BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is anti Semitic at its heart, why should Jews ever trust Christians

Thanks for debating this topic with me. I"d like to first start with a question: when did Christians kill 6 million Jews? My opponent says that Christians want to convert everyone to their false God but Jews and Christians both believe in a monotheistic idea of God. The only difference is Christians believe Jesus was the son of God, not simply a prophet, as the Jews view him. I"ll assume that Christians really did murder thousands of Jews long ago, for the sake of the argument. First, the question is why? What was their motive? What was their intention? I"d say that back then, pride and a certain "us versus them" mentality were likely responsible for many of the world"s wars. Simply put, Jews thought they were right and Christians thought they were right (just like today). I"ll get into more detail about these points in later rounds, I just wanted to establish a base for my argument. Now, addressing the last part of my opponent"s question, why should Jews ever trust Christians again? First, I"d like to ask, trust them how? Do you mean trust in their religion or trust that they aren"t out to murder them, etc.? It"s extremely unlikely for someone who chooses a religion in today"s world (i.e. Judaism) to be pushed or pulled away from that commitment because of how people of that religion may or may not have been treated 2000 years ago.
This house would not ban smoking #3

My previous debate on this topic was forfeited so here I go again. I will be the Pro in this motion and I will carry the burden of proof to show why smoking should not be banned. The rules for each around is as follows. R1: AcceptanceR2: Arguments from both sides (Only arguments) R3: RebuttalsR4: Counter-attacks R5: Final Argument (without Rebuttals) I look for a great debate.I am going to open four debates on the same topic to investigate the aspect in this field more widely.
This house would not ban smoking #3

To conclude: Point One: Harm and Environment Smoking should be ban, or at least, be discouraged as it harms the health of other people. Eliminating smoking in our culture can help to increase people's health. Imagine a non smoking community, how lovely it would be. Imagine if your future children or your children (if you have) will not be engaged in smoking, that will be a benefit, too. Smoking is not something an individual will look for if he/she does not see it in his/her environment. Its something more on influence, so, if you have a community or a family of non smoker, definitely, smoking won't be part of that person's life. Smoking is more deadly than alcohol, in fact, alcohol has more benefits than smoking cigarette. Alcohol: When taken moderately, you can have the benefits Cigarette: The moment you smoke, the moment you'll receive its deadly toxins little by little. Even when its for first and last, and worse, when you become addicted to it. 2) Banning smoking won't kill Freedom Banning smoking will only help as it discourages people not to smoke, which would mean, for healthy benefits. The presented argument on Round 2 of mine will show the negative effects of smoking, and if you avoid smoking, then, you are saved from those negative effects. As also said, smoking is not something a non smoker would just look for, rather, by influence. If people won't even love or embrace smoking in their life, then, the next generation will eventually won't embrace it, too. 3) Money loss or Innovation? Unemployment or Opportunity? To ban smoking means to look for an alternative use of tobacco in such a way it would be useful. If banning of cigarettes would be implemented, then factories of cigarettes will be encouraged to find alternative - well, the government can help if they want to. Thanks and God bless to all! :)
This house would not ban smoking #3

Countermeasures 1) Harm Harm from cigarettes is clearly emphasized from the given examples. Pro countered it by stating that even cars and factories and alcohols can do harm, but is not banned, but why cigarettes? I had addressed it that there are things that is useful and that is not useful. Second, all things can harm, as said, there are things that are useful like cars, though it causes accidents, its all because of the accident itself, not the car. Its the way of driving or other factors, not the car. Alcoholic drinks, on the other hand, has healthy benefits, and moderation can give these benefits. Cigarettes, on the other hand, will do nothing but to harm. Cigarette itself contains toxins that can harm. No matter what you do, when you start smoking cigarette, whether you'll like it or not, you'll have the effects. 2) Individual choice As said, if smoking will not be promoted, then, it will be eliminated, in fact, even without banning. Cocaine is another matter to be discussed, and pollutants as well. Cars and pollutants, by the way, scientists can make ways to make cars free from pollutants, which would mean, we have the control over the harm brought by the car's pollutants. Note: The best challenge here is to make a cigarette that will not harm the smoker and non smoker. But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be. BEFORE ANYTHING MAY GO WRONG AND MISUNDERSTOOD: "But obviously, what we are talking here is the cigarette that harms, so, it calls for a ban. If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be." I am NOT agreeing with Pro not to ban cigarettes, and the cigarette that is referred to this argument is that usual cigarettes, the one with too much chemicals. " If an alternative that won't harm people, then, let it be." I am referring to the alternate cigarette, but still, it does not mean that I do agree with Pro, as Pro is standing with the usual cigarettes, while my stand here is the alternative cigarette if there will be. Thanks. 3) Money Pro seemed to repeat the argument of "ban other things like cars since it causes harm, too". I have addressed that topic anymore, its the "useful vs not that useful". Cigarettes vs Alcohol: Alcohol has benefits IF taken moderately, cigarettes will really harm you even the moment you just tried and even when you inhale the smoke from someone. Economy and employment may be affected, still, there are more ways just to save this possible workers that can be unemployed, or the best way is that cigarette factories will stop making cigarettes, rather, make a new use for tobacco, or just simply, change their company. With that, no people or workers, or only few will be unemployed. Thanks and God bless
This house would not ban smoking #3

