BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mary Mother of Jesus Scarlet or Saint

In all rational cases my opponent would be right here but this is not the case. In this case we are given means of miraculous conception. Therefore by this means all prior biological means are mute." As a miraculous conception is not only not provable it can not be disprove this topic must be thrown out on the basis of lack of evidence on both parties. I am sure my rival will agree with my reasoning here. As my statement was agree my CON I will state it can not be thrown from the discussion. "I agree with what He says here, It is know many people are liars. But Is the Mary we are debating about a liar? He provided no proof she was." She stated to Joseph that an angel came and god made her with child. As this isn't possible in the natural world it is a lie. Zeus and Poseidon have taken virgins many times. Those stories are also false. "Before I respond to this claim I would like to allow my opponent to back his claims and provide the resources He is referring to." http://en.wikipedia.org... Miraculous Births in other cultures. It isn't new to the world knowledge but this is the only one accepted my Christ's followers. Gods have impregnated virgins before. Kind of a past time throughout religion as a whole. This debate is not for if Mary existed. She did but was there a virgin birth that is the topic.
Mary Mother of Jesus Scarlet or Saint

The idea of Mary giving birth to a child without the needed biological process of insemination is not possible. The biology of the human race is not able to make life without the use of human Egg Cells and human Sperm Cells. There has not been an account of this in the passed two thousand years because it is not possible to occur. There have been women that have lied in the past and the truth was surfaced that their pregnancy's origin was falsifiable (many are apart of religious cults). The idea of virgin births are also old concepts used by greeks romans and even before the beginning of Judaism. Pagan religions have been copied my those who worship this concept and many others throughout all the stories of the bible. Mary could not have given birth to a child as a virgin. If my opponent would like I could give sites on the history of virgin births before christ. If he/she can disprove my claims in anyway I would gladly try to back them up as best I can. (Sorry my protocol is not proper this is my first debate on this site).
Mary Mother of Jesus Scarlet or Saint

I will accept the challenege to prove Mary (mother of Jesus) was factual. My opponent I assume is stating Mary(mother of Jesus) was a fraud. Since my opponent offered no resolution I will: The most convincing case that offers creditiability of Mary either being fact or fraud. Rounds: 1. acceptance 2. arguements 3. rebuttals/arguements 4. rebuttals 5. rebuttals/conclusion Rules: 1. All sources must be given, 2. Must stay on topic. (about Mary) 3. Must stay respectful Thank you and Gl
A less known composer such as Dvorak should be considered as great as a composer such as Mozart

The curse of the ninth is pretty interesting, but it was something that was noticed after these guys. They weren't aware of the curse. My favorites...tough to say. Mostly I just like the popular guys. Not a fan of serialism though Random pieces I like--well-known variety: Beethoven's pathetique Beethoven's pastoral: Debussy's Clair de Lune Chopin's Nocturnes Tchaikivsky's 1812 Overture Mussorgsky's Night on Bald Mountain Wagner's Tristan und Isolde Stravinsky's Rite of Spring more obscure variety: Schumann's Ziguerleben: Yuquijiro Yocoh's arrangement of sakura: Seville: variations on a Korean folk song: I was kind of hesitant to start a list because I knew I'd never be complete. I'm stopping here simply because I have to stop. So much great music left out... Maybe, if you ask me a more specified question, I can better answer you.
A less known composer such as Dvorak should be considered as great as a composer such as Mozart

Hello again, Before I begin my round argument, I would like to answer some questions: I looked up Dvorak’s life just after the time of his ninth symphony. It seems that Dvorak was in a slight financial problem and had decided to return to Bohemia and he decided that from 1895- he only compose chamber and operatic music. No harm in that. I must say that the 'curse of the ninth' myth you linked to, is quite interesting in which it makes me wonder whether Beethoven was 'staying safe'. It also makes me think whether Mozart was a believer of this until the time of his ninth symphony. After this, he was probably like: 'Bitch, I'm going up to 41!’. Anyway, back to topic. I would like to point out that I have only been using Dvorak as an example, because I find that he is a good example. Please note that I do not dislike Mozart, in fact he is one of my favourite composers amongst others such as Tchaikovsky and Faure. Recently, I have been learning about Mozart and I have been analysing his pieces as part of my coursework. One of the pieces includes the Requiem in D which made make think about if Mozart knew he was going to die, and was like:”Better work on my requiem”... then doesn’t finish it. To PSYDUCK, I ask you who your favourite composers are and what pieces you enjoy the most?
A less known composer such as Dvorak should be considered as great as a composer such as Mozart

