BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
which makes more sense? islam(pro) vs christianity(con)

I will begin my refutation with some definitions that Pro hasn't given God-An all-powerful being 1) Jesus is the son of God Your reasoning that Jesus is not God or the Son of God is mainly his physical nature. Two points of refutation -Many gods in other religions are physical as well as spiritual (Greek and Roman gods come instantly to mind). To say that Jesus cannot be God because he is physical is excluding these mythical examples. An all-powerful being isn't necessarily all physical or spiritual. This also means that these gods can feel physical pain and, to a point, be tortured. But these gods don't die. Which means that if Jesus died, he must not have been God right? -To quote the Nicene Creed, Jesus "came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man." As weird as this is going to sound, Jesus was man and God, "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." This means that Jesus shared characteristics with both man and God, but wasn't a demigod, but rather both God and man. 2) Christians think that we're the enemy First, I would like to point out that you set a standard that Pro cannot site the Qur'an as proof, neither can Con site the Bible as proof. Your first sub point under this section sites the Qur'an as proof that Islam is not an enemy. As a Christian, I firmly believe that no humans are the enemy. Radicals like Westboro Baptist make a bad name for Christians, and I would hope most non-Christians recognize this. Point 2 is relevant to Christians like those that attend Westboro, but since I am not one, this point is not applicable to all Christians. 3) The Bible has scientific errors You open up in this point with saying that the Bible was written after Jesus died. The Bible is composed of two sections: The Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was not only written before Jesus was born, but all of the books were written at least 400 years beforehand. Most of the errors in the New Testament (and I am admitting that there are some errors) are spelling errors, and don't affect the actual translation of the Bible. The documents written by Paul, Luke, and others were copied zealously, which made more copies, and more, and more, but not one by one. There would be, say, fifty copies of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, and five-hundred copies from those. In regards to your other sub points, there are many different theories by Christians on the creation story, but in short: it is not necessary to take the creation story literally. 4) The Bible has many verses that are rated R so... I have refuted all of your points. I await the third round.
which makes more sense? islam(pro) vs christianity(con)

Ok!, so lets begin! 1)_Is jesus the son of god ? So christians believe that jesus is a son of god and that his a god, lets talk first about him being god,jesus can't be god because.. 1_He was created and he was born 2_He used to eat, drink and sleep 3_He even prayed for someone 4_It's not that i believe that jesus got crucified, but i'm going to put it in your way, jesus got crucified right ? this god got tortured and he died, which that doesn't make him a god 5_ How can mary mother of jesus hold a god in her billy for 6 months ?, it doesn't make sense 2)Christians think that we're the enemy 1_In the qur'an jesus is mentioned more then mohamed, and mary mother of jesus is mentioned more than the two of them, marry is mentioned 18 times in all 75 versiones of the bible, but in the quran marry is mentioned 32 times in one version(theres no other versions) she even has her own surah(surah means chapter and every chapter is 20 pages). 2_ In islam jesus is one of the best prophets of all time, and it is written in the quran that he will be coming back, him coming back well be one of the proofs that the last day of the universe is close. 3) The bible has scientific errors(please do not consider this offencive) The reason why it has scientific errors is because christians written the book after jesus died, which left the people to try to remember, and by time passing, 90% of the book is not valid, but the other 10% of the book is what jesus really said, the nearest one to the org is james version, so i don't consider the bible that now christians read as a bible 1_Genesis chapter 1, it says that god created earth then the sun, this is a scientific error because if you know the big bang, and how the universe works it won't apply to that, and if this didn't convince you earth obits around the sun so you can't create earth then the sun, and another thing is that earth is created from a star explosion, which will lead to birth of planets, and new stars, the star will either go back to normal after the explosion or turn into a black hole. 2_ Genesis chapter 1 also says that god created plants before the sun, which doesn't make sense because plants can't grow without sunlight. 3_Genesis chapter 1 also says that the moon has it's own light and not a reflected light, which scientists discovered before 200 years or so that the moon borrows the light from the sun. The bible has many verses that are rated R( again please don't consider this offencive) 1_Genesis chapter 19:32 to 33 two daughters were having sex with there father 2_ Genesis chapter 35:22 robin was having sex with his mother 3_Genesis chapter 38 from 50 to what's after it, judah the father of the jewish race, he went and did sex with his daughter in law on the road side 4_ Do you remember the story of abraham and sarah ? when god and went and also did sex with sarah ? I wanna talk more but i have no more characters left, thank you
Some Faiths Are Better Than Others

