BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Must Exist

The QuranIf you want me to refer to any falsities in the truth of the Quran, set up a separate debate. Otherwise, you are using it as your ONLY source. It doesn't matter if you only used it a "couple of times."Back to MoralsFirst, you yourself defined the word "murder" in your own way when I was obviously referring to the killing of another human being. So I changed my statement to match your definition. That's what a proper debater does.Second, I am not making the individuals "bigger than they are." The philosophers I listed are very well-known. If you do not know them, that does not mean that they aren't well-known. Any basic philosophy class applies the teachings of those men. Don't belittle their achievements.Hitler and Saddam Hussein were acting on "God's command," might I add. I never said that a person who breaks or goes against their morals is a good person. You said that.The last part of your argument makes no sense to me, sorry. I don't mean to be offensive or rude, I just can't make sense of it.LinksMy mistake with the 6 days. I haven't read the Quran in a very long time...I was simply trying to bring up a relevant topic that adds to this debate. Sorry if you don't see the relevance and I will drop it.Morality Before & Without I, C, and JWe get our moral standards from our own reasoning and human nature. The normal human being knows that lying, cheating, stealing, etc is wrong. Go out and ask just about anyone. Of course you're going to have that one exception where someone has a mental condition where they cannot distinguish between good and bad, but that is the exception, not the rule. I just naturally know that those things are wrong. Perhaps it's part of being a civilized and sentient species.Counter to Your Counter-Conclusion (?)Now I see what you mean. But you have one problem: what created or caused God? If you cannot sufficiently answer that, then your argument is meaningless. If God could have existed forever, why couldn't the singularity that caused the Big Bang? In the theory itself, the reason for the Big Bang is the instability of the singularity; it decayed because it was unstable. There is your reason (or cause). The cause therefore does not HAVE to come from God.Sorry, but I don't have the burden of proving that God doesn't exist in this debate. You, however, have the burden of presenting reasoning as to why God MUST exist. If you make an assertion that I cannot refute, you will have won. Otherwise, the victory is mine. This was stated in the first round. You did not disagree with my assumption, and so the rules of victory are set.
God Must Exist

Back to MoralsBased upon my opponent's definition of "murder," what I described previously would be no such thing. It is not unlawful nor is it premeditated. Thus, the idea shifts from murder to "killing." Semantics cannot be used with such a simple word. Therefore, killing another human being is not always wrong. Even though my opponent wanted to trap me in a semantics trick, the basic principle is still there: killing another person is not wrong in every situation. So you can't say "killing someone is wrong" since you don't allow for the exception of self-defense.My opponent then goes on to claim that moral relativist philosophers "faded over time because they were not rational or logical." However, I believe the names Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Herodotus would be familiar to any philosopher. Their ideas are still built upon to this very day.Also, the argument that my opponent made in reference to stealing and murder are not relevant. The person would still know that what they are doing is wrong. This is the basis of morality: that tiny voice called the conscience.The QuranThe major problem that I have with the use of the Quran is that it is the only source my opponent is using. You need more than one source in order to found your argument or else it will be shaky.Links Between Faiths (and Differences)If my opponent was to actually look back (any history textbook would do), he would realize that the original Muslims believed that any religion which had a holy book and was monotheistic was technically "correct" in their beliefs. According to Islam, those people would be rewarded in paradise. I have read the Quran as well and I know that the Christians and Jews were considered "People of the Book."The difference in fundamental beliefs between Muslims and Christians is that most Christians believe in a literal 6 day creation period. Even if they don't, they believe that God simply spoke everything into existence. The Quran (if I remember correctly) does NOT refer to Allah speaking everything into existence, nor does it imply a 6 day creation period.Morality Before Islam, Christianity, and JudaismMy opponent claims that morality comes from religion and therefore from God. But what about the people who lived before monotheistic religions? Were they completely without moral? I think not.Besides, I myself am an atheist. Does that automatically make me immoral? No. I do not cheat or steal, nor would I kill another person under typical circumstances (outside self-defense).Counter-ConclusionI don't quite understand my opponent's closing point. Frankly, it makes no sense to me. But that could just be my own misunderstanding. Apart from that, it is evident that there has been no actual reason given to believe that God MUST exist. So far, my opponent still has not met his BOP and I have countered his ideas of morality.
Video Games in School

Video games should not be allowed in school. I currently go to a school that provides computers for students. I assume that when you talk about providing video games, you are talking about the free use of technology. The problem is, student will just abuse this privilege, in fact, the kid next to me in math class is just playing video games. Video games in school would be nothing but distracting and counter-productive. And while yes they may relieve stress, the build up of homework will stress the students even more, they play video games in school not doing work, they get more homework because of the work the student didn't do, and then, they play more video games to relieve the stress they caused. And of course some are educational, but those are the games students hate, they wouldn't play those, they would just abuse their privilege. Do not support video games in school.
Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health.

