of the government. What then happens to those couples who can't have children?
Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family

Did you read the debate topic, Government should establish a rule over the number of births in a family. They always find a way to make us follow their laws.We might have faught a few wars for basic needs, but most of wars have been faught for other reasons. I would follow the rules no matter what, You have condoms right.The number of male and female births can be equated with few exceptions from time to time. We are not animals to let our own species go into extinct, we have to make certain decisions like this to ensure better survival of our species. The time has come to think we all do not belong to different countries but to one species-homosapiens. We should not create a better world for our children only, we should do it for everybody.
Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family

Nature has a way of balancing things, Okay only up to certain limit. Nature cannot restore everything, you might want to research on Chernobyl incident. Ice melting in Antarctica, Increase in temperature of earth will not balance itself. I would say these are directly not because of over of over population but indirectly. Most of the forests are converted into urban areas. Nature is nothing but forests,Hills,Oceans and natural air and land. We keep on damaging these and What do you think will save you. I would have said Government should not allow marriage for a decade, But i did not say that, all i(we) want is controlled birth rate for a certain period of time ( The time must be decided after survey). If not in future war will be fought for Food,cloth & Shelter which are the basic needs of life.
Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family

You say proper ratio between births & deaths? Who then will decide who lives and who doesn't? whether its time to increase births or deaths, politicians? This amount of power should never be vested in a human being. You should know that nature has a way of balancing the equation, you might want to research on the consequences of removing wolves in a park in the USA, this only lead to total disintegration of the ecosystem and temporary extinction of certain fauna & flora. I believe the "sacrifices" you call are only fair if they are made by certain people, which excludes your family
Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family

I agree that government did not establish that killing is bad, But it has control over it. Can you imagine what will happen if government declares that it will not arrest people for murder charges. All i am saying is that there should be proper ratio between births and deaths in society. You can control birth only in your family and may be your friends families, what about rest of the world. People are ignorant of what is really happening and decide what is good for them, Government has the power and control over its people. We are here at this point of the world because some people made sacrifices, All i am asking is for us to make some sacrifices for a better Future of entire Earth. At the current rate there will lot of problems in future, i am sure you don't believe life is possible on mars. i know that over population is not only the cause for problems in society but if population is controlled there will enough of everything for most of the people and there will be less problem in society.
Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family

laws are subject to the moral fiber of a society, that being said all laws are the reflection of a society's moral standing, accordingly some morals are inertly engrained in us by a higher power, e.g the sanctity of human life. Therefore the government did not enact that killing is bad..it just reaffirmed that moral standing. No one can create human life as we know it, and its only absurd to allow politicians to control how many lives are brought into this world. Have you taken time imagine the consequences of the measures you propose? this will inevitably lead to forced castration
Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family

Government has the power to stop you from taking a life, then it should also have the right to stop you from creating one. People end up having two or three children whom they cannot take care and then government has to step in and take care of kids, This is not good for society. Over population is going to big problem in future. Resources available are less than required at most of the fields, Government has to take survey and asses the population with resources, Child birth is happening 24X7 globally and government is blamed for not providing apt life to people.
politicians need to keep their religious views out of their policies

First off, I want to apologize for missing the last round. I have been busy lately. I would also like to thank my opponent for being so gracious about it. That being said, on with the show!! My opponent's argument was predicated on the fact that since we live in a democratic society, public opinion rules the day. Therefore, if the people elect a representative that espouses extremist religious views, then that's simply how it is. I do respect his point of view, and would even agree with him, were it not for our constitution. The fact is, the constitution takes precedence over even our democratic system. Con said that the constitution doesn't require religious beliefs to be restricted, but this is only true in the private sector. In government, the opposite is true. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". (1) Take abortion for example. If the government has a scientifically viable reason to criminalize abortion, then they are perfectly free to do so, however, if their only reason for doing so is from a viewpoint of religious obligation, then that would be respecting an establishment of religion. Right, wrong, democratic or not, the constitution stands. If you want an example of why it would be very bad to mix the two, you don't have to look any farther than Louisiana. The education voucher system they recently implemented uses government funds to send children to religious schools that teach things like dinosaurs and man coexisted, the Loch Ness monster is not only real, but disproves evolution, and that gays should have no more rights than pedophiles. (2) Any more need to be said?(1) Bill of Rights(2) http://m.motherjones.com...
politicians need to keep their religious views out of their policies

