BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
is a Christian God great.

I must iterate that I have spent some time debating the title, or theme of this debate. Is a Christian God great? Of course he is. Now for all of the apparent derailing as to if God is good or morally ethical, I could offer the argument that God created goodness and morals, so obviously He is. I will not debate that stance though. And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28 It is difficult to put God into human morality or ethics, when he is literally championing our souls. At this point we must realize that God is a force of supremacy that is to test us for the prize of eternal life. We would not cry about hitting a chute instead of a ladder. For him it is a complex sociological experiment, and therefore his goodness and morality are peripheral at best. For one more point of view, It is written that what we hold true on earth, He will hold true in heaven. That being said, the crusades and every other mass killing or genocide in His name, basically licensed him to send upon us plagues. When the leaders of his organization took a silent consent of the slave trade, then it validated him making women not much more than property. A pillar of salt is not far from ethical if considered by men who have made a career of molesting altar boys. I, of course, am an atheist and am disgusted by all of the atrocities committed by people suffering a delusion of a super powered imaginary friend, but the point of this debate was to discuss greatness and goodness. When I referenced that the time of law is over, I meant that we now must count the good works of Christ against the tally. I think it will be fairly apparent that there are more good works than bad, because Jesus was a great man. In the name of God he helped the blind to see, the poor to eat, and the lame to walk. He even was able to over right the issue of low value towards women, having taught and accepted Mary of Magdalene as one of his followers. She was a prostitute, something that was a huge no-no socially, and Jesus still accepted her. I will conclude by saying that most of the ethical debate comes from who you ask. If you ask the losers, they will say it was bad, the winners will think differently. The same comparison can come after any war that is fought. If you ask the Native Americans, the white settlers were bad. God is at war with Satan and some extremes had to be made. This is evident. I don't think that Noah will have found it to unfair that he was warned that a flood would destroy the world. He was given the instructions on how to survive. I would like to honestly thank my opponent for this debate. I enjoyed reading his arguments and all of the references that he cited. You are certainly an accomplished debater and I appreciate your time. Thank you.
is a Christian God great.

Since there is nothing left to offer and my opponent has derailed his original stance. This is now impossible to debate. He has changed his argument to redefine what the word Great means. If we were debating under the impression he is merely great, inferring that we are judging his actions by the magnitude of them, I would concur that he is great however that is not the case. As I said in My R1 stance "At the end we will determine if he as good as the bible claims, or if there is more to it and the God of the bible does more bad than good." This was quite obvious that we would be discussing how great God is and what "good" he does. Good being defined as beneficial toward us and or not being harmful. I have shown that through the old testament and other scriptures most things God did in fact was not beneficial to anyone, except perhaps himself. I have offered up examples and in my prior argument I have shown that Pro still has not offered up any explanation as to why committed the atrocities that he committed. He merely states the old testament was in the past. We can not dismiss the evil of the past, just as we can not dismiss any good none. We can simply acknowledge that the evil God commits, does out way the fact. Lastly my adversary states that God created us and we are here. Yes that is a great act. We must remember however that God created us so that he could make us suffer if all of my previous point stands. He created us knowing that some of us would burn in hell. This is not an act of good or moral conduct. Neither is the fact that God allows thousands to starve and die everyday. If we are debating under the context that he exists, he is timeless, space less, and infinite. Yet with everything that is wrong with the world, he sits by and watches. As i have previous stated, there is not much con offered to refute Not he did redefine my R1 stance and still has not offered any valid proof as to why the actions that God commited in the old testament are good or morally ethical actions. I have enjoyed this and thank anyone for taking the time to read this.
is a Christian God great.

For the sake of being succinct I will be brief. It would seem that my opponent is unclear to the defense of greatness. All of the miraculous and amazing deeds, good or evil, would be considered great. Since I am able to understand that is not his main point I will rebut the spirit of his point. I imagine as all parents grow older, they look back at their history with some regret. Perhaps God punished the easiest way that He knew how, by lashing out. I am certain that if we were to pour through the Bible we would find it resplendent with God's greatness, and only punctuated by his punishments. His good far outweighs the bad. Since we have been arguing from the standpoint that the Bible and all Scriptures contained within are true, then we must remember that God created the world and life that allows us to be having this debate at all. Perhaps the greatest gift and goodness is that of life. I will offer two examples of his goodness that will seem modest, but are perhaps the most astute and powerful. how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Acts 10:38 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. Genesis 1:4 It is not enough to pick apart the transgressions of the being that is responsible for creating the ones with which he transgressed against. He told the first people the Law and punished it as it was broken. That is harsh, but not unjustly or evil. I imagine that every convict on death row will bawl about the transgressions of the corrections department, whether real or imagined. I eagerly await your conclusion.
is a Christian God great.