That cliff example is still dumb, because realistically, nobody would have that faith. The true beliefs may be better than false beliefs, but gravity is proven, and most faiths are not (including the ten commandments which you cited before). You haven't discussed any other moral rule book, you seem fixated on the idea of the ten commandments being perfect. They're far from the best faith if in order to follow them practically, you must break them. This still feeds the argument that no faith is better than faith. No strict guidelines, only believing that what happens happens. It avoids every impact you've stated. You argue that some faiths exist, which is very vague. If you're arguing that the faiths you believe exist are better, that shouldn't be considered here, since as I have proven, you can be wrong. You said you're measuring faith by truth, but you never provided a single fact, only opinion. There was no measurement of truth within this debate. The entire pro arg is very vague.
Some Faiths Are Better Than Others

The cliff example is relevant and should not be disregarded. It is proven that the second isn't going to float if he jumps off the cliff does not imply the second person believes that. His faith ends up being incorrect and thus inferior to the first person's faith. Some beliefs are true and some beliefs are false. The true beliefs are better than the false beliefs because they are more right than the false beliefs. So, some beliefs are better than others. I know the Ten Commandments are not always followed. The Ten Commandments may be a flawed faith, but they still seem to be a better faith than the other moral rule system that I have previously discussed. I suppose I agree with your suggestion that: a thing is popular does not imply it is good. The majority can be wrong. But I'm not measuring goodness of a faith by popularity; I'm measuring it by truth. As to your argument about no faith, I say some faiths do exist, whether that fact is best or not. And some are better than others.
Some Faiths Are Better Than Others

The cliff example is almost laughably irrelevant to this debate. Of course, if you jump off a cliff you aren't going to float. That is basic science, and has been proven. However, no single faith has been proven true or untrue. It seems you have shifted the context of the word faith from the original one presented. You use it as a single entity, it isn't fluid. But suddenly, you've changed it to be such. Furthermore, the ten commandments aren't followed accurately. It is a flawed faith. If they were followed fully, we'd all be running around killing each other for having different religious beliefs according to https://bible.knowing-jesus.com.... Also, popularity doesn't determine if something is good or not. Nixon won and he was a terrible, corrupt president. You have also made no attempt to answer my argument about no faith. My no faith argument still applies in the context of the definition you provided. Somebody can believe with strong conviction that there is no god
Some Faiths Are Better Than Others

Actually, the term "faith" refers to a system of belief, a system as simple as a set containing one and only one belief. The term "faith" as I use it in this debate is not necessarily referring to a religion. The sense I'm using is sense 3 under Merriam-Webster's first, noun definition of "faith," https://www.merriam-webster.com..., visited Jul. 4, 2017. Take the following example of this paragraph: One person believes another person will die if the second jumps off a cliff and the second believes the second will float in the air if the second jumps off the cliff. The second jumps off the cliff. But he does not float in the air. Instead, he falls a great height and dies. The first's faith was truer and thus better. The Ten Commandments have prevailed for hundreds, possibly thousands of years, as opposed to another moral rule system promoting greed, jealousy, lust, stealing, and killing. It thus seems the Ten Commandments is a better faith than the other rule system.
Some Faiths Are Better Than Others

Your argument provides insanely flawed logic. It implies not only that a certain faith is correct without any proof, but implies that faiths have to predict the future. I assume that the term faith is referring to a religion of some kind. Faith doesn't predict the future in the eyes of believers, it seals their future. Even if your argument about one person being better than another is true, there is absolutely no way it is possible to prove that without dying and coming back, telling a truthful account of what happened. The only examples of that are children who have been coaxed by their parents into saying stuff they don't mean. With everything that exists right now, by your logic of one faith being better than another, wouldn't not having a faith be the ultimate mechanism of predicting the future? There is no proof of a faith predicting the future, but proving we die is pretty easy. So the entire idea of a faith being superior is debunked by the idea that no faith is proven.
i can list more lies from trump than u can from hilary

here is an article that shows trump lies more than clinton https://www.washingtonpost.com... con claims i ignroed all his examples, but ive given links with plenty of examples that he ignores. confidential. it was retroactively classified as confidential. it was legit when it was sent, then later determined classified. this isn't a lie, it's just a mechanical error. even past secretaries of state used private servers and have had their emails retroactively classified. this is also how she can claim it was approved, it was an established practice. as to consistency on those issues, i would just chaulk it up to political maneuvering that all politicans do. im sure trump would claom to be consistent on many things too, but he's changed his position on almost every issue there is. a little exaggeration. i didnt notice the one she was named after. id say that counts.
i can list more lies from trump than u can from hilary

