BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debates are an unreliable source of truth.

'The statement above is clearly false because by saying: My opponent is arguing. .. He has proven my point: In debates, what occurs is that one contender states his/her argument while the other states his/hers witch contradicts the statement of the first debater. The first debater then does the same in an attempt to makes a stand for his/her argument. What the debaters are doing is making each of their stand look good and finding faults in what the opposition is fighting for, not looking for the truth. The opposition says that what I am arguing in this debate is an unreliable source of truth. He says: "My opponent is arguing that debates are an unreliable source of truth. Since this is a debate, my opponent is arguing that this debate is an unreliable source of truth, thus my opponent is arguing that what he is arguing in this debate is an unreliable source of truth. " By saying that, he is agreeing to my point that debates are an unreliable source of truth. My opponent went at it the wrong way when he made his argument in the second round. What I am trying to say is that my point in the first round is that debates are an unreliable way to search for truth because the debaters are not really trying to look for the truth when debating, but are only trying to make their side look good. My opponent is saying that me saying that debates are an unreliable source of truth is equivalent to me saying that what the debaters are saying is wrong. What my opponent thinks what i am saying is not what I am saying.
Debates are an unreliable source of truth.

My opponent is arguing that debates are an unreliable source of truth. Since this is a debate, my opponent is arguing that this debate is an unreliable source of truth, thus my opponent is arguing that what he is arguing in this debate is an unreliable source of truth. Since my opponent is arguing that his arguments are an unreliable source of truth, my opponent's arguments can't be considered a reliable source of truth, thus can't fulfill his burden of proof.
Debates are an unreliable source of truth.

In debates, what occurs is that one contender states his/her argument while the other states his/hers witch contradicts the statement of the first debater. The first debater then does the same in an attempt to makes a stand for his/her argument. What the debaters are doing is making each of their stand look good and finding faults in what the opposition is fighting for, not looking for the truth. That is the purpose of debates, that is why people debate, to destroy the opposition and make their side look correct.Proof of this shall be presented, but not by me, but by the opposition, which is the con.
Debates are an unreliable source of truth.

Just because both sides of a debate only care about winning, doesn't mean that the result is inaccurate. And just because I contradict my opponent, doesn't mean this debate is unreliable. If one side makes a mistake, the other correcting makes the debate a more reliable because misinformation gets corrected. Many sources of information are biased to one side of an issue, but when there are 2 people debate an issue, both sides get represented, thus making debates more reliable.
hell is rules and limitations of god etc

You know what I think? I think it wouldn't matter if some major politician debated you on politics, or a doctor debated you on vaccines or a vet debated you on how to heal a dogs leg you would still think your right. You just have a lot of pride man I think that's the problem. Also you never explained your view point to me. It makes sense but you never proved it or provided anything that would help me argue against it even better, like other authors who share this view point or articles over it. Lastly you didn't even read the argument. You state in the comments "it was too long for me" I wasn't aware I was debating a 6th grader my bad there I guess. Also viewers he can't prove I didn't answer his question (I did) since he didn't even read what I stated. If you don't present your view point then of course some of my arguments might not directly hit it but I easily answered it. I even showed how the same rules in the bible are applicable and utilized in society. I disproved that just because you don't believe in the biblical rules or follow them doesn't mean they don't apply to you. I also proved hell is real and applies to anyone your job was to respond to that with clash but you didn't. Next even if for whatever reason people don't believe my view point after the round I still get the win. You chose the 7 point voting system which was a bad idea if you didn't plan on using arguments and biblical sources or if you simply wanted to win off me not proving a point. I could win just off the biblical sources I provided or better arguments. On 7 point system which side people believe in doesn't matter(which is why I don't use it for debates I make) the only thing that matters is like argumentation, sources, conduct. So because I am the only one with sources and arguments and because I proved his point wrong I win the round.
hell is rules and limitations of god etc

I will be arguing something different in the next round. I will kind of introduce hell and how the devil came to be. THen I will show the purpose of hell. Next I wil show that hell doesn't limit god and and the fact that he pretty much defeated the devil 2 times straight up in the bible and in revelations he will do it again two times more. One after the world ends and another time after the humans destined for heaven are transformed to reside on earth for 1,000 years (as it states in the bible) and after the 1,000 years he beats the devil again this time for good before the people accepted by god reside in heaven with him forever. Lastly I will show what god made each location for earth, heaven, hell and show that he really has power over hell and elaborate on his belief for choices. I a glad to accept this debate and await my opponents case. Then of course I will state mine while responding
God Failed in his Duty as a Protector