Leaving this response to the last minute, gotta type fast. Dvorak was great at incorporating things like you said. however, he was not unique in this. incorporating folk tunes into one's work was very in vogue at the time. To think of using of motif as a compositional technique is pretty weird. It's akin to think of using phrases to write a novel. I'm curious what you mean by motif as a technique. If Dvorak was so great, why couldn't he get past his 9th symphony? http://en.wikipedia.org... When you make the consideration of who to study in music history, you have to consider how much that figure stands out. Dvorak had such a wide array of capable contemporaries across the globe. Mozart had a handful of decent composers who wrote at the same time. You don't see people talking about Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf much these days.
A less known composer such as Dvorak should be considered as great as a composer such as Mozart

Well, I can see that I am against a very strong opponent. This is not a bad thing. Quite the opposite indeed.Anyhoo... I would to justify my statement by saying that some of the greatest people in whatever they were/are great in, had learnt from the people before that person. For example Dvorak had learnt from many great composers such as Berlioz, Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Beethoven (who was between the transition of the classical and romantic era) etc. Because of this, dvorak had incorporated many things into his compositions which was developed by composers such as Mozart and Beethoven. Practically everybody has of the motif in symphony no.40, which is even used in cheap ringtones.I have been doing some research on Dvorak. It seems that Dvorak had a very prominent role in the development of American music during the late 19th/early 20th century. Pieces such as the Festival March has been said to be a great influence towards the development of some of America's later marches as well as many other countries. Dvorak also have much more successful and influential pieces e.g. scherzo Capriciouso which contained several techniques such as motifs which was somewhat developed by Mozart and others. Just like Beethoven, Dvorak wrote 9 symphonies, many of which are well known (especially the 'new world symphony'). Dvorak was born as a Roman-Catholic and was raised to be religious and because of this, he wrote many pieces of work such as his requiem which had affected many later religious based works.Scherzo Capriciouso-Requiem-Slavonic dance no.2-
A less known composer such as Dvorak should be considered as great as a composer such as Mozart

I will argue that Mozart rightfully deserves more recognition than Dvorak 1) Mozart is not considered great because he wrote a lot of music. He is considered great because he was able to write everything and most everything he wrote is great. He wrote symphonies, concertos, piano works, chamber music, masses, serious opera, humorous opera, and so on. He wielded a wide array of compositional assets in his arsenal. He could create catchy Italianate melodies that seemed to progress in an inevitable fashion. He was a pioneer in using a variety of "topics" into single movements, such as the learned style or fanfare, or alla turca. He was able to create multiple themes and motifs in a single piece of music and layer them in ingenious ways. His music may seem old fashioned at times because he wrote in the galant-style, but that's a testament to the era he lived in, not his ability. He was escaping the baroque era's highly ornamented style with an enlightenment-inspired simplicity. The amazing thing about Mozart is how much Mozart you know without realizing it. I recommend the following pieces: Laudate Pueri: Queen of the Night: Symphony 40 in G minor: Requiem in D minor: 2) Dvorak is a well known composer. However, his influence is largely questionable. He was known as the first American composer, but his music failed to escape the trends of European music. Also, directly comparing the two is not an indication of their greatness, but a comparison of musical eras. Mozart wrote in the classical era. Dvorak wrote in the late romantic era and was able to study the music of great composers such as Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Berlioz, Mendelsson, Chopin, Liszt, Wagner, etc. And those composers studied Mozart!
A less known composer such as Dvorak should be considered as great as a composer such as Mozart

Hello, I am for this argument. The majority of people in the world (excluding the countries of Africa) have most likely heard of one of the great composers and one of their pieces e.g. W.A.Mozart- Symphony no.40 in G Minor. Mozart is someone who is considered a musical genius who was a prodigy and had wrote over 500 pieces of music. This is the reason why someone like this is considered a Great Composer. I believe that someone such as Dvorak should receive more credit for his works which I consider to be highly influential to early modern Classical music. In my opinion, you are not a great composer for writing 500 pieces of music, but for the quality of that music.To compare these two example composers. I emplore that you listen to a piece of music from each of these composer e.g symphony no.40(Mozart) - scherzo cappriciouso/ Slavonic Dance no.2 ( Dvorak).
God does not exist.