"Claimed that she and Bill left the White House broke and in debt." Although they did have some debt from Bill Clinton's legal fees, they were far from 'broke'. In fact, after they left the White House, they bought a seven bedroom house in Washington D.C. worth $2.85 million. I would consider it a lie - she said they were broke and they clearly weren't. [1] http://www.politifact.com... [2] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... "Claimed all of her grandparents were immigrants." In Iowa, Hillary said (while speaking on the topic of immigration), "all my grandparents, you know, came over here." Her paternal grandfather immigrated from England; the other three were born in the United States. [1] http://www.politifact.com...-/ My opponent completely dismissed 42 out of 45 of the examples I brought up, claiming that many of them were things she got 'wrong'. I'll go back to my list and pick out a few more that I believe constitute as blatant lies. 1. Claimed that she did not send or receive classified information on her private server. The FBI found 110 emails and 52 email chains containing classified information. She used the server - she had to have known. She lied. 2. Defended her private server by claiming that her use of it was approved. The Inspector General said that the server was never approved nor would it have been approved. She used the server - she had to have known. She lied. 3. Claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who climbed Mt. Everest. She was born six years before Hillary was known publicly for his accomplishment. She obviously knew this and lied. 4. Claimed she has been consistent on issues like same-sex marriage, Iraq war, and TPP. She was originally against same-sex marriage. Then she was for civil unions. Now she is completely for it. She voted in favor of the Iraq war. Then she opposed it. Same with the TPP. Obviously she knows her own previous ideas. She lied. [1] http://www.politifact.com... [2] http://www.breitbart.com...
i can list more lies from trump than u can from hilary

i'm not going to respond to each one, cause most of those include just getting things wrong, which isn't a lie. and trump can be found a ton of this type of things anyway. here are the lies I will count. Claimed that she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. Blamed the attack in Benghazi on an Internet video. Claimed Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11. Claimed that she and Bill left the White House broke and in debt. this one she might be telling the truth, id need more info Claimed all of her grandparents were immigrants. if she said her grandparents were immigrants which is more likely, that might be true if shes just referring to some and being sloppy in her language. if she said all of them were and they weren't then it's a lie. it seems more realistic she was just being sloppy so far I count three lies that id count from you. here are plenty of exampels that are at least comparable to the ones you gave. I don't notice any blatant lies so i'll see if you can find any more that should actually constitute a lie http://www.politifact.com...
i can list more lies from trump than u can from hilary

i can list more lies from trump than you can from hilary trump said he was on sixty minutes with putin. putin was in russia the whole time and not with trump. trump said he wasn't pretending to be his own assistant in the nineties when someone sounding similar to trump was praising himself in the nineties. he earlier admitted it was him. trump said he saw large crowds of muslims cheering the world trade center falling, on tv. this apparently never happened.
i can list more lies from trump than u can from hilary

"here is an article that shows trump lies more than Clinton" First of all, this debate (according to the resolution) is about who can list more lies - the source (an extremely anti-Trump, pro-Hillary source) my opponent provided only linked to PolitiFact and provided their information. "con claims i ignored all his examples, but ive given links with plenty of examples that he ignores. " Actually, my opponent only provided one link, and I'll admit I did not see it at no fault to my opponent. In the first sentence of round two, my opponent argues that "just getting things wrong" does not constitute as a lie, therefore, I will evaluate their PolitiFact link with this same rubric. I will give you the David Duke lie and the Rubio is Mark Zuckerberg's senator lie, as they are more than simply getting something wrong; Trump has previous knowledge of both. All others (I read each one) are either misspeaking or there is no way of knowing Trump's intent. "as to consistency on those issues, i would just chaulk it up to political maneuvering that all politicans do. im sure trump would claom to be consistent on many things too, but he's changed his position on almost every issue there is. a little exaggeration. " Actually, Trump never said anything about being consistent. Clinton, on the other hand has. More specifically, she told Anderson Cooper that she has been consistent on issues like TPP, the Iraq war, and same-sex marriage. She flip-flopped on all three of those issues. Instead of telling Cooper that she was not consistent (which is the truth), she knowingly (I say 'knowingly because they were her own stances) lied about it, thus it is a lie. I will take back my comment on classified emails and not count it as a lie. So here are the lies we have agree on and those I have added using my opponents standards just now. My opponent provided three lies in round one, and two lies (judging by his/her standards) in rounds 2/3 (David Duke, and Rubio/Zuckerberg). I provided three lies in round one (not including grandparents and broke) that my opponent accepted (Bosnia, Benghazi, Chelsea on 9/11), two unrebuked lies in round 2 (grandparents and broke), one more unrebuked lie in round 2 (name), and one defended lie in round 3 (consistency).
Robots can replace high school teachers

