BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
According to the Bible people who work on the Sabbath should be put to Death!! Lord have Mercy!

>>1) We cannot assume that this rule only applies to Jews. I'm not assuming. Go ahead and ask a Jew. If you think the Jews believe that the commandments of "God who delivered your people from Israel" apply to those who are not the children of Israel then I don't see how your view meshes even remotely with reality. You shall not kill. However passage after passage of the Bible retells in grueling detail the murder and genocide of other peoples. You shall not steal or covet but passage after passage has them raiding towns and taking sex slaves etc. I'm utterly dumbfounded that you could imply this is an assumption on my part. Though, I suppose you need not take my word for it: http://www.jewfaq.org... "While non-Jews are only obligated to obey the seven commandments given to Noah, Jews are responsible for fulfilling the 613 mitzvot in the Torah, thus G-d will punish Jews for doing things that would not be a sin for non-Jews." The Sabbath section is in the ten commandments and part of the 613 mitzvot. >>2) Even if this rule does only apply to Jews My resolution still holds true. This is because i never stated that all people who work on the sabbath should be put to death. Here I must disagree. People is far different than Jews who accept that those rules are to be enforced. Moreover, no Jew today would advocate such a thing. Life is given a much higher regard than any other consideration and you'll never witness even the most orthodox of Jews killing other Jews for working on the Sabbath. Though, that's a practical consideration and of little regard to specifics of the topic. I think the question boils down to our main point of contention. Does the topic refer to all people or not? I'm pretty sure it does. I'm a person and under a proper consideration I would not be killed for working any day I want.
According to the Bible people who work on the Sabbath should be put to Death!! Lord have Mercy!

"Last Saturday I did a significant amount of work. I am a person. However, under the proper Jewish interpretation I am not to be put to death." If you could please provide some evidence for this that would be great. because only then can we assume it to be true. I HAVE TWO POINTS 1) We cannot assume that this rule only applies to Jews. 2) Even if this rule does only apply to Jews My resolution still holds true. This is because i never stated that all people who work on the sabbath should be put to death. Point 1) Numbers 15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. The children of isreal, of course, are the jews. It says that they, the jews, found a man. It doesn't say that they found another child of isreal. It says they found a man not specifically a man of any designation. They found a random man who was working on the sabbath and put him to death. How does this only apply to jews? Point 2) Let me restate my resolution: According to the Bible people who work on the Sabbath should be put to Death. This does not say that all people who work on the sabbath should be to death, just that people should. "people" doesnt necessarily refer to all people. It can refer to certain people. Jews are people. Just think about, lets suppose it is true that only jews will dance does make the statement 'people will dance' False?? I think not. I believe its horrifying that the bible says that anyone should be put to death for picking up sticks on any day. No matter if they are Jews or not. Back to you Tatarize
JyotiPatel Should consider marrying Sashil.

You impressed me a lot.... Let"s spend the rest of our lives together.I want to grow old with you.I wish I could give you everything you want.Iam sure that you make me happy in life. All I wanted was sum1 2 care 4 me,who would b there 4 me,who would b true,All I ever wanted was sum1 like You darling. My Eyes r eager 2 c u, my ears r eager 2 listen u, my lips r eager 2 kiss u, and my dreams in night are eager 2 welcome you.
JyotiPatel Should consider marrying Sashil.

The title says it all and this IS a serious debate. ;)Since I am affirming this resolution I will be bearing the entirety of the Burden of proof and my adversary only has to negate/neutralize my assertions.Round 1 will be for acceptance only!!Arguments in this debate will be made assuming the most likely conditions and scenerios that would be seen in the year 2019 that is 5 years from now(the time when the marriage will take place :P). Okay cupcake I'm going to win you over this time :p
"Traditons prevent progress"

Since my opponent has forfeited that round, I'll clarify my arguments. The fact that we view the present to be better is just the cultural view of today. We can't seek out and destroy culture just because we're blinded by that bias. Our culture makes us who we are, and I argue that Identity is a huge crisis in American teen culture. Many American teens who are the ahrdest hit come from immigrant families. Their parents swea and bleed in order to survive in a strange land and they finally bring up a family. However, their kids, who have been immersed in "american culture" (media worship) since they were kids, have absolutely no sense of identity beyond their peers. This is why so many American teens are distraught and why we date at earlier and earlier ages: we want the feeling of being accepted. The problem is that who we are is defined by our cultural heritage. If we want a sense of identity, we should look to our culture, not at the world around us, not at the teen dramas and slutty music videos. To strip the population of cultural ties is to steal away the only chance a person has of retaining individuality. Otherwise, we're all just the same cookie shape, cut out by the media.
"Traditons prevent progress"