I thank my opponent for this excellent debate "o Jesus came back in human form o Jesus eating o Reliability of witnesses o Disciples being shocked; Jesus asking why they are surprised" > all these facts from the bible show reasons that might infer that Jesus was not crucified, but under no circumstances do they state that Jesus was never crucified. Referring back to the arguments of my opponent in round 1 "In the Bible, there is not one single verse that speaks of a ad person being resurrected in any other shape than as a ghost, or a spirit. When Jesus was allegedly crucified, he was most definitely a ghost. However, what happened once he returned to his people?" > My opponent may have proved that Jesus was resurrected in a form other than that of a spirit but this goes a long way from proving that Jesus was never crucified. It is quite well established that Jesus was no ordinary human being and he often did not follow the conventions of ordinary humans. While it is possible to say that Jesus was crucified without denying any quotes from the Bible, it is impossible to do so if you are claiming that Jesus was not crucified. Anyone who claims Jesus was never crucified must deny almost a whole page of the bible. To argue that Jesus was crucified, one need not deny anything in the Bible, one only needs to see a few quotes from a different perspective. Because this is my last round i must make an attempt to refute any arguments my opponent may bring up next round. God is omnipotent. Luke 1:37 "For with God nothing shall be impossible." If God was a good protector, he never would have made a promise to kill his protï¿½gï¿½ in order for God to forgive the rest of mankind. God could simply have forgiven mankind without having to resort to allowing his own protï¿½gï¿½ to die a tortured death. It was God that made the sacrifice of Jesus necessary. It was God who chose not to forgive us and it was God who decreed that Jesus must be killed. Jesus never had to suffer at all for anything because God had the power to stop Jesus's suffering. ==conclusion== God failed in his duty to protect Jesus Christ as he allowed Jesus to be crucified despite having the power to intervene. In fact God could have stopped any suffering that Jesus had to endure.Jesus was indeed crucified and this is proved by the Bible quote i posted in my round 2 argument Good luck to my opponent
God Failed in his Duty as a Protector

However, my opponent did not address my responses and I do not want to spend time with rebuttals if he is not willing to refute my arguments again. o Jesus came back in human form o Jesus eating o Reliability of witnesses o Disciples being shocked; Jesus asking why they are surprised I will refute the arguments of my opponent once he addressees my own, otherwise it will be a debate where I bring evidence and he does nothing to refute it.
God Failed in his Duty as a Protector

My opponent states that according to the Bible, Jesus was never crucified. He backs this up by providing a few quotes from the Bible that can be inferred to mean that Jesus could not have been crucified yet have been resurrected in human form. Now I will show you Bible references that directly state the crucifixion of Jesus as a fact. Here is the Bible passage depicting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Matthew 27:35-39 "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. And sitting down they watched him there; And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. It is clear from this passage that Jesus was crucified if one is to believe the Bible which is one of the terms of this debate. My opponent's Bible quotes were all indirect while my reference explicitly states that Jesus was crucified. "As I have made clear, Jesus came back in human form, making it clear that he never got crucified, and I will elaborate on other points in the next rounds. " >In the first round I stated that this debate will be held on the assumption that the Bible is accurate. Seeing that I provided a Bible reference stating that Jesus was crucified; in this debate it is a fact that Jesus was indeed crucified. So all points raised by my opponent about Jesus not being crucified are null and void. Therefore my arguments about God allowing Jesus to be crucified despite having the power to intervene remain true.
God Failed in his Duty as a Protector