Pro's rebut would be on two points, mainly: 1) Causing bad things = ban? 2) Individual choice 3) Money losing From my own point of view, 1) Many causes things, but should we ban it? Well, Con has a point: Cars causes dangers, still, we should not ban it, or factories causes biological harm, yet, they are not ban. I say is that, those are things that when weighed, both positive and negative are equal. And in cases of cars, car accidents can be avoided through discipline or by different manner, cars cannot be blamed by accidents. In terms of harmful gas emitted, scientists are looking for ways to lessen such harm like by using water as gas. Factories have discipline as well, though sad to say, sometimes, they don't abide on it. Cigarettes, however, kills many little by little. I have raised a question though I don't challenge Pro to answer it, so its ok if he does not. What causes cigarette addiction? Well, I don't believe that own choice would, rather, usually, via influence. If people will learn not to smoke, the next generation, probably, smoking would be eliminated even without banning. However, for some people, smoking is "cool", which therefore, pushes them to do so. Banning and educating people about smoking can help. No freedom is being harassed. 2) Individual choice Seems that, I had answered it on the first point. Well, to clear and make details, cigarette smoking is more on influence rather than simply choice. Normally, people won't smoke if they aren't influenced by smokers, unless curiosity pops their mind to do so. As to relate to health, smoking gives harm, which calls for ban. If people will learn not to smoke, they can save huge part in their life. 3) Money losing Banning cigarette would not mean money loss. As a person engage in business, I can say that more opportunities can come if cigarette would be wipe out from the market. People will learn to seek new opportunities rather than selling cigarettes in the market which kills people. To go back and clarify all my points: 1) Everything can be harmful, but we need to learn what is useful. Cars can cause harm, but it is useful. Cigarettes, on the other hand, has many negatives which calls for ban. 2) People do not smoke out of individual choice, rather on influence or curiosity. I haven't seen a non smoker who bought a cigarette because suddenly, he/she wants to. 3) Opportunities will arise if cigarette smoking can be ban. Who knows? We can find new ways is using tabacco. Innovation of tabacco products that may even give more benefits instead of turning it into cigarettes.
This house would not ban smoking #3

I will briefly rebut the argument that Con gave me. REBUTTAL All Con said during his second round was that cigarette is harmful. He listed various ways that cigarette can be harmful. In this debate discussing about the total ban of cigarette, there are two things that Con has to show: 1) that harm of cigarette calls for radical action of ban, 2) that the ban is a plausible action. Con failed to fulfill both criteria by only giving medical argument, omitting the explanation as to why such medical factors call for ban. Con’s entire round 2 can be rebutted in different layers. Just about anything can harm one’s health. Smoke from factories, electricity and cars kill people in many ways. Just because something is bad, it does not equal to a ban. Just because cars emit smoke, cause accidents and require factories in the process of manufacture, we do not ban cars since benefit outweighs the harm. Again, smokers are aware of these harms of smoking and yet they still choose to smoke. Moreover, cigarette provides recreational activity to individuals. Additionally, Con failed to combat other benefits that we lose by banning cigarette and benefits we gain from keeping cigarette. By banning cigarette, we are also hugely limiting freedom and rights of citizen. We are also oppressing industry that worth hundreds of billion dollars, placing workers of this humongous industry out of work and losing billions of tax revenue. Despite all these drawbacks in several aspects, does it still worth to ban cigarette? Con obviously failed to answer this question. I look forward reading round 3.
All exams should be replaced by assessments