Change does not necessarily mean positive change. You assume that just because times are changing, that we are becoming better. This is simply not the case. Many philosophical and social ideals are identical to those of 2000 years ago. The fact that we view "modernization" to be a positive thing is still a cultural belief. Many believe that getting back to nature is much better, and they have excellent arguments for it. I am personally against any movement that would threaten the preservation of culture. Like it or not, our cultural heritage is a big part of our identities. Embracing our culture is a way of reclaiming ourselves. I believe that if my peers (teens) focused more on their cultural heritage, we wouldn't have so much of this rebellious teenager garbage.
Famlia is a bad thing

But you could possibly start a family within an open marriage. You could even marry your cousin in an open marriage if that's allowed in your jurisdiction or just not get married but live as a family anyways. Without a family how will you pass on your DNA and continue the glory of evolution? Family also provides many opportunities to get to know a person very very well. It implies a deeper sort of connection. You get to know each other's flaws, quirks, everything but not literally everything as there can be privacy in families. And that doesn't just have sentimental value as this deep connection may help you to better understand and analyze human beings and their relationships and apply that to the work world or what ever you are trying to do with people in your life.
Magnus Bane would win against Dumbledore

In fact, Dumbledore is 115 years old ( he is very good for his age ). You seem to think Mangus will strike first, when really it is a even, even chance. A click of a finger and a wave of a wand takes the same time, so it really comes to the wit of the opponent which would clearly be Dumbledore as he is about 100 years old and denying the fact that Mangus isn't 300 years old means Dumbledore had more skill and experience compared to this young demon ( it's a demon right? ). With the slight chance of Mangus striking first wizards are applied with defence magic in order to defend themselves. You continued to mention of the stuff you did before like the instant choking and Dumbledore dropping his wand ect. But we cannot base this battle off your ideas, we have to take in the facts of Dumbledores magic skills.
Magnus Bane would win against Dumbledore

Magnus can be killed yes, but in just a battle between Dumbledore and Magnus WITHOUT the people he cares for involved he would be in full control, completely able to kill Dumbledore at the snap of his fingers. He is a master and his real age is unknown though he has said it was 400, 600, and 800 at numerous times. He is a true master at his magic. Dumbledore is at most 70 years old. Dumbledore is important but Magnus could kill him in under a minute.
Magnus Bane would win against Dumbledore

I accept, I would like to start of with, a simple google search told me that Mangus Bane is Immortal doesn't that mean he cannot be killed? But if I made a mistake I will show you my side. Mangus Bane seems to not be able to control his OWN feelings about people he loves, a first sign of a great killing machine. The girl he likes past away as it said and he still hasn't come over it and he is 300 years old. He is a master with magic and would be able to strike this 300 year old Ban before he could snap his fingers as you mentioned, Dumbledores magic had been recognised all the way through the Harry Potter series, he became a leader in many roles, Hogwarts, Ministry of Magic, council of magical law, confederation of wizards ect. Where as Bane, from my research he is a nothing in his little world.
Magnus Bane would win against Dumbledore

Magnus Bane can snap his fingers and turn you into a rat, summon demons, and can use the force, as demonstrated against the vampire in book one. And he looks fabulous doing all of this. Dumbledore, can't do spells without a wand. He would be useless if Magnus snapped his fingers and broke Dumbledore's wand. Then Magnus could proceed to strangle him with a twitch of the finger. Magnus would win against Dumbledore.
r media activities a threa to judicial activities

Let me draw a simple definition which should prove your ideas false. True media activities in the journalistic sense are not for profit, instead for the reporting of the middle ground of facts, as media comes from the latin word "medius" meaning from the middle. You talk to the media just filming something instead of helping someone and may be able to give one example of this, but it doesn't relate to judicial activities. Furthermore, what you speak of isn't the actions of the media as a whole, it's rare instances from rogue "journalists" and "reporters."
r media activities a threa to judicial activities

fine!i totally agree on ur point dat reality shows r a medium of entertainment.bt mr/ms speaker dont u think reality shows is nowhere near udiciary.my point is dat ok let me give u simple eg.if a person is under serious circumstances d media rather than rescuing dat person starts video shooting it and relay it on tv.media's influence is immense but is equally corruptive.media may it b d aarushi case or d tehelka case media has always given pretrial reports against d accused.a leading news channel once announced "aarushi ki cheekh"and god knows d content it gave had just no relevance to actuality.not only this even the father of our nation once quoted i believe in equality for everyone except d reporters and photographers well i leave my opponent to ponder upon d fact dat media has crossed all its ethical limits,violated journalistic norms and seriously affected d rights of d accused.
r media activities a threa to judicial activities