Thank you very much. My opponent argues that God forsook Jesus (peace be upon him) by letting him die on the cross without saving him. However, did God's promise about protecting Jesus come true, or did it not, as my opponent implied? I will, by the will of God, ultimately prove that God fulfilled His promise and never let Jesus die on the cross. As a matter of fact, I will use the Bible itself to prove this. I will prove that the lies about God not protecting Jesus, even though He promised to, are indeed horrible, deceitful lies that have no good basis in the Bible. -- Arguments -- God promising to save Jesus: [Psalm 91:3] "Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence." There are many similar passages. God ultimately promised to save Jesus from the wrath of his enemies, and I will prove that the promise came true. o Jesus came back in human form In the Bible, there is not one single verse that speaks of a ad person being resurrected in any other shape than as a ghost, or a spirit. When Jesus was allegedly crucified, he was most definitely a ghost. However, what happened once he returned to his people? [Luke 24:36-30] "And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (37)But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. (38)And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? (39)Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (40)And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet." What do we see here? Jesus talked to his disciples and asked what they were troubled with. He made it clear that if he were, in fact, crucified, he would be spirit - but he was not spirit! He told his disciples to touch him, to see his hands and feet. A spirit does not have hands and feet, so how could Jesus have tasted death? What happened was that people got deceived and believed that Jesus was crucified, but he was not. he never got crucified. He himself made it clear that he is not a spirit, but flesh and bones. Moreover, may I ask if a dead man eats? Would Jesus ever eat as a spirit? No. Let us see what the next passages say. [Luke 24:41-43] "And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? (42)And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (43)And he took it, and did eat before them. Jesus asked for meat, and he ate it. He would never have done that if he got crucified. Now, we must also ask whether or not the alleged witnesses were, in fact, witnessing the crucifixion of Jesus. As I have made clear, Jesus came back in human form, making it clear that he never got crucified, and I will elaborate on other points in the next rounds.
God Failed in his Duty as a Protector

. This debate will be held on the assumption that the Bible is accurate. This is solely about God's duty to protect Jesus and not about his duty to protect mankind. This debate will be about Jess's life on earth and not about what happened to Jesus after his resurrection. PRO ARGUMENTS 1)God allowed his sinless protï¿½gï¿½ to die a tortured death for a crime he did not commit. Jesus was crucified and God did not do a single thing to intervene despite having the power to do so. This would be negligence by human standards.
Any issue regarding Ron Paul

Ron Paul is unelectable. 1) Personality Ron Paul's public persona is alienating. He appeals to people who take a hard look at issues, but, lets face it, most voters are turned off by his somewhat radical claims. 2) Platform The republican party will NEVER nominate Ron Paul. Even if this is for his foreign policy standpoint, which I realize is classic republican, is not the current popular stance of the party. It doesn't matter how many votes he receives in the primaries, the republicans will NEVER nominate him. 3) Media The media undeservingly treats him as a joke. They never mention him except to talk about how ridiculous they think he is. In the debates he receives terribly biased questions that are totally unrelated to the issues and the topic at hand. In this day and age, where media exposure is so critical, Ron Paul has been branded as a lune by liberal and conservatives alike. The combination of at least these three things makes Ron Paul winning this election impossible. I admire his stamina and perserverance, but it will NEVER happen. At least not this year.
Schools Should Give Detentions to Students for Speaking Their Mind

My opponent has misunderstood the meaning of the 14th amendment. The constitution does not apply entirely to minors, as I proved in my last argument and was ignored. He seems to think that only laws and parents can control children. I don't know where he got this, but it is false. What does he think a detention is? Teachers govern children 6 hours a day and are a major influence upon children. He said detentions just say "do this or you get expelled," but this too is false. Detentions say "don't do this." Conclusions: 1- I have proven detentions are just, lawful and fit the crime. 2- I have proven that students speKing their mind is often a bad thing. With these two things, Ihave proven the resolution true. 3- I have proven that teachers need to give punishments for students crimes.
Schools Should Give Detentions to Students for Speaking Their Mind

My opponent seem to have completely misunderstood my argument. What I said was the 14th amendment protects minor's rights to speech. Law and parents, however, can do things about minor's actions. It is the parent's job to make sure that the child does not say anything rude or offensive, and as I said the importance of a matter does not matter to the supreme court once the case has been accepted. Only the case and the constitution. Teachers are by law forbidden to take away these freedoms, however can speak to the minor or the parent. Just as clarification, I never said minors can do anything they want. Here come my final arguments. Every minor has a parent, foster home, foster parent, or any other type of guardian (or at least most do and the law says they need to). These parents/guardians are the ones responsible for the child's behavior. Detentions are simply saying "Do this or you get expelled," but sometimes students can't be expelled without parent permission. Suppose a minor wants to wear a T-shirt to spread awareness of the most minor thing and it goes to the supreme court or any court, the student will win (unless it is violent, threatening, gang-related, or any other obvious things). They are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and protected for a reason. In conclusion, most often, parents should have the responsibility of discipline on a disruptive minor. Good Luck! bat9581
Schools Should Give Detentions to Students for Speaking Their Mind