Since this round is for rebuttals I will offer a rebuttal to my opponents main points. This will be a short round due to he only offered one argument. His main argument is. (1)the Old Testament is a bygone time that no longer reigns over humanity I was not questioning whether or not the old testament was in the past. That is perfectly obvious. My opponent states that "Jesus' teachings are the ones that are obeyed now". I will not also argue that there is good done in the name of Christ, this is obvious as well. My adversary however has completely derailed or avoided the points I made. Be reminded that I have previously stated "Since we then are also debating how what we perceive is good, any argument that my opponent may offer saying that God has a different view of what is good or moral is invalid as well I will offer this point one more time and word it differently. (a) If a Christian God is great, why would he commit all of the immoral acts that he did in the old testament(some of which I have previously listed)
The most important question about God is not whether he exists but whether he cares

Extend all arguments. Vote CON. I seem to have one detractor in the comments section who feels that I have "confused" the terms of the debate. However, my opponent did not bring this out, even if it were true, and forfeited his remaining rounds (although he was nice enough to grace us with a question aimed at me in the comments section while he was busy forfeiting.) Vote CON "have a nice day and come again!" Britt
The most important question about God is not whether he exists but whether he cares

Let's have a good one and good luck. I negate: "The most important question about God is not whether he exists but whether he cares" Once again, existence precedes all. By changing the question, as my opponent would have you do, existence is already assumed. If there is no god but you spend a lot of time wondering whether it cares or not, you are wasting a lot of time. It is only IF god does exist that any other characteristic or quality comes into play; that's a big "IF," and it follows logically that the question of existence should be answered first. I'm not worried about whether or not my long lost cousin Sally cares about me, because I'm not sure that she even exists. I'm not worried about Man-Bear/Pig attacking me in my sleep, because I know that it doesn't exist. I say again: existence precedes all. Back to you Britt
The most important question about God is not whether he exists but whether he cares

I have found so often when the existence of God is challenged the most frequent objection to his existence is that there is suffering in the world, or a close relative died suddenly and therefore God cannot exist because if He did he wouldn't allow this suffering to continue. What does is matter to an atheist if God exists but has no interaction here on earth? Or if God exists and has no capability to intervene on mankinds behalf? It is the same as whether or not Pluto exists. It may matter to some people but at the end of the day, whether or not Pluto exists has no effect whatsoever on my life. Let the debate begin!
Band Directors should not tell whole bands they played horrible at a preformance.

I agree to take on this debate.Band directors should be able to criticize their performers if they are not playing at an acceptable level. Misleading the musicians by telling them they performed well when they did not will only reinforce their mediocre performances, and they will not have any reason to try to improve or fix their mistakes, because they believe they have made none.A band director's job is to provide guidance to the musicians, and the only way this can be accomplished is through honestly about what the skills of the musicians are. To willfully act as though a poor performance was anything but that is an intentional lie, and undermines the ability of the band as a whole to succeed.
Band Directors should not tell whole bands they played horrible at a preformance.