I thought of several ways to take this resolution, and I decided to frame it in the way an English speaking human would have spelled it had he clicked spell check on his microsoft computer. First I will refute my opponents claim. "media has totally been interfering so such an extent dat it literally smacks someones life into pieces.therefore,i think i m correct on this point.my opponent i think will b able to correct me." There are two answers to what you said. First, you "think" you're correct on your point which has no evidence, and I "think" you're incorrect. Your analysis has no merit, thus if I provide analysis with merit, no matter how logical or illogical, your point is incorrect since we both think we're right, however only one of us uses logic, evidence and reasoning to provide our own ideas and support them. Let's look at what your main thesis is in your long and sinuous argument. "the media has been interfering... dat it litterally smacks someones life into pieces" This doesn't have any real implications on judicial activities, all you've said it some media publicists have a history of running personal attacks on others. When we look into the judicial process, the media must be shown as a threat in its' activities. For this to be true, the media must have an overwhelming biased side in the judicial process; which does not exist. Investigative journalists don't have a history of continually backing one side or the other, sure talk shows and entertainment shows may have a bias for celebrities or for prosecutors (Nancy Grace) but this isn't your actual media, instead it's entertainment found on television or in magazines. ""And, to further prove my point, I think I'm right unless someone doesn't, in which case I may be right, unless he or she isn't, which would further make me right, assuming that the side he or she took was completely argued, in which case we could both be wrong if we didn't argue to the full extent possible, but I think I'm right so yeah."" See how much we can contrast the improvements of intellect through discussion if we think things through??
r media activities a threa to judicial activities

I think there are several problems with this debate in general, you aren't from the US (which isn't bad) but I am, so we're basing things off different grounds. Let's simply look whollistically at the media, across the globe, and equate that the media's bias, whenever prevelent is on both sides, as opinion and journalist bias has a reverse spectrum, but true "media" as we're talking about relates only to the middle honest reporting as according to the true definition, which you failed to outline, so if someone in the media does become a threat to judicial activities, they are not longer in the media because of doing such an act. The definition does not include anyone who would do such a thing.
The Gospel is crazy amazing!

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." -2 Corinthians 5:17 The Gospel is amazing, i was a self serving worshiper of every sin under the sun. I have broken all of the ten commandments except for one of them. I hated God and claimed He did not exist. But then Jesus stepped into my life and everything changed. So many people think as Christianity as a guide to lifeless joy, but the opposite is true! I am living for my maximum joy now and am not ashamed of the Gospel. There are more atheists on this debate sight and so i will probably loose vote wise. But my intent upon staring this debate is not to win in the eyes of man, but if by God's grace someone's eyes might be opened to see. Please only except if you are willing to listen and possibly accept what God has to offer. This debate will cover the validity of the Gospel and why people should except it AND if the Gospel is true there most be a drastic response! Rules: Round 1 acceptance only 2 arguments presented 3 no new arguments merely responses Absolutely no foul language allowed! thank-you and good luck!
The Gospel is crazy amazing!

Thank you for proposing such an interesting topic. I gladly accept. As this round is reserved for acceptance, I will keep my remarks brief and unpersuasive towards my argument. 1. In my opponent's next round, I ask that he clarify if he means the entire Bible is crazy amazing, or simply the 4 gospels. I will be happy to debate either, but would obviously have different contentions to make depending on the scale of the debate. 2. I ask that voters do the obvious and not consider their own personal beliefs when voting on this debate (as my opponent is concerned they will). Argumentation, logic, and compelling evidence must be our only influencing factors when deciding who had the more persuasive argumentation. 3. My opponent asks that I be open to accepting God, provided he presents a compelling case on His behalf. I accept, and I challenge my opponent to enter this debate with the same open-mindedness towards atheism. I look forward to an interesting debate. Let the conversion begin!
The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

Is Feminism a worthy cause? I believe so - having gender equality (to the greatest extent possible) seems to me both the morally correct ideal and the practically sensible way for a society to organise itself; it seems to me that this ideal is worthy both in the poorest and the richest nations. Now, to Bronze Age texts: it may well be that those Bronze Age texts we have were the very pinnacle of Bronze Age philosophy; I certainly do not suggest that we should ignore wisdom from bygone ages. On the other hand, lots of things were very different, socially and technologically all those years ago; one of the key differences, socially speaking, was the lot of women: women were seen as chattel and, to a degree, as mere incubators for their male owners. I merely suggest that we shouldn't allow moral questions today to be settled simply by recourse to blindly following the advice of people from over 3,000 years ago! Feminism, as a movement, is by no means above scrutiny; but then, neither should ancient writings be! Indeed, the vast majority of Christians do not take the bible to be literally true in all cases; I don't think that most Christians allow biblical writings to unduly influence their thinking today. However, it seems to me that some Christians (and Jews and Muslims) allow these ancient texts to inform their moral thinking directly and literally; this seems potentially dangerous to me! I would certainly have found it interesting had Con provided any solid case that showed why Bronze Age writings were relevant today and, specifically, in contradiction to the feminism movement; I would have been happy to fight any individual case provided along these lines - however, apart from a very loose case suggesting that abortion should be banned based on ancient writings (a case that my opponent did not, in my opinion, make a very strong argument for), Con has singularly failed to provide such debate.
The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. (a Feminist is one who supports this overall movement) Impede: delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder. Con may opt to use round 1 for acceptance, or may just get started. BOP is shared. Con will argue that Feminism should be impeded by Bronze Age texts, such as some parts of the Bible. I guess I'm hoping that nobody accepts, but I'm thinking that some bible literalist might take this challenge on!
The Chicago Blackhawks are the best professional ice hockey team right now of 2010.

