BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
child molestation should result in life in prison or the death penalty

The death penalty is generally an eye for an eye. If you kill someone, than you are qualified to be killed. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger). A pedophile cannot change their attraction to children. I am not glorifying Pedophilia either, they should control themselves. Their punishment should be a mental hospital
do workers sacrifce too much time with their family to build their career

I would prefer the pro make their case first as they have the burden of proof, but to summarize my position, workers do not sacrifice too much time. (I'm assuming we're talking about the USA.) Full time employment is usually considered to be at least 32 hours per week.[1] Workers would be better off working 6 days a week for 6 hours per day for 36 hours per week, but in terms of total time, workers are not currently working too much. If we look at the historical trend, workers from the 1800's worked over 60 hours/week, the early 1900's hit around 50 hours/week, and it wasn't until the mid-1900's that the average work week was around 40 hours/week.[2] Our current 32-40 hours/week is pretty lenient compared to what a worker can physically work.Sources:[1] https://sbshrs.adpinfo.com...[2] https://eh.net...
Jesus Christ is a "zombie savior".

Before I start I would like to apologize once more for my opponent lacking intelligence. My opponent presented different definitions throughout this debate he has shown no comprehension that when it comes to defitions the number indicates a start of a new definition. I chose this definition:Zombie: n. 1. a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural forceHe conceded dead body, as well as being brought back to life. So we are left with only thing the supernatural force. My opponent has shown no understanding or refutation of my definition of force. He is incapable of understanding that when a being acts on something it is exerting a force on it. Therefore a supernatural being acting on something exerts a supernatural force on something. He complains I only gave 3 examples, this is an unfair expectation, how many would suffice 5.....100 where do I stop. I showed three examples as 3 is a fair number of references, he wants more a couple more off the top of my head:The zombie army and zombie ash from Army of Darkness talk and show emotion. In the Friday the 13th series, Jason is often referred to as zombie Jason starting at part 6 when he is clearly not living anymore. Zombie Jason shows cognotive ability he never was much of a talker though. They also talk in Return of the living Dead 2 and Zombie Strippers. How many more do you want? See how ridiculous he is? I can go on and on, the point is what makes a zombie is when they return to life from the dead by some external force. They may or may not have cognitive or spiritual feelings. They may be heavenly like Jesus or Zombie hot like the girl in Return of the Living Dead 3 but they are all zombies because they fit the definition I used.The best part about this all is it goes way over my opponents and most chrisians heads that the ridiculous part about zombies is not the mindlessness or the flesh eating, it is the returning from the dead, which is why the reference is made in the first place. I didn't care about his idiotic rules, if he wins on a technicality it still doesn't change the fact that even retardedarsenal saw he couldn't touch this argument. Which may not actually be a point as he is usually very wrong.
Jesus Christ is a "zombie savior".

I again apologize I am debating a moron, not ad hom, but instead a fact. Lets look he continues to beat a dead horse, you cannot add to the definition you gave. I chose one of the definitions and argued it. I have shown the concept of zombies, showing emotions such as love, fear, anger, and dare I say the girl in return of the living dead 3 was 80s hot and more heavenly then Jesus. Dude with bright glowing white hair here:http://images.wikia.com...vs 80s hot zombie girl:http://ecx.images-amazon.com...What guy is going to argue which is more heavenly. I would also point out that my opponent can't reference horror movies right, in Nightmare on Elm St, Nancy the main protagonist lives and actually returns as a pyschologist in N.O.E 3 Dream Warriors. Don't give me this new $hitty version nobody worth half a lick in horror movies even admits that exists. Anyway this arument proves my point if the slasher doesn't always lose you can't include it when determining whether it is a slasher film, hence since I have shown that other zombies have similar characteristics his arguments are irrelevant. When showing that something is by definition what you are claiming, you can't argue points that this being may or may not have, you must only argue the points that distinctively prove that the being is what you just argued. In this case you can only argue the attributes true of all zombies. The retard debating me also doesn't get that to reference zombies we must reference fiction, as zombies only exist in fiction to reference. Therefore referencing pop culture movies is the only true way to show what is and isn't classified as a zombie. If the fact that these characters do exactly what he is claiming of Jesus, does not disqualify them from being a zombie, what makes my opponent think it disqualifies Jesus, thats right his mental incompetence.My opponent fails to see, and 14 year olds generally aren't that bright in science do to lack of education in the field, but a being when acting on something is by definition creating or putting a force on that object.
Jesus Christ is a "zombie savior".