This is the final counterargument and summarization round.Teachers are not meant to inspire students. That is for other occupations, such as therapists and politicians. I did not avoid this in the last round; I only thought the contender had given it up, for he has failed to counter the fact that other occupations can do jobs just as well as teachers. The Contender suggests that teachers are to "mentor to the students, provide counseling, be a role model." Teacher and mentors are synonymous, so there is no need to cover that. Counseling is for therapists. Being a role model is too broad a topic. Students may want to be anything when they grow up. Athletes would be role models for athletic kids. Politicians can be role models for students in politics and leadership. However, teachers of today can only inspire future teachers, of which there would likely be none.Upkeep for Baxter is 20K USD a year, but this is less than what teachers are paid. Teachers are paid about 30K USD a year (Niche). This is more expensive than Baxter, so in the long run, Baxter is cheaper.Robots can detect whether a ball is in the strike zone and know if someone is stepping out of bounds. Therefore, robots will be able to learn and analyze other rules.Just because someone didn’t make a robot that can measure angles doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. A robot that can measure angles simply isn’t useful as of now. However, when people start using teacher robots, that function can be easily implemented. Robots that can grade homework have already been implemented. Scantron devices are being used for multiple choice quizzes, and applications such as Professor Kageyama’s Maths Training proves that technology can read numbers. Similar technology can be used to read letters, and that leads to words. I have already given examples of robots that can read and correct grammar.Robots may not be 100% accurate, but they make fewer mistakes than humans, which is what counts. This point is pretty straightforward.Robots can compare the physical ability to the average physical abilities, which can be measured through tests. Students with certain disabilities can be measured against other students with certain abilities.You have dropped the piece of my argument that principals would prefer robots as teachers because they won’t complain.Note: Do not include these arguments in your next round, except the last one. Do not introduce any new explanations. That gives me a disadvantage, for I cannot predict and counter your future arguments.Dear readers, the contender has failed to convince me that robots cannot replace high school teachers. I expect that he has failed to convince you too. Robots have been proven to be preferable to principals. There is nothing a robot can do that a teacher cannot. Therefore, robots will, in the (probably far) future, replace high school teachers.Sources:Niche - https://articles.niche.com...For those who want to read further on my side of this topic:http://www.cgpgrey.com...
Robots can replace high school teachers

The Pro stated that programs such as Grammarly and IBM's Watson would be able to grade tests properly. However, the Pro does not take into account the fact that programs such as Grammarly and Watson are not 100% reliable. Grammarly does not claim to be able to grade essays. In fact, Grammarly is professed and advertised to be "an English language writing-enhancement platform". Grammarly's purpose is not to grade essays, but to correct mistakes and enhance the writing process. Watson, on the other hand, may be able to tell similarities between two related sentences and understand speech, but its algorithms, once again, are not 100% accurate. A human teacher, on the other hand, would be able to understand all of this and the hidden, emotional meanings behind the essay. The Pro is implying that robots would be able to grade classes similar to P.E. properly. However, no robot has ever been created that could do anything similar to this. While robots may be able to do simple things like measure angles and use a stopwatch, they absolutely cannot grade all the multiple facets that are present in a P.E. class. Not only do pushups and running, as the Pro mentioned, exist in P.E. class, but games and sports are also present in P.E. class. Robots simply do not have the intelligence levels needed to grade things such as these. Baxter the Robot is unable to do any intelligent things such as grade math homework, essays, or physical ability. Baxter can only perform physical tasks and was meant to replace factory workers. The cost of Baxter is about $25,000(not including upkeep, which is estimated at $20K per year), which is extremely close to the annual salary of a US Production Worker, which is about $28,000. As I said before, robots that can teach and are intelligent cost around $125,000. Also, the Pro did not counter my statements regarding the fact that the job of a teacher is not only to teach, as the Pro had stated, but also to be a mentor to the students, provide counseling, be a role model, along with many other things that they are meant to do that robots clearly cannot provide. This is a key part of my argument, as robots simply cannot perform these tasks or have these relationships with students that can only be created from person-to-person experiences. I would like for the Pro to address this in the final round, as he avoided it in the past round and this is an issue that absolutely needs to be addressed in the topic of robots replacing teachers. Sources: https://www.grammarly.com... http://www.rethinkrobotics.com... https://www.glassdoor.com... https://www.robots.com... https://www.thoughtco.com...