R2 ArgumentsI. IntroII. Point by pointA. FatB. Saturated fatC. IGF-1D. CholesterolE. CaseinF. LactoseG. Bacteria endotoxinsIII. ConclusionIV. SourcesI. IntroMilk is detrimental to human health for many reasons. Excess fat, saturated fat, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, and bacteria endotoxins.II. Point by pointA. FatFat contains 9 calories per gram. Protein and carbohydrates contain 4 calories per gram. [0] Fat due to its high caloric content can lead to over eating and obesity. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Excess dietary fat can also lead to intramyocellular lipid buildup, which in turn can lead to insulin resistance. B. Saturated fatSaturated fat can increase blood viscosity forcing your heart to work harder and leading to lethargy. Furthermore, saturated fat can break down into the bad cholesterol, LDL, low density lipoprotein. C. IGF-1IGF-1, insulin like growth factor 1 increases risk for cancer by promoting cancer cell growth.D. CholesterolCholesterol is associated with degenerate disease.E. CaseinCasein can cause an immune system response that destroys pancreas cells and leads to type I diabetes.F. LactoseMany people of the world are lactose intolerant. G. Bacteria endotoxinsBoth alive and dead bacteria release endotoxins which can cause an immune system response. III. ConclusionFor many reasons, milk is detrimental to human health. IV. Sources0. http://www.mayoclinic.org...
Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health.

Dairy milk typically consists of carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. None of these are particularly harmful to humans. According to milkfacts.info, "milk is 87.7% water, 4.9% lactose (carbohydrate), 3.4% fat, 3.3% protein, and 0.7% minerals (referred to as ash)." Yes, milk is 88% water, and there is nothing else in milk that is specifically harmful. The USDA claims that milk is prime source of potassium, calcium, and vitamin D. Each of these is very important for bone health. (webMD.com)
Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health.

Resolution:Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Bop:Burden of proof will be upon the instigator. Structure:R1 Acceptance and definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 Defend your argument against opponent's round three rebuttalDefintionsCow "cow 1 (kou)n. 1. The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos." [0]Milk" 1. A whitish liquid containing proteins, fats, lactose, and various vitamins and minerals that is produced by the mammary glands of all mature female mammals after they have given birth and serves as nourishment for their young." [1] Thanks in advance for accepting. Sources0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
death penalty

Hello all so in this speech I will be giving voter issues 1. I have won all two of my contentions. And both my sub points I have won theses simply because my opponent has not been able to refute ether of these with conflicting evidence or even logical ideas 2. My opponent did not fulfill their burdens Because my opponent didn't give any definitions or weigh criterion he did not fulfill his own burdens so he was forced to take mine he should lose simply on this point. 3. Unreliable My opponent has not cited any specific sources thus making him an unreliable narrator and making all of his claims unfounded thus all they simply are is opinions. Debate requires evidence because my opponent has neglected to provide such he should loose because I have provided citation and he has not. 4. So finally i have ,met the weighing mechanism and my opponent has not. i have provided justice and equality for the people of America my opponent has not we have provided net benefits while my opponent has only provided (might a say false) something for a minor portion of the population. so because of these 4 reasons i urge a strong vote in firm of the propitiation thank you
Jesus cannot be Messiah

I did not concede that Jesus came from jeconiah. Luke and matthew disagree about Jesus's pedigree. I'm simply stating that Jesus is screwed either way. The Talmud was written around 250 a.d. it has no bearing on Chronicles which was written around 200-150 b.c. Also, tisk tisk on resorting to rabbinical judaism. I said in round two that rabbinical judaism has no merit in interpreting the Tanakh. All Jewish\christian scholars readily admit that both the Palestinian and the Babylonian Talmud, provide no steam in biblical hermeneutics. The FAINT traces of the (original) hillel\shamai schools of thought that it retains, are far removed from the culture\customs of the Tanakh. Tisk tisk. The ancient Israelite oath: A person would swear something by placing themselves or an object under an imprecatory oath. The object under the imprecatory oath, would be considered damned by God if the oath were broken. The verses I quoted from Jeremiah depicts God putting his own life, (as I live) and the freaking world (earth,earrh,earth) into his oath. In other words God was saying, "may I DIE and may the WORLD DIE along with me should I break my word." All ancient Israelite oaths, whether explicitly stated or only implied, contain the notion that sh*t will hit the fans if the promise is broken. Your bit about 'apparantly all Solomon's descendants died". Apparent is not absolute. Maybe she only killed all the ones she knew of. Solomon's election was unconditional not conditional. The ability of the monarchy to reign perpetually was conditional, not unconditional. You didn't respond to my wonderful commentary on Isaiah 53 within the context of 40-66. I used to get up and pray my morning prayer, it took nearly 45 minutes. I remember wrapping the tzitzit around my wedding finger and imagining myself married to God and his Torah. I couldn't afford the tefillin (300 bucks or so). After 3 years of practicing reform judaism my rabbi (who was raised haredi in Manhattan) advised I go to a haredi shul in Dallas. So I went. It was impersonal and full of chaos. Completely unstructured. Eventually I made my way to the rabbi and told him my story. At first he smiled, I had a ZZ top beard, why not smile at me? After he learned I was reform he angrily scolded me. "Someone may have counted you in their minyan!" He raced around the room asking who counted me. When I got back I asked my rabbi, "is haredi judaism loveless?" To which he replied, "now you know why I left Manhattan!"
Jesus cannot be Messiah