I would like to say right from the beginning my opponent is an idiot, so don't mind his lack of intelligence. Zombie: n. 1. a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural forceThis is the definition I will use for zombie, now why I don't tend to agree that Jesus ever really existed as a historical character in any more the same way as leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre existed in reality. Both, loosely based on real people but not real within themselves.Here we go with the argument:First we must prove that in Christian delusionalism, Jesus was dead, he died on the cross. This is clear. The different gospels confirm he gave up the ghost, which for my inferior minded opponent means he died. It is a figure of speech, I know you and reformedarsenal are coming up with alternate meanings to that phrase as we speak. Anyway, back to the discussion, he was resurrected, there is one key prerequisite for resurrection. Guess what that is? If my opponent wasn't aware of this, and he wasn't, it is being dead. How was Jesus resurrected, bodily of course, Doubting Thomas even, according to Christian delusion, touched the wounds. So to reassess at this moment we have Jesus being a dead body that was brought back to life. A third of the way done here. If we can get the third out of the way, we see he meets a full definiton. So what brought him back to life, well it was god. So what is god, well he is outside of nature, hence supernatural. In order for anything to act it must use a force, hence a force created by god is a supernatural force. Rut Roh, shaggy I think we have a problem for con as now we have Jesus being, get this wait for it, its coming, my opponent should be dumbfounded, a dead body brought back to life by a supernatural force. Since Zombie is defined as a supernatural force, and I can't leave anything to my dense opponents imagination, we can use zombie as a short hand for this since it is the definition of zombie. Lets see so Jesus was a zombie. Now according to Christian delusion, Jesus saved them from his father who is a part of him somehow, by allowing them to avoid eternal torment. So, he is somehow a savior. Hence, the conclusion is Jesus is a zombie savior.
Jesus Christ is a "zombie savior".

In his forum, "Christian Intellectual Dishonesty", Izbo10 commented, six days ago,"Sorry [,] grammar police, but if you don't like those words [,] don't believe in [C]hristianity. They are just saying the sy thing in a different way to show how stupid the belief really is. Sorry [if] it offends you, but I am not the one defending a zombie savior" [1]. Please note that the grammatical corrections, insertions of words, and punctation, are all absent from the original link, which can be found below. I assume that, since the word "savior" is a "person who saves someone or something (esp. a country or cause) from danger, and who is regarded with the veneration of a religious figure" [2], that Izbo10 was obviously referring to Jesus Christ. Christ was born in the tribe of Judah, the son of Mary, a descendant in the genealogical line of David, and a carpenter known as Joseph. [3] His birth was heralded by: prophecies and miracles including: the coming of the angel Gabriel, the initiation of the Holy Spirit, the annunciation of a group of shepherds, the gifts of the Magi, and especially the presence of a star over Bethlehem. [4] He is, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, a part of the threesome: God the father, the son, and the holy Spirit. Considering this, I was curious to why Izbo10 used the word "zombie", and decided to challenge him to prove that one can characterize Jesus as a "zombie savior". Here are a few definitions of the word "zombie", from different websites. Zombie: n. (in voodoo) a. the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose b. the supernatural force itself. [5] Zombie: n. 1. a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force 2. a god of voodoo cults of African origin worshipped especially in the West Indies 3. (voodo) a spirit or supernatural force that reanimates a dead body [6] Zombie: n. 1. Originally, a snake-deity of or deriving from West Africa and Haiti 2. A soulless corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, esp. in certain African and Caribbean religions [7] Please note that my opponent was using a noun as an adjective to describe Jesus. The burden of proof is that Pro will have to show that Jesus is a “zombie savior”, and Con to refute it [and the resolution]. In the following debate, I urge my opponent not to: make any ad hominem attacks, whether by calling me names, insulting me, or trolling, criticize other arguments not related to this debate, or refer to irevelant sources. Otherwise, all seven points will be forfeited from him. We will start debating in the second round. I am now waiting for my opponent’s acceptance. No members may present new arguments in the last round. Instead, they may summarize their own arguments and make one last effort to convince the voters to vote for them. Works cited and used as sources: [1] http://www.debate.org... [2]http://www.google.com... [3] http://www.sacklunch.net... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com... [6]http://www.rhymezone.com... [7]http://www.google.com...
The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