Indeed, it is the job of the judge to judge a band. But it is the job of the director to provide instruction and direction to improve a band's performance outside the judging stage. The only way they can do so is to be honest with their musicians about what their weaknesses are and how to improve them, which involves directly or indirectly passing judgement on their current level.Research shows that "constructive criticism" can be a useful tool for offering effective guidance, and can provide more satisfaction to those being directed, as they feel their director is making a legitimate effort to offer help[1]. Also, a majority of scholars in the field of social work support the use of criticism when used appropriately, as the best way to supervise is to point out "both competencies and deficiencies"[2].My opponent states that good musicians will strive to improve on their own. While this may be true in some cases, it is a broad generalization. Some people need proper direction or coaching to advance to the best of their abilities. To deny this is to essentially claim that a band director is not truly needed for a band. Furthermore, self motivated musicians described by my opponent would likely not be playing badly and therefore not be criticized if personal initiative is enough on its own, so there would be no conflict. Also, my opponent claims that students should be able to tell if they played badly, however, I disagree with this. When playing in a large group, it is difficult to accurately hear what the performance as a whole sounds like, as you are dominated by the section you are in. People in the brass section will likely hear the brass instruments louder than others and therefore not be able to tell what the woodwinds or percussion sounds like, at least not the same as an audience would. Because of this, what sounds good to an individual performer does not necessarily translate to good playing by the band, since its possible their performance is not meshing well with the other sections. This is where a director, who is separated and can hear all sections equally, has a better perspective and can offer insight as to how the band as a whole is doing. The director should not be restricted because he can offer valuable suggestions if allowed the chance.1. http://muse.jhu.edu... 2. http://www.tandfonline.com...
Should bayonetta be in Smash Bros Switch

Thank you for posting. I'll do my best to answer any concerns.Rebuttal:"One of my points that I am trying to explain is that there are so many things wrong with bayonetta in Smash 4 that she should not be allowed in Smash Bros Switch. There are a whole lot of people, (myself included) that just stopped playing Smash 4 solely because of bayinetta (and corrin, but corrin isn't terribly bad, she is just annoying, like little mac)."I'd like it if you posted something talking about this. How many players quit Smash because of the witch?"Also, if they do decide to put bayonetta in Smash Bros Switch, they will have to nerf her within an inch of her life, or give her an entirely new moveset, which will disappoint those annoying people that mained as bayonetta in Smash 4, possibly causing them to not get Smash Switch."Are we more concerned about Bayonetta mains, or ending the whole Bayonetta controversy? Either way, people will be upset. Keep Bayo, remove Bayo, keep her moveset, change her moveset... Considering she's the most infamous character for her combo game, we might save enough trouble by changing her moves."And I'm sorry, I didn't explain what i meant by defense. When bayonetta is hit, she would get however much percentage, which would make her launch rate larger, but because of her defense, she gets a little less percentage, but it isn't even that much because bayonetta has a pretty standard defense."I don't think that's a thing (without equipment, that is) in Smash. I'm pretty sure all characters receive the same amount of damage from any attack. If you can, link a video or site that shows this difference."I would like to point out that you put a list of bayonetta's moves, and how they could fix them, or remove them completely and replace them with different moves. No other person is Smash Bros history has had so many moves that needed to be changed or removed."Well, Pit's moveset is different in Smash 4 from his moves in Brawl (his Side B is now Upperdash Arm as opposed to spinning his bow, and his Up B launches him in a direction as opposed to entering a flight mode). Charizard also had his moves changed a bit. I don't see why Bayonetta needs to be an exception.So there's not much reason not to keep Bayonetta. The fans wanted her, so we should at least try making her more fun to have in a match and a little less irritating.
Should bayonetta be in Smash Bros Switch

One of my points that I am trying to explain is that there are so many things wrong with bayonetta in Smash 4 that she should not be allowed in Smash Bros Switch. There are a whole lot of people, (myself included) that just stopped playing Smash 4 solely because of bayinetta (and corrin, but corrin isn't terribly bad, she is just annoying, like little mac). Nintendo must realise that if bayonetta is put in Smash Bros Switch, that there will be a large group of people that will not even bother getting the game. I will not be in that group, because Smash Bros is my life. I will just be thoroughly disappointed. Also, if they do decide to put bayonetta in Smash Bros Switch, they will have to nerf her within an inch of her life, or give her an entirely new moveset, which will disappoint those annoying people that mained as bayonetta in Smash 4, possibly causing them to not get Smash Switch. And I'm sorry, I didn't explain what i meant by defense. When bayonetta is hit, she would get however much percentage, which would make her launch rate larger, but because of her defense, she gets a little less percentage, but it isn't even that much because bayonetta has a pretty standard defense. I would like to point out that you put a list of bayonetta's moves, and how they could fix them, or remove them completely and replace them with different moves. No other person is Smash Bros history has had so many moves that needed to be changed or removed. In my opinion, Nintendo should be embarrassed from bayonetta and refrain from putting her in Smash Bros Switch.
Should bayonetta be in Smash Bros Switch