"The video game NHL 2010 by Electronic Arts SPORTS, has indeed a Blackhawk on the cover. The cover is right-winger Patrick Kane. " This is irrelevant, as a video game cover does not decide who is the best. They decide who they think is best. "Well, even before the Stanley Cup Playoffs started this year, EA said they thought the Pittsburgh Penguins would win their second consecutive Stanley Cup, and how Chicago would "fall just short of the win" " Again, irrelevant. As my earlier round states, the championship team is not always the best team. " Five Chicago Blackhawks started at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver this January, and Patrick Kane had a hat trick (three, 3, goals in one game) in the game which sent USA to the final game against Canada. No Shark nor Capital had a hat trick. Only a Chicago Blackhawk. " This too is off topic. We are not talking about the Olympics, we are talking about the National Hockey League. The Blackhawks mayhave some excellent players, but so do other teams, and good players do not always make a good team. In this case they do make a good team, just not the best team.
The Chicago Blackhawks are the best professional ice hockey team right now of 2010.

Thank you for responding and stating your argument without any insults nor profanity. The video game NHL 2010 by Electronic Arts SPORTS, has indeed a Blackhawk on the cover. The cover is right-winger Patrick Kane. That's funny. Why didn't EA SPORTS use a San Jose Shark? Well, even before the Stanley Cup Playoffs started this year, EA said they thought the Pittsburgh Penguins would win their second consecutive Stanley Cup, and how Chicago would "fall just short of the win" and how "Patrick Kane shouldn't be on the cover, but he is still very talented". Patrick Kane is the youngest player in franchise history to ever be on the cover. At the age of 20 years, the lefty delivered a win to the WINdy city. Five Chicago Blackhawks started at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver this January, and Patrick Kane had a hat trick (three, 3, goals in one game) in the game which sent USA to the final game against Canada. No Shark nor Capital had a hat trick. Only a Chicago Blackhawk.
The Chicago Blackhawks are the best professional ice hockey team right now of 2010.

"The Sharks were defeated in only four (4) games, and San Jose was ranked number one (1) throuout the entire Stanley Cup Playoffs. " This would make it seem as if the Blackhawks were superior to the Sharks. However, as already stated, the Sharks out performed the Blackhawks over a longer period of time, which I believe to be a better indicator of how good a team is. Also, just because the Blackhawks beat the Sharks, it does not always mean they are better. If San Jose won all of their games in the regular season, losing only the four times they played Chicago, and the Blackhawks lost all their games, winning only the four times they played San Jose, it would be clear that the Sharks were a much better team. Just remember that head-to-head is not always, and I believe not in this case, the best indicator of which team is better. However, let's just say for the sake of argument that the Blackhawks are better than the Sharks. They are still not better, in my opinion, then Washington, who came into the playoffs leading the NHL in points, wins, goals, and goals for-goals against difference. They also had the least amount of losses. (1) They also beat the Blackhawks under the categories of: save percentage(2), goals against per game(3), and power play percentage(4). With this in mind, the rest of my opponent's argument becomes void, as he is arguing that the Blackhawks are better than a team that I never claimed were as good as the Hawks in the first place. (1). http://espn.go.com... (2). http://espn.go.com... (3). http://espn.go.com... (4). http://espn.go.com...
The Chicago Blackhawks are the best professional ice hockey team right now of 2010.

This is my first debate. Just because a team wins the championship for their sport, they are not always the best team. Upsets do happen, as do injuries. Also, I will point out that the Blackhawks were not the first seed in their bracket, which suggests that over a stretch of time longer than four games, the San Jose Sharks out performed the Hawks. I also contend that the Washington Capitals are a better team, losing to Montreal only through a stroke of luck for the Canadian team much unanticipated. I believe Alexander Ovechkin would have played like he always does and lead the Capitals to a cup victory.