In comparison to exams, assessment would provide greater qualitative and quantitative results of student's learning progression. Which I take my stand for assessment. Assessment is the process of documenting knowledge, skills, attitude, behaviors, belief, and include factors of measurements. The output of the result would be quantitative with measurements and qualitative that provides a comprehensible feedback for a teacher, therefore would allows teachers to identify various types of learning process of students, the attitude towards a subject, and to interpreted students perception to learning. To conclude a teacher would have data and the possibility to accommodate student's own learning style and possibility to optimize student learning process. I would like to argue for the case that exams has limitation of questionable reliability, it may be reliable on the student knowledge and is doing on the testing day, but It is limiting with information on whether the student is just memorizing or if they intellectually comprehending, whether the student is lazy or is not learning, and or whether a students cares about education or not. An assessment would provide such feedback. Exams are design to determine one's knowledge of what they know or learned, exam is not preventive measure of cheating. Exams cannot discriminate if a student cheated or not. This would be more on the sole perception of the testing supervisor and the burden proof of the reviewer. An assessment would provide a good interpretation of the students knowledge and can scale to the strong and weak areas through assessments. I would like to raise the point and argues unlike an assessment, exams can inspire students to think creatively on ways to cheat and test whether they can get away with it. I would simply call that an experiment.
"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

nothing indicates a black hole is unlimited. it takes in huge energy and mass, but that doesn't mean it's unlimited. plus as noted before, black holes eventually dissipate and leave the rest of the universe intact. 'infinitiy' isn't proven to be true either, as for all we know the universe has bounds to it. plus, the title of the debate said as a force, there is no force that is infinite even if an infinity exsits.
"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

Through the use of logic. If black holes exist, otherwise known as singularities, then unlimited does exist. Though we may not have an unlimited quantity in the universe, in theory, the more we have, the more the black hole sucks up, the more it grows, which can continue indefinitely. For the most part, unlimited works on a technicality, so it's more on how you choose to perceive mathematical terms. Claiming infinity exists could potentially be the same claim as god exists. Neither could be proved. Therefore, it's more of an unwinnable argument.
"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist. in another matter of speaking i am saying "the unlimited does not exist" can the unlimited limit itself? if not, it is not unlimited. if so, it is not unlimited. also, reality as far as we know it indicates that anything that might be 'unlimited' is limited by the laws of logic, as far as we know. thus, we can see by probing a few questions about what it means to be unlimited, that it does not really exist, at least in terms of being ever present.
The Possibility Of God

Interesting arguments you have in R2 my friend! However since life has been such a clusterfu.ck of mass confusion I have lost my faith in the Creator of the Universe (God) and all dieties. I just don't feel like you know; that I'm truly on the "Right Path" due to negative religious experiences. I believe there is no one "true religion" here on planet earth there is just alot of propaganda, lies and scare tactics being used for purposes of systematic control. I have a big problem with this as I used to be among the "Flock of Sheep". I want to know the truth but all I know is what I've been taught; hate, fear of the unknown, fear of change, and heresay and the "Three Negative Aspects" of religion which of course I've already mentioned to you. How can you help to evolve "All Humanity" spiritually when they are directly and indirectly being threatened with eternal destruction or damnation due to "lack of conformity". Trust me I've read all the "negative religious reports" I've done so much research only to reach a final conclusion; I'll mention three things I am deeply disgusted with the religious leaders pushing their "bulls.hit online"; it's not just a "Church thing" it's also a "Virtual thing". I'm also disgusted with the religious followers who continue to just "accept things as they are" without questioning everything" and leaving no room for doubt or doing no research. I'm also disappointed in myself for buying into all this stuff; at least I didn't stay that way. I somehow am changed but I lost my sense of direction. I've become a agnostic due to the "age of misinformation". I'm unable to conform "religiously". At times I suffer from religious trauma syndrome (RTS) it's hard living in a world where religion supercedes truth but I feel it is in my best interest to "Debate these Issues" rather then "Believe them".
The Possibility Of God

If you believe in the Creator of the Universe then why should I care? Do you even have a relationship with this diety or do you just have " A Religion in your Heart"? Honestly why should I care about the possiblity of the Creator of the Universe (God) when the truth is that: "Nothing is eternal, change is inevitable"? Nobody lives forever and nobody gets a reward or punishment after their life ends; they face destruction! I hate God no matter what! There is no changing the brutal truth about reality!
The Possibility Of God

I have irrefutable proof my friend that "Christianity was Invented" for purposes of "Systematic Control": http://beyondallreligion.net... Religion as a whole has contributed to mass destruction and continues even unto this day. Did you know that the most dedicated Anti-Theists (Misotheists) were once followers of a Religion? Religion destroys peoples lives and causes extensive psychological damage. I had so many fears and so many worries! My life was one big mess because religion and dogmas were apart of it. It was a Hellish Experience for me! I suffered so many things in vain! I also have a quote to further back up my claims that all "Religions" are all about "Systematic Control": "All religions are nothing more then a systematic form of control to keep many people from coming to the knowledge of the truth." Abelardo Cabrera III 1989-Present
Why Christians minister about HELL and why Non christians are Misled and need to Know about it!