Although my opponent has forfeited the round, I'll decline to use this opportunity to introduce any new points to the debate—I don't think it would be quite fair to make him play "catch-up" by moving to a new subject before he can respond to the current one. I'll simply summarize my arguments and give him one more chance in the fourth round to respond to them. While we do have a secular constitution (and, therefore, a secular government), our constitution does not require religious beliefs to be restricted—in fact, some might argue that it requires the opposite. When choosing our leaders, we base this decision on their beliefs and proposed actions; that is, we generally try to pick a candidate whose views best represent our own. Therefore, if a president is elected who runs on a platform of strict religious conservatism, we could rightly interpret his or her election as a general acceptance of the personal views expressed in the campaign. Because his or her views have been accepted by the electorate, we could therefore conclude that, in a democratic system, the leader should free to allow these views to inform his or her decisions.
politicians need to keep their religious views out of their policies

I never said that a politician couldn't "discuss" their religion, just that it shouldn't influence their policies. As to what you said about "If we ask our leaders to ignore ignore their personal views for any reason, we are essentially crippling their ability to judge, and therefore, to lead.", I firmly disagree with this statement. I feel it is their duty to ignore their personal views in favor of what is best for the country. For example, take Mike Huckabee and his war on public education. It's perfectly fine for him to not believe in evolution, but taking it out of school in favor of creationism is not what's best for the country as a whole. Besides that, if a politician has certain religious viewpoints about abortion, why should they be able to force those viewpoints on the rest of us through legislation? Take a hypothetical situation. Assume we have a Hindu president. Should he our she be allowed to outlaw the consumption of beef? Or a Jewish president do the same with pork? Of course not, because the rest of us might not have qualms about such meat. It all comes down to the fact that in a country as diverse as this one, any specific legislation based on a religious belief is unfair to citizens who don't share that belief.
politicians need to keep their religious views out of their policies

I agree with your premise (this is a secular country and there should be a staunch separation between church and state, etc.), but disagree with the conclusion you've drawn from it. I will argue that it is not only "alright" for politicians to discuss their faith, but it is their responsibility to do so. Furthermore, to address your penultimate sentence, because we task our leaders with using their best judgement in leading our society, I will argue that we should look upon politicians who ignore their own viewpoints in policymaking with suspicion—leadership requires judgement, and if we ask our leaders to ignore their personal views for any reason, we are essentially crippling their ability to judge, and, therefore, lead.
politicians need to keep their religious views out of their policies

This debate is not for the validity of the Bible or the existence of God, instead it's about if these viewpoints have any place in American politics. Politicians continually let their faith drive their policies, whether it's on abortion, education, our any of the plethora of other political topics that we face today. It even controls who gets nominated and elected sometimes. It is my position that politics and religion should be completely separate. It is how this country was designed. We live in a secular society. It will be up to my opponent to show why they feel it is alright for a politician to let their religion drive their policies.
The New Testament Bible supports the ownership of Arms by means of context

First; my opponent claims that the surrounding text to the verse he mentioned is irrelevant; he is off topic in regards to the resolution. The resolution explicitly states that the bible supports ownership via context; yet he advocates that the support is garnered through direct interpretation of the verses he used. He's already lost that debate in that realm of thinking Second; My opponent's refutation makes no sense in regards to my argument. He claims that Jesus was a firm believer of arm ownership and self-defense, but gives us no scripture to back this claim up; all he is doing, is superimposing his own beliefs onto Jesus so as to justify his own stance. "As much as I agree with some of the italicized statements, the posted Resolution bluntly states the New Testament Bible, thus I naturally must regard all arguments relating to the Old Testament Bible to be irrelevant. " The new testament does not stand on it's own; it is the fulfillment of the law in it's entirety. For my opponent to make this claim is to make this entire debate one of semantic interpretation. Jesus never quoted the new testament while preaching, but he always quoted the old testament. ""It is enough" roughly translates to "That's enough! ', being that Jesus saw how his disciples were so eager to brandish and use their weapons of war, of which he did NOT condone. He only wished his disciples to bear their swords for self-defence and self-defence alone. Regardless of for just or unjust purposes, the New Testament Bible. "" - This makes absolutely no sense, and my opponent does not prove such a farfetched claim to be true in the fist place.
The New Testament Bible supports the ownership of Arms by means of context

I am in accordance to the stated resolution that the New Testament Bible supports the ownership of Arms by means of context.Definitions:support - to give approval to (a cause, principle, etc.)Arms - Instruments or weapons of offense or defensecontext - the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effectIt is without a doubt that the teachings of Jesus heavily influence the ownership of arms alike, and its influence is self-evident in the context of the New Testament. Here are some direct passages from the New Testament Bible further proving this resolution (note, passages marked with * were apparently said by Jesus himself):Luke 11:21* -"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace."Luke 22:36-38* - "'But now let the one that has a purse take it up, likewise also a food pouch; and let the one having no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell YOU that this which is written must be accomplished in me, namely, ‘And he was reckoned with lawless ones.’ For that which concerns me is having an accomplishment.” 38 Then they said: “Lord, look! here are two swords.” He said to them: “It is enough.” "Note, I am NOT claiming that the New Testament Bible supports the act of murder or assaulting others with a weapon. Jesus was a firm believer in non-violence, but did believe in self-defence. The rumor of Jesus being a hate-mongerer and violence-lover is easily dispursed with this passage:John 18:11* - "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."This verse clearly demonstrates how Jesus disapproved of the acts (the Acts of Peter, most importantly, for attacking with this sword) such as whipping out one's sword and waving it around as a demonstration of some sort of threat. He firmly believed that they should only be used in times of self-defence, which throughout history, this ideology of self-defence surely reinforces the ownership of weapons.I will cite sources upon request.As the saying goes, buying/bearing a sword and using a sword are completely different actions.
The New Testament Bible supports the ownership of Arms by means of context