#1: The argument from Quantity(P1) Maximal greatness is a Quantity.(P2) You can always add to a quantity;(C) Therefore, maximal greatness cannot exist in reality, as we can always imagine something greater.P1 What is a quantity, as Wikipedia explains, a quantity is a property that can exist as a magnitude or multitude. Quantities can be compared in terms of "more", "less" or "equal", or by assigning a numerical value in terms of a unit of measurement [1]. I think it's obvious that maximal greatness is a quantity. P2 We can assign every being a number to give us an idea of how great that being is. We could contemplate the concept of a being that is only great enough to have the number 1 assigned to it. We can now imagine something that's greater, as we can imagine a being great enough to have the number 2 assigned to it. We can keep on imagining something greater forever, since numbers go on forever.CThe logical conclusion following premise 1 and premise 2. Maximal greatness cannot exist in reality as no matter what number we assign to it, we can always imagine a creature that is great enough to have a number that is one more assigned to it. What number would we assign to maximal greatness? You can't say infinity, as infinity isn't a number. You can't count to infinity.#2: The argument from Non-Cognitivism (P1) There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being: A. Primary Attributes - The basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existent’s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified.B. Secondary Attributes - Character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise.C. Relational Attributes - What we associate with the character. For example, in the case of President Obama, the fact that he is the President of the United States is an example of a relational attribute.(P2) B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.(P3) The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.(P4) Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)(P5) However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.(P6) Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless; (From 3, 4, 5)(C) Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.I'm interested to hear Con's response.Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Euthanasia

Hello, Harper As you pointed out in one of your comments concerning euthanasia, "It shouldn't be the job of the doctor, since medical professionals swear an oath to protect life". Indeed, since doctors" or any medical professional"s duty is to maintain or restore human health, they take an oath in order to uphold specific ethical standards. The most famous one is the Hippocratic Oath that is historically taken by physicians. Most people tend to think that the essence of this oath is embraced by the "do no harm" principle. From this point of view, euthanasia is "harm" and, thus, a wicked deed that can be construed as breaking the oath. Nevertheless, on the other hand, this principle is quite constraining: some medical practices (vaccines, for instance) actually imply "doing harm" to a patient toward successful recovery from a disease or preventing him or her from getting one in the first place. This logic is actually embodied in one of the ancient versions of the Hippocratic Oath: ""and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage." Does this contradict the very idea of euthanasia, which is to put people"s sufferings from terminal illnesses to an end? I do not share this opinion. In contrast, I am absolutely sure that easing the pain of these people might even be considered as a duty of medical professionals, since they swear to remove the excruciating pain of their patients.
Drones should not be used for commercial deliveries

Drone delivery is the fastest way for delivering goods because it will use the most direct route to get to its destination, the drones will not be reducing privacy due to the laws that have been put in place, not all drones have a camera on them and a camera is not required for a drone to do a delivery, recent drones that have been produced are not very loud and in order for the drone to do a delivery it will be flying high in the sky and nobody will be able to hear it due to it being high and also companies are making drone that produce very silent noises so people will not hear them anyway. People will not need to worry about being spied on because the drone laws do not allow this to be done and the drone won't require any form of camera to know where it is going due to it being in the sky, and why are you only worrying about drones doing simple deliveries have you not heard of the drones that carry weapons that the military forces are using. By using drone delivery traffic will drop and so will and with their being less cars it will bring down the CO2 emissions which will saving the planet.
Free internet

Free internet needs to be added. I mean, who could live without the wiki or google?People make us pay for something, that isn't being worked on? Google and the websites on the internet are being worked on. Not the internet itself. Oh yeah we added 1 little button that no one uses. And we pay so much for that stupid little button?No way! People are getting way too crazy. Paying for one little button that no ones uses. Won't get that out of my head.
Atheists Do Not Exist

Thank you. Pro argues that he will use the same logic as atheists use in order to prove that they do not exist. In order to do so, he must (a) prove that the atheists' logic is correct (which would be self-defeating for his side), and (b) make it evident that all atheists share the same logic. Notice how Pro didn't say "atheist," i.e., singular, but he said "atheists," which makes my request valid. On top of that, he assumes that the atheist logic must be perceived as true in this debate. I, being Con, have to use "atheists' logic" in order to prove that my opponent is wrong. The logic he proposes is "I do not believe in something, therefore it does not exist." That sounds fine, except that I do not believe that my opponent is right, therefore atheists do exist... Thank you very much.
Atheists Do Not Exist

He attributed something to them which can only be attributed to something that exists, and that is logic. How can logic apply to something nonexistent? Logic encompasses what exists. If you use logic to say that Object X does not exist, but that logic belongs to Object X, then you have refuted yourself. I the last round, Pro came with ambigous words which make little sense. Who instigated this debate? He did, not I. He told Con to use atheists' logic in order to move on with the debate. What is atheists' logic? Who defined what that is? Did I do that? No, Pro did. He defined it, in this context, as "I do not believe in X, therefore X does not exist. " Then he contradicts himself once more by saying, "there is a difference between believing in something, and beliving that some thing is or isn't. " Is he not the one who said, " I do not believe in. .. "? Fortunately, he did. Whoever refutes himself and blasts his arguments this way has no chance in winning a debate logically. The resolution has been torn apart, thank you very much.
Abortion