I shall reiterate one final time. You set guidelines for the debate. You then stated First Round: Acceptance. Then you rattled off stats. This goes against your ruling for Round 1. You did not say Round 1: Statistics and Acceptance. Nor did you make any claim in round 1. You simply copied and pasted articles and pictures. Which makes little-to-no sense. Your guidelines stats "Please be respectful and nice. Please do not be rude. " You finished your points by stating: "There would be no war, as I have stated. If anything, the US government would be more like Canada, (thank God). " You have insulted the US government. This was completely unprovoked and is quite the emotional bias for your nation, and against the US. There has been no call to action for what the Queen would be able to do to solve the US problems. Pro has failed to answer the question why the US would allow the Queen any part of its government. You have ignored every question in which I asked why would the US allow a FOREIGNER to be in its government. There has never been any time in history where another country's leader was welcomed into someone else' government so simply. Why does the QUEEN have to fill this role. Why can't another American be Head of State while the President remains Head of Government? This is the most important question of them all. If you're main purpose for all of this is to separate the presidential duties, WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE QUEEN. This has been, and still is my unanswered question. All you have stated is how the Queen is doing a good job, and Americans are unhappy. You have failed to link the two. I don't need any sources because I am not making any arguments. I am simply asking questions about yours. You have failed to describe how the Queen would resolve any of the problems the US is currently having. You have failed to answer the questions about why an American cannot do the same job. You have shown an extremely biased point of view towards the Queen and have failed to give any merit to the issues that are currently facing the US. You clearly love your country, and I admire that. But, this does not mean that everyone has to follow your government. Pro has failed to answer my question of why Americans should let the Queen take a high title in their own government. If we were to separate the presidential duties, an American would almost surely take this position, not a foreigner. Pro has not fulfilled BoP of why the Queen should take place in the American government. 'Because it worked for Canada' is not a sufficient argument. The Us faces many issues that can be destructive to our nation as a whole. You have not addressed anything specifically nor have you given any information to how the Queen would be able to handle these situations.
The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

Rounds should have equal merit to both parties. Any facts used to back up your argument should be made in arguing rounds. If your format is for Pro to begin a basis for an argument in Round 1, and Con has to only accept Round 1, this immediately is unfair. But That first round does not help your argument at all. Pro has no answered any of me questions or responded correctly to any counter points I had made. Pro has listed three different battles of war for her example to change the current US government. I would presume that to put the Queen into power, per her examples, would be a war, or even just a battle between the US and England. Allies. How else would the Queen be given this power? Pro stated the Queen has a "cool factor" and she gives the people someone to look up to. I did not use Obama as a reference. I used the President. The President is the political figure, and leader, that we as Americans look up to. Regardless of Obama's approval ratings, the President is a prestigious position in America and among world leaders. As I have mentioned in my Round 2 rebuttal, separating the powers of the President could very well have the benefits to the American people. Your stats are dry powerful. But, Pro did NOT make any arguments about why the Queen should stand that post. If the President's position were to be separated, there is no reason for a foreigner to come into the US and being to have power in the government. The only way this has ever happened is war. The Queen's popularity makes no difference on her coming to America to have a part in government. What the Queen did on 9/11 was magical and inspiring. This moment in no way qualifies her to be a part of American government. Also, if the Queen were to become the Head of State, would The US President then become of the Head of Government in England as well? Or would the Queen be the one to have these Head of State powers in two separate countries while the President's power remains solely in the US? What you are talking about is infiltrating the US government with the Queen. This would be an act of war that would most likely end poorly for the British.
The United States should have the Queen as Head of State

Pro gave numerous statistics in the opening round he labeled for Acceptance. This goes against his own rules. Pro is arguing we should put his current leader into another countries government system. His argument consists of three major points: The American people are upset. This would be common among a Depression. This does not call for bringing in another country to help solve the problem. This would deface the American government and change the entire parameters of our Democratic Republic. Political Parties are split. This is simply an observation of America. We are primarily made up of two large political parties. Republicans and Democrats. This is not an argument, just a statement of fact. Having a Queen is "cool". "There is also a huge "coolness" factor.[6] The Queen is someone they can all look up to, and take pride in.[7]" How is a President any different? He is a government figure the citizens of the US look up to. Pro has not offered any solutions to American problems. He has simply stated, adding a foreign ruler to US government will magically solve problems. It may certainly be easier if we were to separate the Head of Government and Head of State. However, The President is required to be a US born citizen to take office. Why would we cut the President's job in half, and then go against the rules of Presidency and its duties and put an foreigner into government?
Xenotransplantation

Even though there has not been an infectious disease yet, that doesn"t meant there isn"t going to be one. Roumiana S. Boneva, Thomas M. Folks, and Louisa E. Chapman all agree that there is a risk of infection if close clinical and laboratory oversight fail. Also, do we want to reshuffle the order of nature and make ourselves the same "rank" as God? Many people are against xenotransplantation because they don"t want humans to have the same status of God and for us to completely throw off the balance between humans and nature. When you ask about the welfare of pigs chosen for xenotransplantation, the care is important because if the pigs are in poor health and have their organs transplanted into a human, the recipient could be in danger. I think that the risks are too much and if xenotransplantation gets out of hand, there could be fatal consequences for humans.
Xenotransplantation