I was confused by my opponent's quote from what he said was Amendment 14 Section 1. I am sure he is not telling me minors have the same rights as everyone else. There are truancy laws requiring students to be in school, they cannot live alone, etc. Any sensible person reading this knows that students do not have the same rights as adults. Is he proposing for this to change? Should a seven year old, in his opinion, be president? Should a child be able to sue his parent for taking away his video game? Of course not! Children's minds are still developing up to the age of 25 [1] and it is part of the teacher's job to ensure that they develop correctly. If you are raised thinking that you can talk whenever you feel like it, you'll be a jerk when you grow up, never get a job because you're too rude to the employer, and end up living on the street. That may be an exaggeration, but you see what I'm getting at. By the way, on the topic of being rude, I would like to provide an actual definition for speaking your mind. To speak one's mind is to to say what you think about something very directly. [2] It doesn't mean to "say what you believe and is necessary to society," as my opponent so boldly claimed. Therefore, it falls under speaking one's mind to be rude. To say, "well that's stupid, just like you," to the teacher is both extremely rude and speaking your mind. He said there have been smaller cases that have been brought to court than Tinker vs. Des Moines, but sometimes it would be ridiculous to do this, such as in the hypothetical situation I have just proposed. All he has been talking about is the big things like cancer and war. This, however, is not always reality. Sources: 1- BBC News 2- Cambridge Dictionary
Schools Should Give Detentions to Students for Speaking Their Mind

To begin, I will deflect my opponents first argument. "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That quote is from Amendment 14 Section 1, and though schools are not Congress, they are part of the state. Prove me wrong, but the First Amendment is protection of the laws, and because teachers are not the highest position over the students, there isn't much anything teachers can do about it. Second, "In the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines, there was a relativity to the Vietnam War, a much bigger issue." I wish to claim that the previous statement by my opponents is hinting a false idea. 1. How big the issue is: irrelevant in the Supreme Court's decision. 2. Many less important cases have followed and sites that case. In protest of breast cancer, some girls got away with wearing bracelet that held an immature message: "I love boobies." Finally, "speaking your/their mind" is a common phrase. It means saying what you believe and is necessary to society. I don't think rude comments often fall into "saying what you believe" and never "is necessary to society." I will give you the opportunity to do the next opening argument. I look forward to the results, and good luck! Sources: US Constitution
Schools Should Give Detentions to Students for Speaking Their Mind

My opponent's main (and only) point is about the Bill of Rights. What he has forgotten, however, is that the First Amendment restricts CONGRESS. To quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. .. " [1] Unless I am greatly mistaken, Congress is not the same as schools. Secondly, the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not apply as much to minors. "all men are created equal. .. " [2]. In the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines, there was relativity to the Vietnam War, a bigger issue. Many cases of students speaking out in school are not bigger issues and can just be the student being rude. Also, they were wearing bracelets, which does not include SPEAKING one's mind. The BoP is on the con here, therefore my refutations are my arguments. However, I will add onto my case one point: schools should have the ability to give detentions. If schools have no way of punishment, what will they do when students are rude for them and deserve some sort of punishment. It's not really inhumane either. "Oh no, I have to sit and drum my fingers for a while! Whatever shall I do? " While it's still a form of punishment, it's still perfectly humane and often fits the crime. Sources: 1-US Constitution 2-US Declaration of Independence
Schools Should Give Detentions to Students for Speaking Their Mind

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the First Amendment wasn't thrown in there for nothing. People, including students, need to be able to express their opinions because though they are being controlled by adults, need to show how they feel for others to understand who they are. In the case Tinker v. Des Moines, the First Amendment was declared an emphasis of EVERYONE should be able to express themselves and show the world who they are, wether its words, a banner, a bracelet, a shirt, students' liberties are there, and should not be taken away.
Banks should be nationalized in the United States

He states i show know legitimate evidence but this idiot hasn't shown any either. in his argument against my first point he just restates his first speech. This kid also states that "the war and stimulis" is complete nonsense... it was an opinion. is that a sin?? his arguments to my second point shows how little he understands on this topic. He's not confused and hes not dazed he just doesn't know how to argue worth crap. He might say there's no greed incentive when government controls but whos to say this will actually happen. he tries to say i don't have any legimitate evidence but if you look to his greed argument he does not literally show how taking away the greed incentive will SOLVE So with that i thank you for your time and i hate debating idiots.