I want to begin my argument with a simple statement: killing an innocent human being is always wrong. Most people will agree with this, so abortion-supporters most often justify abortion by saying that the unborn are not human beings until they have reached a certain point of growth, (this point varies depending on the person, I don't think I have met two people who support abortion who agree at what point this is.) Now let me say that this argument is false. The unborn are human beings from the moment of conception. This is not my opinion, this is a scientific fact. Look in any biology book written before 1973 and it will tell you that. Most current biology books will not tell you that, not because not evidence has been found that shows that the unborn are not human beings, but because people are simply lying about it. ("Prolife answers to prochoice arguments") All you have to do to see that the unborn are human beings is to look at an ultrasound image. Look at this picture of an aborted baby: http://www.100abortionpictures.com... One look at that picture should prove to you that abortion is the murder of innocent human beings. If you look at that picture and still say that abortion is not the brutal, cruel, murder of innocent human babies, then you are either in denial or are just outright lying. Now there are other abortion-supporters who openly admit that the unborn are innocent human beings, but still try to justify abortion by saying that a woman should be allowed to choose what she wants to do with her own body. Now first I will show that this point is invalid because the unborn children are NOT part of the woman's body. The unborn have separate DNA, and are sometimes a different gender from the mother. Therefore since the unborn are separate human beings with there OWN bodies, the "my body, my choice" argument is invalid. Secondly I need to point that our bodies are gifts from God. So we do not have the right to do whatever we want with them. God created our bodies and God has first say over what we may and may not do with them. For example, it is wrong to mutilate oneself. So even if the unborn were a part of the mother's body (which they aren't) that argument would still be invalid. Abortion is just as wrong as the murder of any other innocent human child.
Abortion

I have to admit you have a point. God was and is three persons, (but I don't want to debate about that now), even before He became human. But this doesn't change the fact that the unborn are persons. They are human beings. What makes someone a person is having an eternal soul, which the unborn do. No because piercing your ears does not usually cause harm. The holes simply heal up. Assault: a sudden violent attack (dictionary.com) There is nothing violent about anything the baby (yes, the unborn are babies) does inside the mother. And the mother is almost never harmed by the baby. Well this isn't a story. This is reality. so vampires cannot be used to argue for abortion. A human being does have value simply because someone want's him/her. We have value because God loves us. God still loves that baby just as much, no matter what the mother does. So the unborn babies have just as much value as you and me. No, God does not need a creator because He had no beginning. The way the unborn LOOK have nothing to do with it. That computer would not be a person. Just being intelligent does not make something a person. If it did then people with low IQ's would not qualify as persons.
Abortion

You know that is not what I mean by mutilation. I mean intentionally harming oneself, without just reason, (such as putting oneself in harm's way to protect someone else). Yes, an unborn human child is a person, and he/she is innocent. What characteristics are you thinking of? If you won't believe me that the unborn are babies, then maybe you'll believe an abortionist confessing that he is killing. http://www.youtube.com... "Am I killing? yes I am I know that". (Dr. Curtis Boyd, abortionist) And what makes someone a person? I'll tell you what does, membership in the human species is what makes someone a person, not their stage of development, or their size, or anything else. My mother has 5 children, and the times she was pregnant she would say that she was going to have a baby, but I happen to know that she is strongly pro-life and she knows that the unborn are human beings, and that killing them would be murder. I know that she and almost every other woman I know who has children, just using it as a figure of speech. If a women says it meaning it literally then she is wrong. An unborn baby is not a construction project, so that analogy is a bad one. No the suffering is caused by the knowledge the that she is pregnant with a baby, and the baby died. You may not have directly said that, but you implied it. be able to see yourself in a mirror is NOT a person defining characteristic. As YOU JUST said blind people can't see at all, and some animals can see themselves in a mirror. No we are human beings from the moment of conception whether the law recognizes that or not. God is who grants us our personhood status at conception. As I already said the baby is NOT assaulting the mother. It is wrong for a women to use birth control. And even if she does use it she is still inviting the baby in whether she wants to or not. Just because sex doesn't always result in pregnancy, does not mean that having sex is not inviting a baby in. When you plan a party you do not have a guarantee that everyone invited will come, but that doesn't mean you never invited them. It is people who deny that having sex is inviting a baby in, who are denying facts.