Who are we to decide what God intended for us? We are now killing pigs for meat, and God did tell us to eat meat. In the bible where does it say that using xenotransplantation is wrong? How is eating pigs any different? You eat pigs everyday. What about the welfare of those pigs? Theoretically eating pigs is worse than using pigs to save peoples lives. People chose to eat pigs. There are very few sources of organs that we have. Xenotransplantation can benefit everyone. Xenotransplantation could provide temporary treatment options for patients. The people waiting for organs each day will be helped by having temporary treatment. If we have enough pigs to feed most Americans today I'm sure we will have enough pigs for xenotransplantation. Human lives are so important. I believe that xenotransplantation will help us, and it should be allowed.
Xenotransplantation

This is considered ethically unacceptable because we are breaking down some of our "God given" boundaries. Matthias Kaiser says, "We effectively re-shuffle the order of nature as intended by God, thus assuming the same status as God the creator." Do we really want to mix up nature as how God intended it? Also, do we want to be playing God? In some religions and practices, such as Islam and Judaism, pigs are considered unclean. What about the welfare of the pigs that are chosen for xenotransplantation? The companies that take part of this would have to make sure that the pigs are extremely well taken care of, the Biotech Learning Hub insures. If Harvard can't even take care of monkeys, how are others supposed to take care of pigs being used for human transplants? You say that xenotranplantation could also provide temporary treatment options while patients wait for a human organ to become available. What about the people dying each day waiting for an organ? Are we going to have enough pig organs to supply everyone needing transplants?
Xenotransplantation

You said that organs from xenotransplantation will be rejected, but according to Shane T. Grey The first scientific attempt to transplant pig islets was conducted in 1994, by a team from the Karolinska Institute. The team transplanted pig islets into ten human patients who had diabetes and demonstrated that the transplanted islets made c-peptide, a by-product indicating insulin production, for up to 400 days. This attempt shows that islets are not rejected. Thus far, there has been no evidence for human infections caused by pig xenotransplantation products. Roumiana S. Boneva, Thomas M. Folks, and Louisa E. Chapman assure. Although there are ethical issues with using pigs for organs and tissue, is it really a problem? We already use pigs for meat. We even have pig farms where we fatten them so we will have more meat. Is using them for organs and saving people worse? I should hope not. Is an animal life more important than a human one? Has there been tests where everyone rejected there organs?
Xenotransplantation

If the body rejects the transplanted organ, it gets attacked like an infection and this is the biggest challenge for xenotransplantation. When there"s a human to human transplant, the recipient takes something called cyclosporine to prevent the body from attacking the transplanted organ. However, in xenotransplantation there's a more aggressive defense that is called "hyperacute rejection." What happens is that if and when the tissue is recognized as foreign, the body sets out to destroy the transplanted organ. This could led to fatal consequences for the recipient.
Xenotransplantation

Xenotransplantation is something that will save lives. Xenotransplantation will provide cells and tissue for new treatments of diseases where human organ transplants are not an option. Xenotransplantation could also provide temporary treatment options while patients wait for a human organ to become available. The Canadian Public Health Association tells in an article. Although there have been some organ rejection, there have been very many successful trials with the pigs insulin-producing tissue. Xenotransplantation can bring the cure to Type 1 diabetes with the pigs tissue. According to Actionbioscience.org. Xenotransplantation can save so many people.
Xenotransplantation

Thousands of people right now are waiting for the transplant of a pig islet or organ. They think that after they have their new organ or islet, they"ll be perfectly healthy. It seems almost too good to be true. But is that possible? Xenotransplantation is when we take a non human islet or organ and transplant it into a human. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, an islet is a "small isolated mass of one type of tissue of one type of tissue within a different type." Xenotransplantation is important because it can save the lives of many humans whose death was almost certain. But what are the risks of this? It could cause a pig borne disease that could learn to transfer human to human. Or cause birth defects in the recipient's children. Also, how are we going to find enough islets for everyone who would benefit from this? I understand that xenotransplantation could cure a deadly disease and help save a life. However, I think that we should find out how to stop these risks before we jump in and perform a transplant that could cause a new deadly and contagious virus. What about all those pigs who were slaughtered for their organs and islets? And is this even ethically acceptable?