God's covenant with David includes His election of Solomon AS the genealogical extension. Any genealogical pedigree without Solomon in it disqualifies the individual's pedigree. 1 Chron 28:5 "of all my son's, (for the Lord has given me many sons) He has CHOSEN Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel." Nathan, (Solomon's brother) was not chosen. Notice the messianic phrase, "kingdom of the Lord". The author of Chronicles was very messianic. His intended implication is "the kingdom of God" will come through the Messiah. He ends the book depicting Cyrus as saying, "the God who gave me all the kingdom's of the earth.........whoever will let him return to Jerusalem." Implication: return to Jerusalem the city that will one day rule over the kingdom's of the earth when Messiah comes. Jewish folklore viewed Messiah as having the might of David and the wisdom of Solomon. Rabbinical musings have no merit, I just mention it demonstrate the messianic implications attached to Chronicles. What matters is the author's intent, which is clearly messianic. The author explicitly links Solomon with the kingdom of the Lord. Luke gives an irrelevant genealogy. None of Nathan's descendants can have the messianic covenant extended to them. Jeconiah's curse cannot be abrogated, the object of God's oath is "as I live", Jer 22:24, and thrice repeated (major oath) earth, earth, earth, verse 29. Jeconiah's descendants are not excluded from mercy but from prospering on the throne of David. Thus jesus cannot prosper (come on dude) on the throne of david. The prophecy stuff: I'll just cut to the chase. Isaiah chapter 53 has nothing to do with jesus. Isaiah chapters 40-66 are concerned with Cyrus's edict to return to Jerusalem and rebuild it. 52:11 Hey, leave Babylon and return the temple stuff Nebuchadnezzar took. 54:3 resettle the desolated cities in Israel when you get back. The in-between hyperbolic descriptions of a human sacrifice in chapter 53? Lamentations 5:7 'Our fathers sinned and are no more; we carry their sins." The 50 plus years of captivity saw a new generation suffering for their fathers' mess. A proverb arose from that: our fathers ate some sour grapes, but our teeth are set on edge. Psalm 44:22 " it is for God's sake we are given to death, we are sheep to be sacrificed." Bible writers assured the returning exiles that their misery was part of God's plan. Their misery was like a guilt offering. Were they forever cursed for their fathers' idolatry? No, they paid the price in captivity. Christian scholars view chapters 40-66 as being about the Cyrus edict with jesus curve balls thrown in. My view has more viability concerning the actual subject matter.
Jesus cannot be Messiah

I'll be brief. Isaiah 53: Israel is identified 7 times as the servant. 41:8, ,44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20, 49:3 Unidentified servant: 41:9 obviously Israel, 41:8. 43:10 servant called "witnesses", plurality Israel. Witnesses that idolatry is rubbish. 42:19 blind servant, israel. 49:5-7 servant called "servant to rulers", Israel subjected to various rulers. 52:13 every single time the servant is Israel, why get goofy now? Question: 53:10 He shall see his seed. No where in the N.T is the Church called Christ's seed. They're called his bride, but never his seed. No where in OT are humans called God's seed. Sons, sure.never seed. Seed suggests CUM, god can't cum, god has no seed. "Prolong his days"? The Ancient of Days cannot prolong his days?
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuel

The proposed law only requires new cars to be powered by alternative fuel sources, it would not make driving oil powered cars illegal. The US isnt trying to change all the cars in the country because this law only requires FUTURE cars to be powered on cleaner fuel sources. Poorer people could afford these cars if mass production were large enough the price of the new cars would be lower, the same thing happened with the Model T Ford because so many of them could be made. The program I cited would be a program where people who want to upgrade to a new car would get government help, not an all expense paid upgrade like you claim. People would get aid to buy new cars and in some cases could afford to buy new cars with government help.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuel

Just so you know, the debate topic is the Federal Government, which is also known as United States central government.This means that all U.S. citizens will lose the rights to drive oil cars, and cannot drive a car unless it's ran by alt. fuel. This will be the biggest technological revolutionary, and along with that, it will demand priceless money. U.S. is not a rich country, and is in debt, which is over $15 trillion dollars. U.S. does not have an opportunity to do such thing, and should care more about the debt than thinking to change all the vehicles in U.S. I ask you again, how will the poorer citizens afford a new car?United States do not have enough wealth to provide each citizens a new car, and it's impossible.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuel

Such a mandate would cost money but the long term benefits from paying less to refuel would over time offset the costs. Also the mandate would lead to a better environment so less money would be needed to help make it better. People could still use oil powered cars, the law would require NEW cars to be powered with other fuels, people dont lose a right to their oil cars they only lose the ability to purchase newer gas powered cars. If production is large enough though such cars could become affordable if enough of them could be produced fast enough so that even poorer people could afford them. A new "cash for clunkers" program may also help the poor buy newer cars, it was a hit before it would be a hit in the future as well.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuel

Thank you for responding to my argument.First of all, this mandate will consume LOTs of money, and is bad for the poorer people.This mandate means that no citizens will no longer use the oil cars. Then, how about the people who has oil cars that costs thousands of money? And the more significant point is, how about the people who cannot afford to get a new alt. fuel cars? This mandate does not consider the poorer people, who will lose the right to ride their oil cars, and will not have the sufficient money to purchase a new, alt fueled, cars. I ask you people, do you think people has to lose their precious cars and be forced to buy a new one, for the sake of saving environment?I will post my second argument after the opponent's response.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuel

Electric cars can go very fast already, the Chevy Cruze for example can reach speeds of 100mph right now, by 2040 future cars could go much faster. I consider 100 mph to be fast, and most oil-powered cars have limits of just over 100 mph... the 267 mph number the Con is using is for NASCAR cars, not cars available for public use. Proof that solar cars can exceed 90 mph, http://science.howstuffworks.com... In the modern world consumers want cars that dont burn through gas quickly. With gas prices climbing higher consumers want cars that save them money by having a higher MPG rating. Cars that run on other fuels produce less pollution too so they benefit the environment more.
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuel

Would anybody like a vehicle that goes 90mph at fastest? Would you want to throw your old car away and get a new car? I, Jacob Park, the con side, am against the resolution: That, by 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels. I am on the side to keep our awesome ol' cars, in our ol' garage. Nobody wants to change our fast and cool-looking cars to slow cars ran by alternative fuels. Alternative fuels are the natural powers, such as wind, electricity, solar energy, and etc. How can these power out power the oil cars? My first contention is about the weak powers of the alternative fuels. Do you think that wind would actually power a car? And if you think wind does, what do you think the maximum speed is? It is scientifically proved that solar cars' fastest speed is only 90mph. This is nothing compared to the cars ran by oil, which the fastest is 267 mph. In modern world, the customers desire cool-looking cars and the fast cars, especially for young aged people, since they like to enjoy fast speed.
Lyrical Games #3 (Celebrities Love/Hate)

Vs. 2 Dear Mrs. Hideous 1st Lady: I never had trust in ya hubby's ugly disgusting leadership Dubya shot from the hip, I respect that shitt; Barack deserves a Southern Cracker's whip For the bullshitt he spits, no substance, no flavor, just uneatable, non-nutrient verbosity His sketchy rhetoric is heretic, preachy & peachy without an ounce of valuable quality His foreign policies are becoming hypocrisies, while you fancy sippin' brandy with Pakistanis I believe in equality as well as modesty, but honestly, ma'am, you look like a manly tranny You're just as insane as Hussein, the two of you when askew look like an ewe & a gnu* Gotdamn, Michelle, even Mama Bush & Lady Bird Johnson look hotter than you do!!! Your un-American quote[1] will forever burn you & never earn you my respect, I scorn you To Whom Who Hates America: get yo bittch-@ss out, don't need you, won't miss you, so fhuck you You too Biden, Obama chose a goofball VP with VD of the mouth, a stooge who religiously lives to glib His ad lib is worse than a kid caught in a fib, any impractical flip of the lip, Joe Biden has did So Madam, yo husband gave us a bad tasting cough drop--a ridiculous fop: a white man used as a prop A strategically placed sop[2], a Dick Cheney-swap, Biden is horrible to watch like that Green Lantern flop You three make up an unholy trinity, America's internal enemy; making us internationally laughable A fallible, implacable, irrational, national in-debt capital, collapsible animal becoming globally incompatible *pronounced "you" & "knew" 1- a concession given to mollify or placate; a person used in that capacity to mollify others 2- http://www.foxnews.com...