I've said all I need to say. And, my point has been proven. Even through my opponent's "refutation" he fails to warrant his point, he succeeds only in making claim after baseless claim, but never proving, or validating these claims. So at the point my opponent neither proves their stance, but also simply dismisses a good majority of my own arguments, you have no reason to vote for him. --- "My opponent seems to have forgotten that there are MANY interpretations of specific Bible verses, like the one my opponent is so vexed about. I am merely narrowing down interpretations to a point where one seems relevant to the resolution" - Again, my opponent gives us no warrant, but simply claims (very abusively) that it is his own interpretation. - This arguments aren't linear with the resolution; and in terms of debate he has made no argument. "My opponent has failed to see the foolishness of his own statement that Jesus never quoted the New Testament. Although true, Jesus never quoted the New Testament for the New Testament wasn't written until AFTER the death of Jesus Christ. I hope this clarification should further show that my opponent's proclaimed certainty is nothing more than a fallacy. " - Which all the more so proves my point, that we cannot go off of the new testament alone. - Throwing around debate terminology, and telling me how much I fail to see a point does not make a point suddenly come into existence. "The countryside was a dangerous place for Jesus and his disciples, whom if which may well have been political agitators as well as religious reformists alike. But, he would not allow his disciples to use their swords against the soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane, as this supports my previous contention of his firm belief in nonviolence. " - Aside from the fact that this is a completely new argument; i still doesn't prove that the bible supports the use of arms via context. - Matthew Chapter 6 Extend everything from round 2 as well since my opponent did not cover it.
The New Testament Bible supports the ownership of Arms by means of context

"First; my opponent claims that the surrounding text to the verse he mentioned is irrelevant; he is off topic in regards to the resolution. The resolution explicitly states that the bible supports ownership via context; yet he advocates that the support is garnered through direct interpretation of the verses he used. He's already lost that debate in that realm of thinking"The verse itself is too diverse in diffrent meanings to NOT be interpreted. Claiming that intepretation of these versus is going out of context is foolish for the verse MUST be interpreted to be thoroughly understood. I apologize for dismissing the verse addressed in the italicized statement above as irrelevant, I was more trying to address when my opponent started cited Old Testament verses, of which I was dismissing as irrelevant. Although I admit my 1st and 3rd posted versus were out of text, my 2nd posted verse was on accord with my definition of context. It seems my 1st and 3rd verse can only be a "Second; My opponent's refutation makes no sense in regards to my argument. He claims that Jesus was a firm believer of arm ownership and self-defense, but gives us no scripture to back this claim up; all he is doing, is superimposing his own beliefs onto Jesus so as to justify his own stance. "My opponent seems to have forgotten that there are MANY interpretations of specific Bible verses, like the one my opponent is so vexed about. I am merely narrowing down interpretations to a point where one seems relevant to the resolution, whilst YOU must interpretate to negate the resolution (if the interpretation is feasible, logical and widely acknowledged. ) This verse does have surrounding context, so no loss of conduct should occur for interpreting it. "The new testament does not stand on it's own; it is the fulfillment of the law in it's entirety. For my opponent to make this claim is to make this entire debate one of semantic interpretation. Jesus never quoted the new testament while preaching, but he always quoted the old testament. "My opponent has failed to see the foolishness of his own statement that Jesus never quoted the New Testament. Although true, Jesus never quoted the New Testament for the New Testament wasn't written until AFTER the death of Jesus Christ. I hope this clarification should further show that my opponent's proclaimed certainty is nothing more than a fallacy. "This makes absolutely no sense, and my opponent does not prove such a farfetched claim to be true in the fist place. "The countryside was a dangerous place for Jesus and his disciples, whom if which may well have been political agitators as well as religious reformists alike. But, he would not allow his disciples to use their swords against the soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane, as this supports my previous contention of his firm belief in nonviolence. My opponent has done nothing but dismiss my contentions as senseless jabber whilst I have proven that they do indeed hold water, figuratively speaing.