Many Non-christians i feel are Misled by fear,manipulation,demands and obligation, i feel that is not the reason why christians talk about Hell, but i do know selfish people use religious sentiments to make money and con people, or for their own gratification or to control people out of power. But again i feel this is NOT the reason Christians Speak about hell.
Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms.

On Peter Bergan's quote, he says "traditional law enforcement methods have played the biggest role" but isn't the domestic surveillance by the NSA traditional? They have been monitoring the American people since the agency started in 1952. On analyst Schneier's quote, the only point being made is that the ability to find terrorism plots is difficult. However, nowhere in the quote does it say it is impossible. The NSA has been able to foil plots since it first began (which is my next point) and they have overcome that obstacle. Sebastian Rotella, 23-year analyst of international affairs for the LA Times, gives his perspective of the NSA domestic surveillance by the NSA: European terrorist hunters seem surprised that the revelation of the NSA data-monitoring programs is big news. The technological capacities of U.S. agencies have been an integral component of dramatically improved teamwork against terrorism during the past decade. "In the fight against terrorism, intelligence-sharing is essential," said Jean-Louis Brugui"re, who served for more than two decades as a top French antiterror magistrate before retiring in 2007. (He declined to discuss the NSA"s role in investigations.) "Cooperation with American services has always been trusting and excellent." In conclusion, because the NSA domestic surveillance program has foiled terrorism plots according to NUMEROUS sources, and the con has never presented an argument himself (other than against my case), I can only see a pro ballot. The con has not presented any harms, so the benefits must outweigh the "nonexistent harms". Thank you.
Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms.

"The director of the National Security Agency vigorously defended once-secret surveillance programs as an effective tool in keeping America safe, telling Congress on Wednesday that the information collected disrupted dozens of terrorist attacks without offering details." Regarding the claims made by the NSA, what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. In this case, though, we have evidence that justifies dismissing the claims of the NSA. To quote security analyst Peter Bergen, "a survey of court documents and media accounts of all the jihadist terrorist plots in the United States since 9/11 by the New America Foundation shows that traditional law enforcement methods have overwhelmingly played the most significant role in foiling terrorist attacks." To quote security Analyst Bruce Schneier regarding the claims of both the FBI and the NSA, "Rather than thinking of intelligence as a connect-the-dots picture, think of it as a million unnumbered pictures superimposed on top of each other. Which picture is the relevant one? We have no idea. Turning that data into actual information is an extraordinarily difficult problem, and one that the vast scope of our data-gathering programs makes even more difficult." For corroboration of this claim, one need look no further than the Boston Marathon bombing. The Federal Government had warning of the risks posed by Tamerlan Tsarnaev. He was on the TIDE list that fed into such programs as the FBI's terrorist screening database. His internet history also should have thrown up enormous red flags -- his Amazon wish list included such titles as "Voice Power: Using Your Voice to Captivate, Persuade, and Command Attention; How to Make Driver"s Licenses and Other ID on Your Home Computer; The ID Forger: Homemade Birth Certificates & Other Documents Explained; and Dale Carnegie"s classic, How to Win Friends & Influence People, among other guides to fake identification and several books about the Italian Mafia." His co-conspirator Dzhokar, on the other hand, downloaded Al-Qaeda literature, including instructions on how to make a pressure-cooker bomb. In the face of this evidence that the NSA data-mining programs do not work, we must treat the claims of the FBI and NSA with extreme suspicion. http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.csmonitor.com... http://www.techdirt.com... http://www.cnn.com...
Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms.

My apologies for missing the limit for the last round. As for the argument if sources being claims by the FBI, if you do not provide any counter claims, then you must accept these sources. In this type of debate (public forum), the burden if proof does NOT lie on the affirmative as if does in policy debate. It is rather a balance scale, and we are trying to sway the audience our way. Also, if opponent had read the cards fully, he would have seen that the only time these sources mentioned the FBI's opinions is when I quoted them. Otherwise, it is all factual information found by the writer. With his only argument being refuted in this round, I can only see a pro ballot. Thank you.
Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms.

I would first like to congratulate my opponent on finding the most biased sources possible to support his claim. If his argument rests on the claims of the NSA and FBI, it is a house of cards that can be blown apart by the most cursory examination into the trustworthiness of his sources. If, however, the affirmative has other evidence, I encourage him to present it all at once rather than bit by bit, so that we may spend as much time as possible discussing the full affirmative argument. I see no need to devise arguments of my own at this time; the burden of proof is on the affirmative, and the burden of proof will not be satisfied with such laughably untrustworthy sources.