I'm staying for all rounds, I am really just doing this because I need a few more debates to be able to vote. I will start by mentioning that Smash Bros has always been a very family friendly game. The Bayonetta series, after watching gameplay, is a very violent, gory, twisted game. Next you said "combos usually are 2 to 4 attacks long," and this is true, and for almost all combos, there is a way out of them while you are caught in one. Not for Bayonetta. Bayonetta has her famous side special combo (and if anyone doesn't know what i'm talking about, just go to youtube and look up "smash bros 4 bayonetta side special combo") In which there is no way out of it. Granted, it takes some practice to get the combo under your fingers, but once you get it, there is nothing that can be done. Next, bayonetta has the stupidest way of spiking people ever. Her down smash. Most people have to actually jump of the stage and attempt to hit their opponent, but with bayonetta, all you have to do is sit there and wait. Next I will talk about her base stats. For all of the non-DLC playable characters in smash bros 4, every person has around the same amount. I just realized I have no idea how to explain this. For example: Mario is considered one of the most standard characters, which means his speed, jump, attack, defense, and special are relatively the same. Ganondorf has a HUGE attack boost, but at the cost of speed, and size. So he is easier to hit. For all the DLC characters, each one has quite a bit more of one aspect than they should. Mewtwo should not have as much speed as he does, considering how big he is, how great his attack power is, and how high his jump is. Bayonetta has A ENORMOUS amount of EVERYTHING. Except defense, however she has about the same defense as link (which is standard defense). In conclusion, Bayonetta has made such a bad turnout in smash 4 that she should not be allowed to progress to smash bros switch.
Should bayonetta be in Smash Bros Switch

I believe the witch deserves a second chance in Smash Switch. Probably the main reason why she's controversial is her combos and her Witch Time. I'm pretty sure we can still have Bayonetta in Smash Bros, keep her close enough to her own game's mechanics, and get her off this hook. I'll give a quick explanation of Smash Bros and Bayonetta's game, titled Bayonetta.So what is Smash Bros? It's a fighting game series where various characters (though usually Nintendo, the head of the series) attack with simple attacks such as specials, jabs, smash attacks, and grabs. There's even a Final Smash each character has, giving them a powerful attack once they beat up the floating Smash Ball enough. Combos usually are 2 to 4 attacks long, and aren't that big of a mechanic. Of course, there are combos that players found that can be higher.Now, what is Bayonetta (game)? Its main gimmick is to do combos to increase your score, and you can unlock various moves and weapons to accomplish this. Bayonetta also fights giant creatures, finishing them off with an Infernal Climax, summoning a large demon to obliterate the angel. You can also dodge attacks to activate Witch Time, slowing everything down considerably for a short period, and use Beast Within, changing you into animals such as Panther Within to run fast, or Bat Within if you missed the dodge timing.You can clearly see the difference, but it shouldn't stop this lady. But stay for the next round, all I did was talk about games so far.
Should school officals be armed

(Umm, you mean should not, right?) As a clarification, this is American teachers: I'd like to ask you a question. What are we doing to protect our schools? Lockdown drills aren't enough. An Arkansas principle says""The plan we've been given in the past is `Well, lock your doors, turn off your lights and hope for the best,'" (http://m.nydailynews.com...)." He's right. There is nothing people inside of the school can do. They pray. They hope that when help comes, they walk out of the school alive. To be frank, there is no way school shootings in America will stop. Outlawing guns is not the fast fix you make it out to be. Americans have the right to bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment. Outlawing guns won't stop criminals from getting ahold of them." Too many have died for Americans to be apathetic any longer. According to ABCnews.com, from 1992-2007, 323 students have died in school shootings. Before you say that number is outdated, think it through. The kids aren't coming back to life. This number only gets bigger. How many will have to die before you agree something more has to be done? 1,000? 2,000?" Police take time to respond to calls, and more time to access the situation and enter the school. In Sandy Hook, that time was 9 minutes. 26 people died already. What if Victoria Soto, a Sandy hook teacher had been armed? A child's life is more valuable then money. Which would you rather have? A dead sibling and an extra grande? Or a sibling that's still alive? How many will have to die before you agree something has to be done? 1,000? 1500? If you ask me, 323 and counting is enough.